Banner Rotate



Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Monday, August 09, 2010

Resolutions or Dissolutions?



Word of Caution: The following post is exorbitantly long, but with such extenuating circumstances, one must truly beat out every single word from the thesis like a blacksmith from the days of old. This post will be very long, and a hellacious read; I advise reading the entry in parts, but keeping close track of the points discussed.


"Living in a world that harps on about human rights, I am sickened by pundits who actually lack any real concept of human rights, and often rob us of many such rights in their personal agendas where they seek to mould society into their narrow world-view. Sure, they promote their selfishness under the vague flag of equality and freedom, but what about the fact that in lieu of their goals, they stole my fuckin' human rights? I believe there is an obvious line being crossed, when the rights of one special group begin to encroach upon the very breathing space of others." - A Reoccurring Thought


I would like to address all this bullshit-banter over the 'Dafamation of Religions' resolution—an international Blasphemy Law—passed on by our ever so hypocritical and ultimately bureaucratic dead-beats at the United Nobodies. Oh wait, I heard that they prefer to be called 'The United Nations'. I don't care if they like to be called 'The Saviours of the Hebrews' or just 'Beavis and Butthead Incorporated'. All that matters is that they are bloody annoying, and the following shall explain why they are judged as such.

Here's a link for your knowledge:


“Read up, and weep if you must. . . I won't judge in this case because it is that bloody asinine.” - The Opening


Anyway, in the many decades that have passed since its meaningless inception, the UN has done very little to actually quell matters and step up with proper intervention where the situation would demand such recourse. It appears that, despite being founded over the concept of absolute human rights, freedom, and global unity, the United Nations seems to be the epitome of empty gestures, and a great source of annoyance.

For example: They cannot step up to the plate and resolve real conflicts. What they can—and often do—is pass some of the most bizarre and atrocious types of resolutions that only stir-up more problems.

Speaking of bad resolutions. . . My latest issue, obviously: Dafamation of Religions. If it isn't already obvious, individuals like myself and other affirmative atheists from Northern Europe seem to be the key target and scope of this Blasphemy Law. They want people like us to shut the hell up, and through this resolution, they can force us to exercise respect and acknowledgement towards any given ideology, even those that are dangerous and maniacal. In essence, we are forcefully obligated to bow down while our personal views and rights are absconded. So much for the UN's supposed goals to protect our human rights, because it seems like mine were just plundered by this very institution's ruling.


“But. . . But. . . Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN said that this isn't against free speech so much as degree and genre of free speech. . . The kind that might incite violence.” - Common Argument


This is exactly where the hypocrisy begins before stumbling mouth-open onto the definitive sword in a moment of swift death. This isn't meant to circumvent free-speech, but we are being told that it is only meant to limit the free speech?! What crock of shit do these manipulative politicians at the UN seem to be serving on our plates these days?! If it is limited to such significant lengths, then it is NOT free speech; end of fuckin' story. No, this isn't a technical or semantic matter, it is a factual matter.

Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan—a backward and plagued Islamic Republic—to the UN, is just another fine example of a suit with a clandestine political agenda that is so nauseatingly concealed behind a barrage of muddled and ultimately obfuscating rhetoric. However, it doesn't take anything more than even two-petty-cents worth of common sense to simplify the horrendous logic. He is trying to assert upon all of us that freedom of speech is fine but we should limit this freedom to avoid offending a large populace of this planet, but he neglects to mention that the latter part of his supposed solution automatically defeats the concept of free speech as it significantly contrives and alters the very basic tenants of the idea. Clearly, people like him will determine what is and is not appropriate, and with censorship so putrid and high in their own 'religious states', it is only obvious that now they wish to impose the same officious constraints upon the rest of us in the supposed 'free world'.


“Don't these cunts from Pakistan have real problems pertaining to religious respect, freedoms, and destitution? Shouldn't they be more occupied with dealing with the blatant violation of human rights in their own bloody backyard before they attempt to preach anything to the rest of us? What gives them face or fuckin' grounds to go about meddling in the rest of the developed world's affairs?” - Immediate Thoughts


Before I go further into the matter, I must address this Pakistan issue in more detail. I have looked into this resolution and it is clear that this Zamir Akram guy is merely feigning interest in global equality as a face-value gesture while truly furthering the esoteric goals of his country—an ISLAMIC THEOCRACY—and its fat-cat leaders, most of whom, along with their military counterparts, have a long-standing relationship with the tribal religious zealots who have a tunnel-vision to revert the entire planet back to ways of ancient Islamic Arabia. As I look further into the papers and the history books, I can't find one damn decent thing to have come out of this country called Pakistan, but there's certainly rivers of tarnished blood and tears, along with equally shameless politics promoted by sell-outs and reactionary thinkers.

Of course, many great individualistic people can be found with ties to this diseased religious republic, but that's nothing phenomenal as there are many more individuals of such calibre from all walks of life and land. Nevertheless, the politics and policies that define Pakistan make it nothing more than a cheap, dodgy state that loves to serve only its elite rulers, and feed off of handouts; doesn't matter whether the handouts come from terrorism or some American plot to deal with said terrorism. . . maybe even both. There are no long-term considerations, or any efforts invested in enlightening the generally destitute and ignorant population of this despotic country, who are often infused with backward religious thinking and a hatred for foreign cultures. What is worse: Pakistan produces some of the vilest breed of terrorists, which is the ultimate result of this country's pivotal involvement in America's communist-phobia-driven cold war against Russia in the 70s and 80s when they syphoned arms into Afghanistan through Pakistan, and also used the culture and political climate to create their 'quick fix' solution by indoctrinating Islamic-extremists so that they have a nasty pack of armed-animals ready to drive the Communists out of the land. And it worked! Unfortunately, this was only the prelude of worse things to come as we now had Pakistan – the perfect epitome of a failed state turning firstly into an Islamic State, and then deteriorating further into a heavily armed flunky terrorist state that threatens much of the evolved and progressive free world.

The question to really ask: What other good can come out of this country? Of the few educated and intellectual moderates, only individuals like Zamir Akram can rise to fame where they use aforementioned intellect to garner such hideous clout within the UN hierarchy. Why don't people like him deal with the basic problems in their own countries rather than waste our time imposing change upon the rest of us in order to accommodate the nuances of their failed state, religion, and global ideology. I find suits like him even more dangerous than fundamentalists sometimes, because they come across as the flexible and benevolent minds who eventually push for thoughtless, cock-eyed resolutions that ultimately protect and excuse the barbarianisms that take place in backward Islamic states such as Pakistan and Iran – terrorism and violence against freedom of choice included.

I am done ranting about that foul country. . .


In his push for this resolution, Zamir Akram's press office often paraphrased the same recycled deception over and over again. For example, he says that denigration of religions has always lead to persecutions and war. To back this horribly distorted view, the gentlemen cites the holocaust. Spins just do not get more political and frivolous than this little half-assed argument. And to think these days, after the Neo-Nazis, it is mostly the backward conservative Islamic states that deny the holocaust and actually programme their youths into having an inherent, religious hatred for the Jews. There – religion being used to further more anti-Semitic tendencies.

Reality remains that wars and massive death tolls have always been incurred at the hands of religion and blind-control ideologies since the dawn of civilisation, and this isn't a hypothesis, because it is a bona fide fact. Also, let us not get confused here; all politics and ideologies are nothing more than deviating manifestations of religion and vice versa. Religion in itself is a political and organisational concept, so let us not confuse this topic any more more than it already has been fucked up at the hands of the UN and its star shmucks like Zamir Akram. Even the citation of Nazi-genocide more than validates this historical fact, because the Nazi *IDEOLOGY* was a very indoctrinated, irrational, myopic movement of hate purged of all freedom of conscience, thought, and speech; a hate thesis forged from the state of sheer ignorance, destitution, and desperation. As far as the rational world is concerned, all institutional 'isms' are responsible for war and death; religion and politics being a primary source.


This dreadful resolution also calls for equal respect of all religions without ridiculing their members or following.

Another very misleading and ultimately sugar-coated lump of toxic shit falling into our drinks. The moment you actually delve into the deeper meaning behind that concept, it becomes obvious that we are no longer allowed to make any kind of critical or negative comments against these recognised ideologies. This is really just designed to protect a certain quadrant of the human race and its faith-followings while everyone else outside of that domain – atheists; existentialists; agnostics; etc., are non-entities worthy of no acknowledgement.

"Protect the backward instituions, and condemn the opposing individuals to silence." - Sad Truth

That's right, under such a mandate, us non-believing 'heathens' don't even have a recognition or equal right of protection. We are being forced to acknowledge and respect different beliefs, regardless of how credible or down-right ridiculous they might be in essence. Never mind our own personal beliefs, which might revolve around the idea of denouncing organised religion and dated thinking.

It should also be noted that this 'resolution' doesn't actually protect other religions, either. I doubt they will use this ordinance to get Islamic states to straighten up their act and treat their minorities, especially Christians, any better than they already are – second-class citizens with no real means of rise in society. I also highly doubt that they will use this resolution to get the Afghan-administration to rebuild the Buddhist temples, or prevent Iran from stoning women, homosexuals, or Moslems who decide to convert to another faith.

This whole fiasco is a blatant robbery of free speech to primarily protect the frail egos of extremist Moslems, because freedom of religion is about people being free to believe without imposing their beliefs and faith-sensitivities on others; religion is not an authority here, and neither is it a protected institution. To simplify the matter: You are free to have your religion. I respect your right to hone whatever religion you chose, but that doesn't mean I am obligated to respect the actual religion. I don't have to respect your religion, but as a sane, civilised and free thinking mind, you should be able to tolerate my dissent against your belief-system. It isn't like my lack of respect for a religion is depriving its followers of the chance to be any more or less religious. Unfortunately, this move by the UN purges us of this progressive field of thinking and no amount of spins and twists in wordplay can change these factual anomalies. So, the answer is a resounding “Hell no!” to Mr. Akram's dodgy defence of this repugnant concept. This resolution does indeed force us – oblige us – to acknowledge and respect religion against our free thinking and free will.


“The greater ills of this resolution are quite openly understood, accepted and respected by all sane and truly enlightened thinkers from all religious groups, Islam included. . . It ain't just the agnostic and secular thinkers who seem to be upset by this move.” - Holistic Perspective


This is a serious matter indeed: Not only is free speech absolutely out, but these people are also looking to usurp freedom of conscience, which also happens to be a hallmark of fundamentalist Islam. Again, we can see a religious point-of-view and protocol being imposed on those who should ideally be free to not believe or follow such religious thinking. The freedom of belief—which should take even greater precedence over freedom of religion—is now being sacrificed for the dodgy agendas of these suits pushing for their vile protection of esoteric institutions.

There's also the factor of hate-speech and with it, the kind of splintering rhetoric that might create stigma against Moslems and further their 'typecast' as terrorists.

Well, this is the biggest indicator of false-flag tactics in this resolution. Why do I call it false? Well it is pretty obvious to anyone living in civilised parts of this world that we have a plethora of laws and social ordinances that already keep us in good check and prevent us from ever demonstrating blatant and or otherwise inflammatory hate-speech against any individual, or any ideology. I am quite certain fellow Brits and even Yanks alike can attest to this fact.

Interestingly enough, the most recent theatrics of hate-speech, down to death-threats demanding the beheading of certain 'cartoonists' and what not else, actually took place in many parts of the world—UK included—and were done so by the Islamic-fundamentalists after the publishing of that fucked-up Mohammed Cartoon. Ironic? Certainly, but hardly amusing. It seems that when it comes to hate-speech, extremely conservative Moslems seem to be at the forefront of the field right next to Neo-Nazis and other racist factions. Even more ironic is the fact that with this Dafamation of Religions resolution, we are being officially silenced from saying anything even remotely offensive about these very Moslems who are always up in arms and eager to assault us for not respecting or accepting their views. This takes us to the last and most poignant cog in Mr. Zameer Akram's deceptive little backing for this resolution: To prevent the incitement of religious extremism.

This, I believe is the real issue at hand, because individuals—moderate Moslems mostly—are starting to show their real colours as apologists for the greater ills that are infused within the ethos of their religion. They wish to defend and protect the fundamentalist archetype within their cultures, and since they know that this is a very barbaric group of thinkers, they only find it acceptable to approach this powdered-keg by silencing the rest of the world so that these savage extremists don't lose their tempers.

Here's an idea: Why doesn't Mr. Akram go back to his country, the jaded interests of which he furthers through his present role with the United Nations. He should take a critical look at his own religion – his own culture, and then decide where he truly stands on the matter, rather than hide behind political smoke-screen and propaganda and attempt this half-assed reconciliation between the moderates and the extremists. There isn't one other religious group on this planet that is still so wound up in its archaic customs that it has a sizeable following of fanatics who will joyfully employ tactics of mass destruction to silence anyone who dares to question or ridicule their faith.
"Get off your lazy ass and civilise your own fuckin' people, man!" - Earthly Wisdom

I remember when the Top Gear crew made a mockery of certain things in the US state of Alabama, and they had to high-tail it out of there due to the red-neck backlash from the uneducated Christian wing nuts. However, even that little incident pales in comparison to the globally violent outbursts that erupted over the cartoons of Mohammed, and to defend this clearly unchecked and barbaric mentality is but a crime on behalf of the UN and individuals like Zameer Akram. Really, when you think about it, this resolution is looking to accomplish exactly what terrorists look to do through fear and violence, but only in this case, we're being blatantly robbed of the right to express ourselves by a tactical set of Blasphemy Laws.


“The terrorists want us to bow our heads and shut the fuck up, and these guys are pushing for a resolution that accomplishes just that very goal! I didn't know that the entire world was Saudi Arabia and that the U.N. were their official 'Ombudsman'!” - The Realistic Potential


Honestly, I'd tell this guy and his UN 'Bloc' to go fuck themselves, but there's a serious issue on the table here and fact is that this resolution has been passed with great protest from all respectable corners of society. The entire reasoning--or lackthereof--behind this resolution cannot stand the test of some simple, critical questions. Why not civilise those who cannot tolerate differing views from that of their own on religion? Why not civilise the beasts that need to be civilised instead of silencing the rest of us from upsetting the backward inbred misfits?! These resolutions are imposing a sense of respect upon us when we—as members of a free world—are free to believe, respect, and think as we please, even if that belief entails a complete and utter lack of belief and respect for a sick, fraudulent, barbaric, and ultimately Draconian ideology that should have perished in the desserts of Arabia some fourteen-hundred-years-ago. We should be free to say, “We don't like this idea – it is barbaric and its origins and historic figures seem dubious.”


The problems is simple: The fundamentalists seem to have a group-ego that is as frail and volatile as that of a bratty two-year-old child with a frightening capacity for mass murder. None of us should be forced to accept or tolerate them or their very sensitive, irrational and ultimately subjective concept of faith. Rather than shut the rest of us up, the people who should be protecting us from such threats—UN—should deal with this mentality by purging it or taming it with equally aggressive measures.

Unfortunately, individuals such as Zameer Akram, working for the supposed good cause in the UN, know these facts but continue to push for stranger resolutions that seek to rob us of our free thinking and speech. One can rationally assume that such individuals do indeed have ulterior motives, and would rather appease the violent minds amongst their cult rather than man up and distance themselves from such barbarians and tackle them the way they should be tackled. No, instead, we are being told by these fucking pricks in suits that we must overturn over a thousand years of human progress and freedom of expression to accommodate these savage extremists who just can't seem to get their heads out of the dessert sands of 700 AD Arabia.

What a fucking shame! If there isn't already a great example of what a self-contradicting morass the UN has become, then let this 'Defamation of Religions' resolution become that symbolic and dark testament to this institution's real nature – a sham front that furthers only the goals of self-centred esoteric groups.


“What about the greater good in interfaith dialogue! You clearly miss this point, you bigoted bastard.” - Digressing Criticism


I think all of us are more than happy with the idea of interfaith dialogue amongst these different religious groups and factions. I think it only lends further to the deception that the people behind this resolution so casually hide behind the 'interfaith dialogue' virtue; a means to make their idea look good on paper. . . call it a flashy gimmick. You see, no one is denying them a right to believe in what they believe in, even though it is quite outdated and stupid. However, for a better world, we all already know that the more they all get along the better it is for the human race as a collective. Further yet, it is also important that these religious folk learn to accept that all of us don't necessarily hold the same regard and respect for their beliefs and that they cannot continue to confuse our respect for their right to their choice of religion, with obliged respect towards said religion – not the same concepts. To assume otherwise is handing the institution of religion authority over the world, and that is something we started to outgrow as a progressive civilisation many-hundred-years-ago. In the civilised world, we don't get along on a lot of topics and we are often ridiculing one another through speech for having contrary beliefs and views. Fortunately, it is that very ventilation through words and dialogue that prevents bloodshed; we do not kill over such differences, so we either laugh and agree to disagree, or alternatively, we keep distance and mind our own business. Yes, freedom of speech is that bloody beautiful, and that bloody easy – instead of being violent animals, we just say what we feel needs to be said and then we step away.


All these very easy and concrete arguments against this ludicrous resolution are but a case of common sense, and so it is quite obvious that the UN's stance towards Defamation of Religions is not geared towards safeguarding the rights of the civilised and the rational realm. The whole resolution is an oppressive mandate that is a slap in the face of all the basic freedoms that should be universal in this day and age. The whole concept has the makings of an apologist, appeasing mindset, backed by nations that are not truly progressive or democratic, but blatantly theocratic and still dictated by the morality and legal legislations as prescribed by an antiquated belief-system from the dark ages.

Bottom line: Islam is an old religion. In its fundamental form; it is indeed very barbaric and backward – appalling by today's standards. One can easily find all the horrible news pieces on what goes on with rape victims, homosexuals, and apostates in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. . . just to name a few. The moderates in the Islamic-culture have yet to officially distance themselves from the violence and truly re-evaluate and present an updated and modernised concept of their religion. The same moderates now use the UN to deal with this matter, but they don't seek to address the real problem by amending the inexplicably flawed thinking of the fundamentalists or the Islamic-states. Instead, they seek to impose petrification and extreme limitations upon the rest of us, whilst granting religion—especially their religion—all the global protection plausible so that the extremists are appeased and sated. How convenient, and how shamefully dubious. It is only interesting that this unwillingness to tackle with the fundamentalists directly – as what they are – and to silence the rest of us from expressing dissent that might provoke them, only perpetuates the notion of Islamists/Moslems being typecast as terrorists.


“It is really that simple. . . you don't want those Moslems being typecast as terrorists. So you tell the rest of us to shut the fuck up with our opinions and free thought on religions so that the fundamentalists among the Moslems don't get wound up and act upon their basal instincts as terrorists. . . in doing so, you only make it that fuckin' obvious that a significant number of people who follow your religion are indeed, justifiably typecast as terrorists. If you don't like this reality, then change yourselves and stop protecting the fragile ego of your extremists, rather than changing the rest of us and throwing our world back into a Sci-Fi rendition of the fuckin' dark age, you fuckin' fascist pricks!” - The Penultimate Truth



“Don't like or respect what I have to say about this subject? That's cool. I won't attack you. . . Neither will I press for a position in a UN office and demand restrictions on your right to free speech and force you to respect and acknowledge my belief-system. . . I'd rather burn alive than be akin to the syphilitic mindset found amongst these fascist bastards who push such resolutions within the UN.” - Closing Piece


Here's to hoping for better times ahead, for all individuals from every single school of thought. . . Times that don't condone imposing silence on individuals to protect the infantile thinking and sensitivities of the wretched, and their tyrannical institutions.

Stay cool, fuckers.

Later,
Kade