Edmund Burke is credited with saying that, in order to love one's country, one's country must be lovely.
Likewise, if a country's legislators wanted to be respected, shouldn't they be respectable?
From the way NAACP is turning the Vick dog fighting allegations into a racial issue, the observent must ask will there be riots if the NFL star is found guilty just as mobs were at the ready had the O.J. verdict gone in a politically incorrect manner.
And while Muslims are being given foot baths and prayer rooms, can you imagine the hell that break loose if a public school set aside a chapel for Christian students?
Apostate heretic Barry Lynn, who can't look upon a cross in a public place for fear of writhing before it like a vampire, is eager to assume a place of docility before his Islamist overlords by claiming the law is murky about bestowing favortism upon these foreign belief systems.
“Dark Lord: The Rise Of Darth Vader” by James Luceno follows the exploits of the legendary Sith Lord as he hunts down a band of Jedi escaping the fate of their brethren as a result of a regiment of clonetroopers that refuse to implement order 66.
Towards the end of “Return Of The Jedi”, Darth Vader turns on the Emperor and hefts the villain to his fate at the bottom of some kind energy reactor. However, from “Dark Lord: The Rise Of Darth Vader“, readers learn that this was not necessarily the result of a sudden change of heart upon seeing Palpatine hurl lightening from his fingertips at little Luke.
Rather, it slowly unfolds throughout the novel that the relationship Vader has with the Emperor is not that of a worshipful underling but instead that of a resentful sycophant wanting what his superior possesses.
“Star Wars” fans will enjoy seeing the unfolding development of familiar characters rising to prominence in the years between the two trilogies such as Chewbacca, Grand Moff Tarkin, R2D2 and C-3P0. Also of interest to devoted Star Wars fans will be the prominence given to Kashyyyk and the Wookies in the novel’s climax.
Though “Star Wars” is known more for its faced paced action than its more cerebral counterpart “Star Trek“, “Dark Lord” is not without profound reflective moments relevant to the chaotic times in which we live.
In an exchange with Bail Organa of Alderan, Vader muses, “Harmony is the ideal of the New Order, Senator, not dissension.” And in another insightful passage, the text reads, “The ideals of democracy hadn’t been stamped out by Palpatine ... the citizens of countless worlds and star systems, grown weary of the old system, had allowed democracy to die (319).”
Were Darth Vader an actual historical figure, few good people would care what reasons he might invoke to justify his atrocities. However, as a fictional character, the saga of Anakin Skywalker serves as sympathetic warning of how small bad choices have a way of accumulating in such a manner as to ruin the lives of not only those making them but the lives of those around such individuals as well.
by Frederick Meekins
The government has decided to allow volunteers paying $3600 the opportunity to pick trash and remove invasive species off the island of Midway.
Isn't this a task people should be payed to do?
Normally, only Native Hawaiians are allowed near the preserve to fish for "cultural purposes".
So if Whitey isn't good enough to set foot there under normal circumstances, then why is he good enough to clean it up; maybe that should be a task reserved for "Native Hawaiians" already on the federal dole in terms of welfare handouts?
Of the preserve, the Secretary of the Interior said, "That is such a treasure that America is not yet aware of." And so long as the rest of us are not good enough to visit there unless we are willing to purchase at extravagant cost the privilege of being indentured servants at this place, why should we really care?
Eventually, in time, this mindset will be extended to other federal holdings and get to the point Americans will not be allowed to enter parks and preserves unless they are willing to do work the government is unwilling to pay employees for.
By Frederick Meekins
Sounds like an interesting series. But from the sound of the news lately, you just hope the author gets to finish the story before it actually happens.
Interesting how if the same fate befalls an abortion clinic we get these recitations on how we must uphold the law even if we don't like it.
The last time I checked, since Al Gore has yet to win the presidency it is still legal to own these kinds of vehicles.
These, ladies and gentleman, are the kinds of abridgements of rights and property we can look forward to more of in the future as society continues to move from the basis of the individual to group or COMMUNITY consensus.
Don Imus’ comments that the Rutger’s ladies basketball team were a bunch of tattooed nappy-headed hoes might not have been the kindest thing to say about these athletes, though one must note the claim has not been entirely refuted as interestingly in appearances before the press the players have decided to conceal themselves behind jumpsuits so the American people can’t determine for themselves whether or not the team at least merits the tattooed classification. However, the response to these remarks, especially on the part of renowned rabblerousers such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, has gone far beyond the momentary discombobulation such a guffaw might elicit from more balanced people.
Not content to enjoy his victory, Al Sharpton now seeks to enshrine himself in a position as some kind of grand inquisitor with power greater than any elected office as from such a station there would be little way for the American people to drive him from his position of power as Sharpton plans to “...have a broad discussion about what is and is not permitted in terms of the airwaves.”
Observers astute enough to translate such verbal sludge oozing from the lips of politicians and similar human debris know that what Sharpton really means is that any White person that dares tick off rampaging Black leftists and their cowardly Caucasian sycophants are fair game for what Clarence Thomas categorized as an electronic lynching during his confirmation back in the early 1990’s.
Tolerancemongers and hyperpluralists such as Sharpton and Jackson might get up there and claim that they want public elocution elevated and dignified. However, in the end it will only be White folks bearing the brunt of the wave of censorship as minorities and those embracing certain radical perspectives will be permitted to spew their mental filth as they see fit.
For example, Snoop Dog (who is so usually strung out on dope that he was arrested after his appearance on The Tonight Show), is quoted in an ABCNews.com story titled “On Imus Crossing The Line” dated 4/2/07, who unlike Imus who did not technically use a single obscenity, let loose with a string of explicatives revealing the contempt percolating in his own heart towards Caucasians when he said justifying hate speech on the part of human ghetto filth, “It’s a completely different scenario. First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white man that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mother f------s say we in the same league .”
And what about Don Imus? Why isn’t what he has to say just as relevant to what he has to say or feel? Furthermore, why such a double standard?
Though Afrosupremacists such as Sharpton, Jackson, and Snoop Dog claim to despise those derided as “dead White males”, what they really mean is that they despise those that advocate a set of standards that judge human beings as individuals. For these racialists have little problem incorporating into their modus operandi hints and suggestions from some of history’s most notorious scoundrels as evidenced by their propensity for double standards.
For example, as stated previously, these malcontents have no problems whatsoever of holding Whitey to the highest standards imaginable --- even ready to slit his throat for the utterance of a phrase as linguistically bland as “those people” as Ross Perot can remind you --- and heaping laurels upon themselves constantly reminding the world as to what color they are while standing ready to bash your head in if you happen to exhibit the slightest reluctance about handing your children over for compulsory intermarriage. Though they might not be smart enough to realize it, when they advocate such a standard they are in fact invoking blatant Hegelianism or even Marxism.
According to Samuel Stumpf in Socrates To Sartre: A History Of Philosophy, Hegel believed that revolutionaries cannot be judged by the morality of an epoch out of which a particular nation is emerging (338). Thus, in the eyes of Sharpton, he is free to do and say whatever he pleases to further his cause.
For example, while Imus is to be banished for any utterance short of pledging unending fealty as Sharpton’s personal vassal, on a number of occasions Sharpton has enunciated much more seditious verbal incantations that have been far uglier in context and resulted in actual incidents of violence. Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA.com documented a number of these in a 4/17/07 blog post titled “Will the biggest racist please stand up?” These incidents include the following.
In 1991 at the funeral of a Black child run over by a Jewish motorist, Shaprton mobilized hundreds to rampage through a Jewish neighborhood where a rabbinic student was stabbed as a result of Sharpton’s pastoral counsel.
In 1995, a Jewish merchant was forced to raise the rent on his Black subtenant as result of the Black landlord raising the rent on the entire building. In response, Sharpton organized a boycott where in a display of utmost Christian decorum his lackeys spat on customers and some of the protestors got worked up into such a lather with “Burn down the Jew store” that one of them eventually burst into the shop, shot four employees, and immolated the premises in order to carry out the threat.
The overly tolerant and genteel will respond, “But comments such as Imus’ are inappropriate and shouldn’t be allowed.” Yet not one word of what he said, while impolite, could be considered obscene.
Thus, if policing the airwaves is to now go from preventing certain obscenities to expunging certain combinations of non-obscene words that elicit offense in certain protected groups, where will the line be drawn? For while most of us are schooled in the dying art of commonsense, there are powerful leftist forces in this country gathering under the banner of political correctness out to lump together humor of questionable propriety and any scathing insight that dares to question prevailing liberal orthodoxy.
According to an April 13 2007 WorldNetDaily article titled “It’s Just Not Imus: Brock Group Makes Case Against Limbaugh, Savage, Beck & O’Reily”, an interest group headed by David Brock (a former Conservative turned Sodomite) contends that these talk show hosts should be removed from the air for the following offenses.
Rush Limbaugh dared to abbreviate the National Organization of Women as NAGS, suggested that the Hispanic team might win the race-based edition of Survivor because of the knack of that ethnic group for undertaking arduous journeys with little need of water, and to muse that the race-based Survivor format was scrapped probably when the Whites started winning the challenges. Interesting how the criticism is leveled against someone daring to notice the race-based edition of Survivor rather than at the producers for devising such a concept.
Michael Savage is to be sent to the broadcast gallows, according to Media Matters, for observing that gay rabbis would bring the same kind of pedophilia into Judaism as gay priests had brought into Catholicism. Savage also dared to enunciate the feelings shared by the vast majority of Americans when he said, “You know, I’m sick and tired of the whole country bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down.”
John Gibson of Fox News is to be rounded-up for a stay in the reeducation camp because he extrapolated from demographic trends that White folks aren’t having as many kids as their Hispanic counterparts (who are no doubt getting hefty government subsidies doing so often birthing their babies outside of marriage). I wonder if Media Matters care to comment on remarks by Hispanosupremacists ecstatic about old White people dying off or perhaps they are keeping quiet hopin’ one day they’ll get a job settin’ the massa’s table.
Once more, those more wrapped up in propriety and decorum rather than mounting a vocally vigorous battle cry rallying the troops to the defense of what little remains of the Old Republic will claim that all they want to do is curb offensiveness and increase civility. But what they really mean is that they want to squelch anything they happen to disagree with.
For if the linguistic preferences of the leftist malcontents are implemented to their fullest as they will have to be in order to assuage them from rampaging in the streets and insinuating violence as Sharpton and his ilk have done in the past, it won‘t only be “derogatory” slurs and epithets that will become verbal taboos but also elocutionary combinations that express perfectly legitimate ideas and concepts.
For example, those that improperly enter the United States are referred to as illegal aliens because, number one, such an act is a violation of the law and, number two, because the individual in question is not of the place they have entered. However, if certain agitprop movements and allied radical activists have their way, the particular phrase will eventually join others such as “nappy-headed hoes” among those things one does not say for fear of losing one’s job or even one’s life in certain dark alleys of inner city America.
Wanting to normalize their behavior and to condition the American people into embracing this violation of our sovereignty, Hispanic subversives at rallies across the United States have bandied about the slogan “No human is illegal”. As the weak-minded find themselves brainwashed by such Pavlovian manipulation, eventually such perspectives migrate from the realms of mere posturing to forging concrete mental shackles.
For example, according to a story posted February 28, 2007 on WorldNetDaily.com, Florida State Senator Frederica Wilson wants to ban the phrase “illegal aliens”. Her bill would forbid state agencies or officials from employing the term in state documents (thus being about the only place illegal aliens couldn’t be employed) though there would be no penalty for using the words elsewhere --- for now anyway.
There is no telling what the future might hold as each generation comes to accept the extinction of the liberties curtailed in the one before it. Some future Imus might very well find himself subject to coercive mental reconditioning from a pair of electrodes strapped to the sides of his head or some other kind of corrective neurochemical manipulation for uttering such a phrase.
Senator Wilson might want to take note of this since revolutions have a tendency of eventually consuming their own and she will also be exposed by the thought police as an historical ignoramus and possibly as something much worse (a potential bigot). This elected loon said, “All of us are immigrants except the American Indian.”
For starters, if one is to make verbal inoffensiveness the foremost ethical imperative on par with something like Star Trek’s Prime Directive as suggested by the Sharptonians, who does this old bat thinks she is calling those found here first “American Indians”? For isn’t it the epitome of insensitivity and arrogance to American Indians since technically they aren’t Indians and “America” is the name imposed this continent by the White devils?
The ethnocentrism of this state official does not end here. For if we are to sniff out every whiff of bigotry like one dog at another’s rear-end, the notion that the American Indians are not immigrants is another delusion. Their ancestors traveled here just like the rest of ours, only they, it is believed, came over the Bering Land Bridge. Therefore, if we have to listen incessantly about how their land was taken from them, why shouldn’t we be able to complain about the demise of America’s Anglocentric foundation being diluted as a result of immigration overdose?
Such questions, my friends, you may never have the opportunity to raise if leftist elites have their way. For if they had their way, such intellectual dissent would never be allowed to be articulated.
Many contemporary liberals have moved beyond the tendency of thinking their position is the correct one to thinking that their view is the only one acceptable within the parameters of a civilized discussion. And since its the only rational perspective, all other should be banished from consideration.
For example, confined to broadcast outlets few seldom care to watch such as PBS, one would think Bill Moyers would applaud an enthusiastic enunciation of ideas whether or not he agreed with them. However, rather than counter any fallacies or logical inconsistencies found in conservative talk radio, he dismissed the genre in its entirety by labeling the medium as a “freak show of political pornography” according to a Dec. 20, 2004 NewsMax.com story by Phil Brennmen titled “Bill Moyers Attacks Hannity, Conservative Media”.
Moyers’ phraseology is quite revealing as to what he and his brethren think of conservative dissent to their ideas. For even though they themselves would be among the first usually to defend obscene works of art and generalized broadcast debauchery, what he is referring to is that in the American system pornography does not enjoy the same degree of protections as other forms of expression since it is considered to possess no redeemable cultural or educational merit.
Liberal effetes will claim that verbal brawlers such as Hannity, Savage, and Limbaugh should be removed from the airwaves because, it is usually argued, that these pontificators are “mean spirited”, “coarsen our society”, and “lower our levels of civility”. These phrases that cause the discerning mind to want to vomit once you hear them once you actually know what they mean actually translate into normal English as “How dare those pundits enunciate their disagreement with leftist assumptions.”
For if you really think the apostles of tolerance and inclusion want to elevate the tone of discussion in this nation, you are dangerously deluded. As a regular segment on his program, Sean Hannity broadcasts exerts from the Hate Hannity Hotline and some of it is so exceedingly profane that if listeners were permitted to hear them without the obligatory bleep they’d make the ramblings of Don Imus sound like a harp strummed by an angel in heaven.
Those seeking to retain the shreds of the facade of tolerance that remain claim that such loons should not be used as evidence to pronounce judgment against left of center movements. And perhaps fair enough.
Perhaps then we should bring forward for examination one of their most beloved. Often Garrison Keillor is placed on a kind of pedestal as an example of the kind of programming public radio could provide more of with increased funding. However, if one digs deep enough, one finds that this pug-faced font of tolerance and whimsical expression is not all that far removed from Don Imus along the scale of distasteful curmudgeons.
For example, in a May 3, 2005 Nation article titled “Radio Waves: Confessions Of A Listener”, Keillor calls conservative talk radio personalities “...evil, lying, cynical bastards who are out to destroy the country...” Is this the type of linguistic tolerance liberals claim they crave? Where is Al Sharpton calling on Keillor to use “more appropriate language”? But since Keillor’s remarks are about White people, I guess Sharpton doesn’t give a darn.
Though the liberals claim they believe all viewpoints are equally valid, by his very comments Keilor reveals that what liberals really want to do is impose their orthodoxy upon the rest of us to an extent those Keillor derides as “rightwingers” would seldom think of doing.
For example, to say that someone is evil, one must admit that good and evil exist beyond mere social conventions. Furthermore, to say that someone is lying is to admit that, contrary to postmodernist conjecture, not everyone’s “truth” is equally valid and one must by definition correspond to an objective reality both sides of a debate are privy to.
Terms such as “cynical b--t--d” are simply clubs the American people are constantly beaten over our heads with as to why we should have smiles plastered across our faces as the necks of our liberties are laid on the chopping block. One would think it would be a civic virtue and obligation to shout out that the emperor has no clothes.
Those thinking Keillor’s comments in the Nation are a rare slip of the tongue for one of the grand wordsmiths of the age should think again. It seems such slips of the tongue are common practice leveled against those happening to think perhaps the government really doesn’t know best as to how your paycheck should be divied up.
In yet another column published in the September 20, 2004 issue of In These Times titled “We’re Not In Lake Wobegon Anymore”, Keillor classifed conservative Republicans as “fundamentalist bullies, freelance racists ... and aggressive dorks.” I don’t know how many of you have seen what Garrison Keillor looks like, but frankly he’s about the last person that should call someone a dork. From the standpoint of his physical countenance, he actually makes Barbara Streisand look attractive.
If all this back and forth confined itself to the institutions of a free press and blogosphere, everything would be OK as the Founding Fathers envisioned the First Amendment as a mechanism Americans could use to blow off steam so they’d be less inclined to blow off heads. However, since radical liberals cannot tolerate the idea that anyone would disagree with them (which is ironic since most of their measures restricting liberty are often couched in the language of tolerance) a number of them wish to move beyond the arena of verbal brinkmanship to actually punish those speaking out on issues even beyond regarding ethnicity and race.
For example, according to a press release posted by the U.S. Senate Commission on Environment and Public works on 10/11/06 titled “Nuremberg-Style Trials Proposed For Global Warming Skeptics”, staff writers at a magazine with close ties to both Bill Moyers and former Vice President Al Gore have called for the establishment of global tribunals like those bringing the Nazis to answer for their crimes against humanity. Typical of the tolerance displayed by leftists of those disagreeing with them, those questioning the assertions of this dubious political theory are dismissed as “bastards”. But as the enlightened Sharpton reminds us, such sentiments are within the bounds of linguistic propriety so long as one does not utter the word’s “ho” or “nappy-headed”.
The desire to curtail the free speech of conservatives and to possibly even exact some kind of criminal punishment upon them is not an isolated sentiment. It is fact a sentiment under consideration for actual implementation on the part of those holding power.
According to an article titled “Liberal Totalitarianism” by Jeffery Kuhner posted on the website of Insight Magazine, backed by megalomanical globalist financier George Soros who has already conspired to strangle free expression throughout Eastern Europe’s fledgling democracies, Congressional Democrats of a socialistic bent such a Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York are proposing to reintroduce the fairness doctrine (essentially a “Hush Rush” bill as such measures were referred to in the 1990’s in honor of Rush Limbaugh whom was the predominant talk personality of that decade). According to Kuhner, if enacted, the legislation backed by Pelosi allies would require that all views be given equal time by broadcasters. Wouldn’t this require that for every pundit that said that the Rutger’s ladies basketball players aren’t nappy-headed hoes there would need to be one to say that they are?
As dangerous as this would be as it would give too much power to the government to determine the ideological content of broadcast programming, even more disturbing is the suggestion by Representative Hinchey that these radio personalities should be declared threats to national security for advocating militarist approaches to foreign policy. While some might dismiss such as rhetorical hyperbole, the threat, nevertheless, should be taken seriously.
For you see, in the current state of emergency, if one is categorized as a threat to national security, one does not enjoy the civil protections most Americans take for granted that shield them to an extent from police power run amok. While the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity might never be detained in some kind of reeducation camp as their high profiles and deep pockets grant them a degree of immunity, what is to protect the legions of bloggers, podcasters, and hosts of less prominent talk shows just as dedicated to exposing the truth but who do not enjoy the benefits of the fortunes accumulated by media celebrities. About the only thing positive thing that might come about as a result of such a scare is that those enamored with the Patriot Act might at last realize what a dangerous piece of legislation it can be when political winds change direction.
John 3:19 says, “...and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” The last thing that the most evil of men --- namely the diversity mongers and confiscatory socialists --- want is for light to be shined upon what they have in store for us until it is too late.
by Frederick Meekins
Almost as bad the Episcopal Clown Communion.
Interesting how we stupid commoners constantly have it beaten over our heads how we have an obligation to eat lower down the food chain by consuming less meat and should only ingest foodstuffs acquired from the area in which we live.
So unless he's moving to South America, why is Al Gore stuffing his face (something he's become quite apt at these past few years from the looks of it) on a fish that is on the verge of going extinct.
In this discussion of Tesla technology and corporate control of the economy, around the 41 minute mark, host Daniel Ott reveals he was contacted by the FBI for wanting to know what information was contained on the magnetic strip on the back of his bank card.
While the message starts off on solid ground by counseling that parents don't have to kick their daughters out at 18, this broadcast goes too far to the other extreme by insinuating that singles living on their own are for the most part living outside the will of God and little better than vagabonds.
Interesting how liberals in the media get all worked up in a lather over the demise of less useful creatures, but almost herald with enthusiasm the extinction of one that earned its keep in a civilized world.
For awhile, Christian broadcaster Chuck Crismier spent a goodly portion of his time insinuating that you'll probably be tossed into Hell if you marry a divorced person or did not leave your current spouse to remarry your first one.
Now he seems to be getting on a bandwagon.
Now, even if you avoid the otherwise cute or handsome divorcee abused by their drunken spouse but still go to church Sunday morning rather than Saturday, you're still probably going to be sent to Hell.
I guess pretty soon he'll be selling health foods and admonishing listeners not to eat meat.
by Frederick Meekins
In America, to call a woman an old cow would be a highly offensive insult.
However, throughout much of India, such an epithet might be an improvement to the way widows are treated as cows pretty much have free reign there whereas grandmothers are tossed out into the streets.
Behold the future, America, if we keep letting in unchecked swarms of foreigners.
An old adage posits that what you don’t know can’t hurt you. Whoever came up with that one obviously had little imagination to foresee the horrors about to be set loose upon the earth in the years and decades to come.
In my column “Scientists Suggest Bestiality”, I wrote about findings by MIT and Harvard researchers suggesting that millions of years ago ancient humans and chimpanzees engaged in interspecies liaisons resulting in fecund offspring, bolstering the claims by a growing number of geneticists and the like that the boundaries between the species might not be as set in stone (or at least DNA) as at one time thought. It is deplorable enough some would interpret the data in this fashion (as frankly there aren’t that many interspecies pornos dating back that far to serve as irrefutable evidence) to further undermine the uniqueness of man in their attempt to bolster the Darwinian hypothesis that one form of life is essentially no better than any other. However, things grow even more disturbing when one realizes that there are adherents of this particular worldview that believe that it is not enough that all species are the same morally but that they must all be merged into the same species ontologically.
Also in the column, I pointed out the attempts whispered about in hushed tones through the pages of speculative history about attempts overseen by the devotees of perdition seeking to intermingle man and ape hoping to conjure an abomination synthesizing attributes of each such as Stalin’s plot to breed a hybrid ape-man solider, various Chinese experiments, and rumors about what went on behind the closed doors of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. For daring to comment on the moral implications of the issue and speculating where it might be headed in the future, those of limited imagination accused me of being “mentally sick” and possibly being a member of the John Birch Society (though I am not as I seldom join membership groups for reasons similar to Batman’s one-time leeriness of the Justice League, philosophically, the JBS is not all that bad of a group to belong to).
Call me a kook all you want as sanity is often overrated. However, one cannot attribute my speculations to “having watched Tank Girl one too many times” as I was accused of by one sophisticate so sure of what he thinks reality will be like a few decades hence if the good Lord has not intervened to put a stop to it by then.
If my prognostications are too much for you to handle as some have said at times I am “just too real”, perhaps more down to earth sources such as Albert Mohler (head of Southern Baptist Seminary) and the Boston Globe are more your style. With considerably more to lose in terms of finances and prestige as a result of their writings if they are labeled a lunatic than I do, one will find their conclusions backed by current scientific speculation and academic theorizing.
Both Albert Mohler, in “Listening To The Transhumanists”, and Cathy Young of the Boston Globe, in “Transhumanism : Yearning To Transcend Biology”, analyze a conference held at Stanford Law School titled “Human Enhancement Technologies & Human Rights”. In an age where it is nearly impossible to keep track of the countless laws threatening both human life and liberty, the eggheads in whose hands rest our earthly fates have decided such confusion is not enough to keep them occupied as they endeavor to craft entire new bodies of law akin to as if Judge Judy had set up court in the bar scene from Star Wars.
Employing typical postmodernist rhetoric, conference luminaries claimed to be offering liberation by attempting to prevent us from being seen as mere “biopower” and, in the words of the conferees as reported by Albert Mohler, from the “political struggles that structure the occupation of one’s embodied space (whatever that all means” . But in order to deliver on the promise, postmodernism must cut off humanity’s nose to spite its face.
Usually that statement is meant in a metaphorical sense. However, according to Albert Mohler, the tenured loons to whom high salaries are paid to subvert our culture and brainwash the nation’s young are so unbalanced that they might very well take the adage literally as it was suggested at the conference that individuals should have the right to amputate healthy limbs to prevent themselves from being used as “biopower for the state”, no doubt instead being supported by the remainder of us not quite progressive enough to be ungrateful for an otherwise functioning body.
The average person unaccustomed to the intellectual confusion that today passes as profound scholastic innovation would be shocked by such a proposal. However, some lunatic with a hacksaw thinking he’s Vincent Van Gogh is actually quite mild when compared with the future being planned for us by these deluded technocrats.
Those gathered at the Stanford conference waxed eloquent and no doubt grew misty-eyed about the moral obligation to uplift “non-human animals” (and they aren’t talking about making sure these critters have a full bowl of water, are brought inside on a cold night, or receive an occasional scratch on the belly or behind the ears). Rather, what these theoretical futurists are suggesting is that we should tinker around with these organisms until they are on par with the rest of us in terms of intelligence and reasoning ability. But then again, in light of those gathered at the Transhumanist conference, it wouldn’t be too difficult to engineer such a creature surpassing them in terms of common sense.
Interestingly, while those at the conference speak of the moral obligations of human beings, these are often the very same raconteurs that get all livid about the prospect of one individual imposing morality on someone else, especially if the one being imposed upon happens to belong to a darling minority group. Who, then, are we to assume that animals, even if they could be theoretically progressed to our level of intelligence, will abide by human standards? What is to prevent them from retaining their similar kind of bloodlust while simply turning their intelligence against us?
According to Albert Mohler’s commentary, there would be little ground for the Transhumanists to complain about a lion with a PhD going Hannibal Lector on us. To James Hughes, author of Citizen Cyborg, such refusal to assume a position lower down the food chain simply because of our status as human beings is akin to racism. And we all know how liberals just love to suppress all other rights in their grand crusade to eliminate even the last hint of “racism”.
These technocrats do a good job talking the jargon of science fiction but obviously haven’t been watching the same movies and television programs as the rest of us. From the various incarnations of the Planet of the Apes alone we learn of the potential horrors likely to result should humanity lose its monopoly on rational thought and written communication.
Merging man and machine will prove no better if done so with a helter skelter, willy nilly philosophy seeking to violate traditional conceptions of what it means to be a person just for the sake of violating what it means to be a person. It is one thing to swap a faulty organ with a replacement such as an artificial heart as such an effort would be undertaken out of respect for individual human life.
But that is not what many of the Transhumanists are proposing. For the spirit one discerns in pondering the ruminations of the Transhumanists causes one to conclude that what these thinkers propose is development progressing towards something along the lines of the Borg from Star Trek or the Cybermen or Darleks from Doctor Who.
Transhumanist spokesman (or perhaps I should instead say “spokesbeing” for reasons that will be stated momentarily) claim they want to expand what it means to be human but in reality want to abolish many of those attributes that make each of us distinct individuals without having to rely on the superscience of the elites. According to Albert Mohler, foremost on this movement’s agenda is the obliteration or at least the blurring of the innate gender distinctions that have characterized the human species throughout its history no matter how much cultural roles and expectations might change. For if Transhumanists have their way, one day women might be able to inseminate themselves as well as alter physiology so that your daddy will also be your mommy.
However, not only do many Transhumanists want to obliterate natural physical distinctions but they are even more offended even more by outdated conceptions of individuality. At one time, the Borg, Dahleks, and Cybermen represented just about the most frightening science fiction villains imaginable because of the threat they posed of subsuming the autonomous existential unit into the larger group entity. If things continue on their current philosophical course, it won’t be long until the Borg will come to be seen as the heroes of the Star Trek universe and Captain Picard and the crew of his Enterprise as the bad guys for standing against the unfolding progress of a unified universal consciousness.
In one episode of Deep Space Nine, Commander Sisco and Chief O’brien end up on a planet where a band of deliberately stranded human beings live a cultic Ludditte existence free of technology. And even though this philosophy was imposed by the typical charismatic guru, unlike at Jonestown on the Branch Davidian compound these actions were not justified in the name of God, or even the saucer men as n the case of the Heaven’s Gate group, but rather repeatedly in the name of the COMMUNITY.
One does not have to be a convention-going Trekkie to point out that on the surface that these technophobes and the Borg appear to be about as far apart philosophically as one can get. This sect eschewed technology whereas the Borg literally incorporated it into the very fiber of their being. However, in the later episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, the eponymous vessel of the series making its way back to earth from the Delta Quadrant of the Milky Way came across another group that was essentially a Hegelian synthesis of the two previously mentioned antagonists.
In the episode “Unity“, the Voyager crew --- particularly Commander Chacotay --- came across a group of Borg that had been severed from the Collective (the term used by the Borg for their group consciousness). But instead of living their lives as individuals, the group resorts to a smaller version of the collective they called (drum roll please......) the COMMUNITY.
While these ideas and concepts make for interesting stories, unfortunately the average citizen is coming upon them more and more in their average daily lives. For example, all throughout the year but especially at times designated “holiday” by the radical nonsectarians obsessed with nonoffense to all faiths accepted Biblical Christianity, it has become common place for those making astronomical amounts of money because they look good when layers upon layers of make-up sandblasted into the craters on their faces or because they have mastered the art of dribbling back and forth across a wooden court where at the end they toss it through a meshed hoop to lecture the rest of us on the need to give back to the COMMUNITY. Usually, the average American of good sense can easily tune out such nonsense by simply turning the channel or realizing such celebrities don’t exactly play with a full deck anyway in terms of either intelligence or moral integrity.
However, there are sectors of our culture most of us have been conditioned into accepting without question that are at the forefront of implementing the collectivist agenda. Conservative Evangelical Protestants especially when going to church have been accustomed to hearing sermons focusing on how Christ came into this world born of the Virgin Mary, lived the perfect life that we could not, suffered and died in our place for our sins, and rose from the dead so that we as individuals might be saved.
It was this emphasis upon the distinct individual as a value and a good in himself that in large part empowered the free lands of the West, even if the ideal wasn’t adhered to at every moment in history, to withstand the overwhelming onslaught of world Communism. However, just because one goes to what one would think would be an ecclesiastical assembly of solid theology that is no guarantee one will today hear of this message that those of conviction have willingly given their lives for since the waning days of Rome.
In the postmodern or emerging church of today, one is more likely to hear that the Christian faith is not so much about personal salvation but rather about the sublimation of one’s identity into that of the larger group to bring about the Kingdom of God here on earth prior to or even irrespective of the physical return of Christ. Couple this with how Romans 13 is invoked to insist upon submission in regards to matters over which government was never intended to have any control in our private lives and very few Americans would resist efforts to turn them into something other than what is referred to as “baseline humans”.
Though it is doubtful initial changes would be as dramatic as the time Captain Picard was turned into Locutis by the Borg, government coercion is no doubt on the way. Cathy Young of the Boston Globe writes in a July 10, 2006 article titled “Transhumanism Yearning To Transcend Biology”, “Suppose we get to the point where genetic intervention...can reduce the risk of criminal behavior. Could parents be charged with negligence if they reject such procedures and their child commits a crime? Could a teenager with anti-social tendencies be forced to undergo the treatment? What about the scenario depicted in the film ‘Gattica’, in which prospective parents face tremendous social pressure to genetically engineer their children?”
One might also argue that initially one wouldn’t even have to resort to criminal charges to frighten most parents into compliance. Rather, all you would have to do is craft a series of incentives and penalties similar to those in place coercing those with less fortitude to surrender their offspring to the public school system.
For example, your child doesn’t have that implant guaranteeing both faster cognition and social compliance? That’s too bad, a life of menial labor for them then. We are already see something like this in systems of education where diplomas are being replaced with so-called “certificates of mastery” more concerned about assessing a students political attitudes and adaptability to the commands of the elite or norms of the group than whether or not a body of standardized objective facts or skills have been acquired.
Once the population has been conditioned by this process for awhile (maybe several generations but at the accelerated pace at which things are changing perhaps even less), the state (or whatever organizational entity might be running things by that point) will coerce compliance by declaring that those who do not submit themselves for biomechanicalgenetic enhancement are no longer worthy of the protections granted to whomever the overly educated bestow the rank of human being upon. For while most whose ears are not tuned in will come away thinking that the Transhumanist movement is nothing more than a lobby for those wanting to live their lives with self-inflicted deformities, if one parses every single word uttered by those whose brains have been rewired by this dangerous spiritual delusion, one will have noticed that according to this worldview as Alber Mohler quotes from James Hughes, “Under personhood theory, some humans would be excluded, but all self-aware entities --- whether human, machine, chimera, or robot --- would qualify for the rights, privileges, and protections of citizenship.”
Just as multiculturalists today argue that the only thing unworthy of tolerance is intolerance since no one in their right mind would disagree with the multiculturalists, eventually those that disagree with the Transhumanist position on human enhancements and the like will be accused of enunciating a position so far outside the accepted mainstream that those who utter such things will not be deemed worthy of the privileges of personhood.
Some will dismiss these warnings claiming such nightmares could never become a reality. The same kinds of things use to be said about nuclear weapons and terrorists flying jetliners into skyscrapers as well.
by Frederick Meekins
I'll probably be reamed up one side and down the other for saying this, but you'll note in the story that the girls made this decision in part as a result of the desire of all good children to be like their parents as their mother got her first permanet tattoo a few weeks ago.
All of us make mistakes in life, but when you become a parent, shouldn't you act like a parent, and as the Bible says, put away childish things?
Now as a result of herself refusing to growup, this woman's children are likely to pay in a roundabout way for their mother's indiscretion the rest of their lives.
According to SyFyportal.com, the primary antagonist in the pending Scifi Channel adaptation of Flash Gordon will no longer have the "Merciless" qualifer at the end of his name Ming in order to make him a more "well-rounded" 21st century style adversary.
While the new Baltar on the reimagination of Battlestar Galactica grows on you after awhile as half the fun there was seeing how long it would take before it would be found out that he was in large part responsibile for the surprise attack on the Colonies as a result of his womanizing rather than lust for power as was the case of the original Baltar, it only works in part by making him a bit of a sympathetic yet mildly comedic buffoon with the Cylon Seven showing up to titillate him at the most inappropriate times.
One can only hope one of science fiction's archetypal characters will not be ruined in a similar manner.
At least the promotional advertisements are retaining musical allusions to the Queen theme song from the Flash Gordon Movie. "FLASH!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!"
by Frederick Meekins
In the shameless self-promotion category, just thought I'd point out that RaidersNewsUpdate.com posted my commentary on the dangers of Transhumanism and biological enhancement originally published at EtherZone.com.
RaidersNewsUpdate has been kind in the past to publish a number of book reviews I have written, so it was a pleasant surprise and an honor to see they posted the piece as the lead article for Friday, July 6, 2007.
Raiders is a premiere site of news and opinion bringing together information about politics, technology, culture, and the esoteric from a Christian perspective featuring researchers such as Tom Horn, Patrick Heron, Bruce Collins, and Berit Kjos.
by Frederick Meekins
If the Smithsonian is going to prostitute itself for a blatantly one-sided event such as Al Gore's environmental concert, then why should we trust its objectivity in relation to other contentious issues such as evolution and treatment of the American Indians.
In this CNSNews.com story, it is revealed that after the Washington concert, Gore will head to Giants Stadium in New Jersy.
But doesn't that mean fossil fuels will have to be expended in order to get him there, once again proving how he advocates one set of standards for himself while imposing more Draconian measures upon us stupid masses.
With the way his son drives, I am sure pappy Gore will be there in no time.
by Frederick Meekins
Will the SBC nose its way into your fecundity?
Fans will note the lack of fusion canon on Megatron's arm.
Frankly, when are animators going to get back to a Megatron that looks like a gun?
Has America gotten that PC in the past 20 years that even a villain can't embrace firearms?
An informative edition of Generations Radio featuring home-based collegiate education.
Pagan or not, this ancient monument is still something to marvel at. I guess they'll advocate bulldozing the Parthenon next.