Has been my experience that those with the most miserable marriages are the ones that push marriage the most on single adults.
As such, as much as he gripes about the trend of people wedding later in life, makes you wonder how things must be in the Albert Mohler household as he once again rehashes this theme.
Wonder how long until he losers his charm and becomes a wifebeater?
Contrary to the lazy-man's version of Flash Gordon now on the Sci-Fi channel that utilizes a whitetrash version of the Stargate to teleport between worlds, this one proves a rocketship is an integral part of the Flash Gordon mystique.
As a narrative form driven considerably by adversarial conflict, in science fiction a good story must have a villain just as interesting (sometimes even more so) than the primary hero or protagonist. As one of the archetypes from which much popular “space opera” is derived, Flash Gordon did much to perfect this template in the form of villains such as Ming the Merciless.
Part of the appeal of such characters in these contexts is that neither hero nor villain usually allow pressures short of overwhelming force influence the types of things either believed should be stood up for even if it happened to be their own lust for power or megalomania. However, had the original Flash Gordon been saddled with the same politically correct sensitivities as those weighing down the creativity of writers and producers of today, it is doubtful the character would have achieved name recognition as an icon of popular culture nearly on par with Superman and if he had been a real interplanetary swashbuckler our planet would have been laid to waste by Mongo long ago.
Though the series did not premiere until 8/10/07, considerably prior to that airdate publicists and producers had already fanned out across the Internet wringing their hands in an almost Phil Donahue-I-feel-so-guilty-to-be-an-American manner as to why it was necessary to alter the appearance of Ming the Merciless. For you see, in most interpretations, Ming is depicted with a Fu Manchu mustache and the flowing robes of an oriental despot.
Since the 1980’s or there abouts, Ming has become decreasingly Asian in his appearance to the point in a 1996 version of Flash Gordon he was no longer humanoid at all but rather reptilian. The reason often given is the need to avoid racial stereotyping (I wonder that the herpetological and animals rights lobbies have to say about lizards being depicted in such a light then).
Interestingly, this concern is only invoked when it benefits minorities. For example, in publicity shots on the SciFi.com website, rather than flowing robes or even a cape, the Emperor of Mongo is rather depicted in a more militaristic looking ensemble.
Furthermore, not only are all but the visually impaired able to ascertain that the actor portraying the role is blond but in the accompanying text, which is longer for Ming than any of the other characters as it goes on and on apologizing how Ming looked previously throughout comic book and cinematic history, closes by pointing out that the actor playing the part is blond.
Often, we have it so beaten into our heads that we aren’t even to think about race or physical characteristics that I was condemned up one side and down the other for criticizing a version of the Honeymooners featuring Black actors, which most other Americans didn’t think highly of either as the film was probably out no more than two weeks. And if we are to swallow the line that Ming’s evil does not depend on his appearance, then why is hair color being pointed out to us at all?
Furthermore, if we are to be told that a traditional portrayal of Ming the Merciless in inappropriate for fear of stereotyping Asians, couldn’t a pale blond in a moderately looking fascist uniforms lead to prejudice against Germans? But then again, since Germans are part of the White race, their sensibilities don’t count for much anyway.
To what extent should the anti-stereotyping mania be taken anyway? If we cannot enjoy a traditional Ming the Merciless for fear of propagating negative stereotypes about Asians, conversely, aren’t we hindering the imaginative expansion of the minds of minority children by casting the male lead as the typical statuesque blond most have come to expect to play Flash Gordon.
Why not a Black man, or better yet, how about a short, dumpy Jew? Wouldn’t watch Flash Gordon otherwise you say? Then why should we be entertained by a Ming that doesn’t even look like a Ming?
This fear of portraying a beloved character in a certain way could get ridiculously if fans do not speak up about it. For example, 50 or 100 years from now should Star Wars ever be remade, will disability advocates get all up in arms (if they happen to have any) that Vader’s characteristic wheezing is an offense against those on respirators? Likewise, retirees will claim that Palpatine’s gnarled and hunched appearance casts those of an advanced age in a bad light. Fans of the Borg from Star Trek will demand their moment of equity by claiming that the portrayal of what has become one of science fiction’s most nightmarish species does not depict absolutist collectivism and the elimination of individuality (concepts all the rage these days from leftwing secularist utopians all the way to certain Evangelical churches) in a balanced light.
And what about Hans Zarkhov? Though he is one of the protagonists of the series, in this interpretation it seems producers are playing up who could be categorized as the bumbling, nerdish aspects of his personality. If one is going to make all these self-congratulatory overtures towards the Asian community, then isn’t it just as wrong to disrespect the shows core base of fans who often fall into the “geek” demographic?
In the classic 1979 Filmation animated version of Flash Gordon, Zarkhov was not written as such. There, though hardly the man of action compared to Flash Gordon, he was depicted as a highly competent though slightly plumpish scientist around middle age.
Though concern about Ming is carefully packaged in terms of racism, a charge these days that even the most advanced deflector shields could protect not against, one must step back and wonder is that is really the underlying concern or if the offense goes to a much deeper level. For the write up on Ming in fact contains a glaring example of racism if one just happens to know where to look.
In elaborating the history of the character, mention is made of the 1980’s animated series “Defenders Of The Earth” where a number of King Feature’s Syndicate heroes joined forces to battle Ming as their primary foe. Mentioned as members of this team of adventurers are Flash Gordon, The Phantom, and Mandrake the Magician.
Those that remember the series will point out that a character named Lothar is conspicuously absent from the roster. For those with no idea who I am talking about, Lothar started his comics career as Mandrake’s Black man-servant but by the time of his appearance on Defenders of the Earth had, shall we say, risen in stature to that as an equal to these other crime fighters as the team’s strongman and primary gadget guy (hence his stanza in the memorable theme song, though hardly as memorable as Mandrake‘s, “His strength is a legend. His skills conqueror all. On with his power, we never will fall. Lothar.” If ever thing is to be second guess as an example of overt or institutional racism, then why not the continued perception of this character as a mere sidekick no more important than Batman’s Robin, Captain America’s Bucky or Superman’s dog Krypto?
Villains such as Ming were initially given their particular appearances as a reflection of the so-called “Yellow Peril” at that time in light of the fear of the threat posed by Asian powers, particularly Japan. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same as nearly 70 years later we are frankly still facing similar dangers from that part of the world as one of the primary threats arrayed against us. Anyone thinking differently needs only need to be reminded of the swarms of illegal aliens (many from Asia) flooding the country, Islamic terrorists, the Red Chinese Army, and North Korean weapons of mass destruction.
However, unlike the 1930’s and 40’s, today our creative minds do not want to awaken us to the threat of annihilation by foreign empires constantly growing stronger while our nations grows considerably weaker. Rather, we are to be kept ignorant until its too late through either forced silence or by brainwashing the youth of America into thinking these despotic regimes are just as good and often even better than our own United States.
Casual observers will quip, “What are you complaining about? Ming still appears to be a rather loathsome individual.” True enough for the moment.
But what about in the next version of Flash Gordon produced 30 or 40 years hence from now if there is still a United States or even widespread advanced civilization or technology at that point in light of the threat posed by nuclear and electromagnetic pulse weapons. With the downward slide of ethics and morality, there will probably come a point where it will be considered an outrage on par with what spewed forth from the lips of Don Imus to categorize tyrants and despots as villains at all.
Rather, such characters are merely acting in accord with the social parameters acceptable within their particular culture. After all, who is Flash Gordon to impose Earth standards on the planet Mongo anyway?
Over the course of 10 seasons and in the movie prior to that, the producers of Stargate have been able to depict a variety of interstellar warlords such as Ra, Apophos, and Eu in the customary raiment of an Eastern despot and there have been no bias related crimes as a result. If the producers of Flash Gordon want to keep on insisting otherwise, fans of Battlestar Galactica just might say such statements are full of felgarcarb.
By Frederick Meekins
An old slur classifies a Puritan as someone worried that somewhere someone might be having a good time.
Whether such a classification is historically accurate might make for a matter of academic debate, however, it does certainly seem to apply to the good people at Generations Radio.
In the 8/31/07 broadcast, it is lamented about the declining numbers of older men in the workforce and that a life of leisure after decades of toil is somehow tawdy and sinful.
While Rev. Swanson might be energized by the kind of work that he does, I think it is about time some of these Christian leaders realize that most of us paying their salaries usually have day jobs that are not all that fulfilling and are in fact simply the drudgery we must endure to put food on the table.
Furthermore, if we carry this analogy to its conclusion that because a gentleman of a certain age reposes himself from standard gainful employment that he has by definition surrendered to a life of sloth, does it then follow that stay-at-home wives and mothers are sluggards as well?
For just because someone is not in the traditional workplace does not mean the individual is being idle as many of today's elderly do any number of things.
Firstly, since people are living longer, theoretically someone in their 50's or 60's may have to dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to settling the final affairs of their parents.
Second, retirement from traidtional employment frees up more time for other activiities such as activism and writiing For even though I might one day retire as early as possible, I plan to keep blogging until I drop, go blind, or get sent to a reducation facility.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, if the man who retires in his 50's or 60's is married, doesn't that decision free up more time to tend to the needs of his wife who by that age is often an emotional wreck anyway?
by Frederick Meekins
He will be truly missed. Unlike many other TV ministries, you never got the impression he was out to swindle you or anything.
Maybe they should also highlight studies where unmarried men living with a woman also constitute the greatest percentage of domestic abusers.
Albert Mohler is for the most part to be commended for his comments about the failure of the church to speak out against the rise in illegitimacy.
However, in the same broadcast he goes a little too far in saying a couple should not be able to get a divorce until the church says they can get a divorce.
Using the first example of tackling a disturbing social trend, namely the explosion of out of wedlock births, by speaking out against the practice from the pulpit, shouldn't that rather also be the approach taken to curb the divorce rate also?
Dr. Mohler suggests those getting divorced without church sancition should be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. If so, shouldn't similar sanctions be imposed deciding to set up house without pastorial imprimatur as well?
by Frederick Meekins
While it is nearly impossible to determine if Sen. Larry Craig had lewd intentions when arrested in a men's room, frankly those loving liberty should be concerned about the flimsiness of the standard that can be invoked by law enforcement to justify ruining reputations.
Unless this NRA supporter blatantly caressed another man's holstered sidearm if you get my meaning, how can it be conclusively be proven what his intentions were.
From the sound of it, the cop should be arrested also as from the text it reads he reciprocated in what could be considered a bizarre mating ritual by moving his own foot up and down.
From the story, we also learn that if we are not comfortable with others peeking into the stall while we releave ourselves, now we are the perverts.
Those not caring one way or the other thinking the Senator was up to no good and got what he deserved might like to know that such ridiculously lowered standards of probable cause are in place elsewhere to pull as many Americans into the criminal justice system.
Carry on your person or vehicle a rudimentary tool kit? Often on COPS, that is enough to get you booked for "burglary tools".
Put your medicines in a plastic baggie rather than the perscription bottle. That's enough to get a drug charge slapped against you.
by Frederick Meekins
Rough crowd, but unbridled exposure of the tolerance of those that would take over American and destroy our freedoms in the name of diversity.
This is merely what boys like to draw. Would it be preferable if they doodled frilly dresses?
With all the fuss made over the 300 millionth American, the U.S. Census Bureau enjoyed an unaccustomed moment in the limelight as the work done by this government agency is seldom considered glamorous enough to warrant much coverage in the media.
Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution authorizes an enumeration of the population to be taken every ten years. The only purpose for this tabulation authorized by the Constitution is to figure our how to divvy up the House of Representatives.
But while the Founding Fathers instituted the census as a tool to safeguard the liberties of the Republic by making sure each person is properly represented numerically in the national legislature, as with many of the other institutions devised by these innovative political thinkers, this one is also being used to undermine the very nature of freedom itself.
One of the foremost aspects of freedom is the ability to withhold from those in power information regarding one’s private affairs that is not necessary to the fulfillment of legitimate government functions. However, as the state seeks to concentrate power in order to become the dominate social institution over individual human lives with the hopes of surpassing the influence of church, family, and even the self, those administering these bureaucratic constructs have come to believe that collecting reams of data regarding every possible fact of your existence is necessary to carry out its constantly expanding functions.
Throughout much of Western history, free peoples have often exhibited a natural and understandable hesitation regarding (extraneous) tabulations on the part of government operatives. Therefore, as the data the Census Bureau seeks to collect becomes increasingly intrusive, more and more those charged with collecting this information turn to other names and euphemisms designed to get the American people to lower their guard to a practice they had initially been bred to be leery of.
Replacing the so-called “Census Long Form”, the American Community Survey is simply the same pill sent out more periodically to get the people of the United States to swallow it more easily. In much the same was as a summons to jury duty, the introductory epistle and instruction pamphlet accompanying the survey begins by going on pleasantly about the survey, thanks you for your cooperation, and almost tacks on as an afterthought that you are required to comply by law.
Those of a cavalier pioneering spirit might feel led to resist divulging their secrets to these federally sanctioned peeping Toms (and God bless them for such courage); however, as the Borg --- the futuristic outcome depicted on Star Trek that awaits mankind if this continual march towards collectivism is not halted ---- might say, “Resistance is futile” as the free citizen may be assessed a fine of up to $1000 for each question not answered correctly. Some might say such is the price one might have to pay for liberty as some others have been called upon to give their lives in freedom’s name.
Not to sound flippant, but if such an end came quickly, those befalling such a demise might be better off that someone facing the full wrath of the U.S. Census Bureau. For at a fine of $1000 for every question not answered correctly, that could theoretically be a penalty of $42,000 for each person living at a targeted residence failing to comply.
Advocates of the busybody school of government will respond that not a single person has ever been fined for failing to relent to Census Bureau interrogations. Maybe not yet, but as with nuclear weapons, the threat always looms overhead; and like a nation of inferior military status before an atomic-wielding power, do you want to be the one to tick off the petty magistrate drunken on the authority the government is allowing the official to exercise? Such a strategy could be used to obtain the property of some patriotic individual reluctant to reveal to yet another agency yet more about private matters and possessions.
And speaking of ways through which to swindle the good property holders of the United States out of the dwellings, plots, acreage, and structures they so cherish as a free people, the questions asked by the American Community Survey could be used to do just that.
For example, it is not enough for the American Community Survey to ask how many reside at a particular residence. Now they ask how many acres the dwelling in question sits on, how many rooms are in each house, does the domicile have hot and cold piped water, does the residence have a flush toilet (no doubt the next time this abomination is put into your mailbox you’ll be asked how many toilet tissue squares you use per wipe as well), how many automobiles are kept at the residence, and how much utility bills were the previous month.
If you think all the American Community Survey asks is about what kind of dwelling you live in, you are sadly mistaken. The document gets even more personal.
For once the document finishes asking you about your living arrangements, it proceeds to get even more personal by snooping into your occupational background. For it not only asks you where you work and how much you make but also what time you leave for work, how many people ride to work with you, and how long it takes you to get there.
It’s a wonder they don’t ask how many times a week you have to take a bowel movement while at work. It wouldn’t be any nosier than the other questions asked.
Those thinking that last suggestion was so outrageous that it doesn’t even bear mentioning might change their tune once they learn what else is on the drawing board. For though they have not yet been incorporated into the American Community Survey, state governments --- Washington in particular --- are busy conditioning their residents into accepting the next level of administrative intrusion into their lives.
According to a Seattle Times article titled “State To Check On Residents Health”, health officials there plan to fan out across the state to gather medical dossiers on selected residents as part of the Washington Adult Health Survey, an effort funded in part by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As part of the survey, health department operatives will show up on the doorsteps of the targeted to ask them questions about what medications they are on, diet, alcohol and tobacco use, and any dental problems they might have. After all, it’s always been a tradition for a prospective master (in this case the state) to examine the teeth of its prospective beasts of burden; but in this case, it is of you, the slave, rather than a horse.
Why don’t they go ahead and ask if you and the Mrs also had a pleasant romp in the boudoir the night before while they are at it?
And don’t think you’ll be able to get these lab-coated snoops off your back by just telling them the sweet nothings you think they’ll want to hear. For not only will the subjects be required to answer questions but they will also be subject to a battery of tests such a blood pressure, height, weight, and waist size but also have blood drawn to assess cholesterol and sugar levels (no doubt to determine if you are eating a government approved diet).
Perhaps even more interesting still is that hair samples are to be taken from fecund women between the ages of 25-44 and men and women over 60, it is claimed, to test for mercury. However, what better way to start laying the foundations for a DNA identification database.
By starting with women of childbearing age and grandparents, one is well on the way to covering a sizeable percentage of the population. Sort of reminds me of how on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine it was told that the Cardassians authorities extracted the back molars from each of the citizens living under that particular police state for identification purposes.
As with the propaganda accompanying the American Community Survey materials, those of the Washington Adult Health Survey extol the virtues of compliance (even promising a $45.00 gift card for those that comply). Yet very little is said about what will be done to those leery about lurid minions of the state poking around for information about some of their most private affairs.
In a March 5, 2006 Argusleader.com article titled “Census Bureau Gets Personal: Latest Survey Asks About Daily Routine, Stocks, Health”, Census officials claim they promise confidentiality for those answering the survey. But that is something that the Bureau cannot guarantee.
According to a Sept. 22, 2006 ABCNews.com story titled “Census Bureau Loses Hundreds Of Laptops”, nearly 300 computers containing personal information have been stolen or lost. Will representatives of the Census Bureau be the ones to spend hours on the phone for you trying to get your identity and good name back should this data fall into the wrong hands?
Officials urge compliance with the American Community Survey on the grounds that the information will in no way be used to penalize individuals. Try telling that to Japanese Americans who, according to Kerby Anderson in “Moral Dilemmas: Biblical Perspectives On Contemporary Issues” were rounded up for the Internment thanks in part from information gathered off of Census Bureau punch cards (183).
While a quaint notion these officials would try to quell fears of individual punishment, this deception is designed to lull the discernment of those whose morality is rooted in loftier assumptions. For you see, in the dawning collectivist era, one is not judged by the actions one has actually committed as an individual but rather upon what one might do as part of the group or COMMUNITY.
Certainly, the government might not punish you directly or specifically as a result of how you answer a particular question on the American Community Survey. However, if a certain number in a given locality answer a question in a manner deemed to be out of accord with the preferences of social planners, you can bet the government is going to enact measures that will penalize you in the long run even if these agencies do not admit to doing as such.
For example, too many people from a certain neighborhood drive the family car to work? Federal, state, and local planners could sneak in new gas or road development fees to discourage motorists. Other proposals might not even address matters so specifically linked to particular behaviors but rather to forced targeted economic or demographic groups our of designated areas.
For example, your neighborhood a little “too White” for those elites who themselves live in gated communities where we common dregs of humanity can’t get access to without being accosted by an armed sentry in a guard booth? If so, armed with reams of American Community Survey data, planners can drone on about the need to “diversify” a particular locality through the introduction of public or subsidized housing.
Conversely and just as much an outrage, do you find yourself living in a neighborhood where, though it might not be the fanciest town around, but the people --- irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds --- love and care for their homes? Armed with American Community Survey statistics regarding the number of rooms, nature of the toilet facilities, property tax amounts and monthly mortgage costs, conniving developers could manipulate the numbers to make the neighborhood sound blighted even though there might not be as much a single crooked shingle in the entire town. In light of the Kelo decision, that is pretty much the thrust of what is needed to get the ball rolling to get your house snatched from you.
As to whether or not one decides to comply with the American Community Survey is ultimately up to them. For short of receiving a biometric identification mark as part of the process as depicted in the Christian movie “Years Of The Beast”, the Bible is itself pretty much of a mixed opinion on the matter.
On the one hand, King David was chastised by God for implementing such a measure. The obedience of Joseph and Mary in reference to such a decree, on the other hand, was what led to the Messiah being born in Bethlehem as prophesized. Only the leading of the Spirit of God can lead you in what to do regarding this unsettling intrusion into your private affairs.
by Frederick Meekins
In his broadcast examining declining fertility rates, Albert Mohler condemns as narsacisitc those reluctant to reproduce on the grounds that social conditions are no more darker than at other times in the nation's history.
Though one caller skirted around the issue, no one had the nerve to come out and state the obvious that it is because the nation is becoming darker in terms of unbridled immigration that many who might otherwise want a family are reluctant to have children if in the future the country overall more resembles a Third World slum than what we now think of as the United States of America.
Some will no doubt fuss and fume that such a statement is inherently racist.
And even though all people are created equal, the way in which they choose to live is not.
I wonder how many making such grandiose proclaimations of universal brotherhood would live in neigherborhoods with two and three families to an average size house, where parking on the street is nearly nonexistent as a result, where non-English music now pierces the night on a regular basis, and empty beer cans flow into the street or haven't already moved out of such areas.
For some reason, I don't think Rev. Mohler sees many of these realities cloistered on his picturesque seminary campus or recording studio.
Others will respond, well all that needs to happen is for the native Caucasian population to have as many offspring as their rabidly breeding foreign counterparts.
But that said, I wonder if these rapidly expanding demographic segments would be as eager to increase the size of their households if they had to do so without the benefit of government, ecclesiastical, or philanthropic handouts like the rest of us.
by Frederick Meekins
It has always been my contention that, at its best, the Simpsons has always been a thinking person's series.
Christians in Arab countries might refer to God as "Allah", but frankly I don't really care since this country speaks English and here refer to the deity as "God."
If you don't like it, take your headtowel and go back to your filthy sandpile.
Years ago, I remeber watching a moving scene filmed during World War II where Roosevelt and Churchill aboard an aircraft carrier led the service personnnel gathered on the flight deck in a rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers".
Should those giving their lives for our freedom hear of plans to surrender now before the battle for souls has hardly begun, such patriots would no doubt be spinning in their graves.
by Frederick Meekins
In saying that one cannot say that one's way is the only way, does this apostate have the backbone to say that one cannot say that one's way is not the only the way is the only way?
I wonder if the same will be levied against the domestic partners of known sodomites.
I know it would be a hard thing to do and would make anyone cry, but if they really wanted the creature gone, wouldn't they just have it shot?
This show has to have been one of the biggest disappointments on TV that I can remember.
Flash didn't even have a spaceship.
Instead he traveled back and forth to Mongo through a hole in space.
There is already a show that employs such a plot device: its called Stargate.
If producers want this show to last, they are going to need to show viewers more of Mongo's dictatorship and less of earth as that segment was about the only one worth watching.
24 reaches out to environmental extremists as attempts to downplay reputation for patriotism and giving terrorists what they deserve.
Flash Gordon has faced a number of coloful enemies throughout the decades, but one has to wonder if his greatest may end up being the U.S. legal system.
Though it probably hasn't been noticed by the average viewer, but I couldn't help but noticing that the lighting bolt insignia of the new Sci-Fi channel series is almost indentical to that of DC Comics' Flash character, no doubt causing enthusiasits everyowhere to explain yet again to unitiated friends and family that these beloved characters are entirely different.
What better way to control movement than to let bridges collapse?
Those living near the bridge are automatically confined to their isolated communities and the remainder of the nation becomes reluctant to traverse what they are repeatedly told is a decaying infrastructure.
As a result according to this WorldNetDaily article, public-private partnerships will be heralded as a solution.
However, these will largely be a new system of toll roads that will be too expensive for the average motorist to use if they will even be allowed to use them at all as in some discussions of the so-called NAFTA Superhighway it was been hypothesized that the use of this transportation corridor will be restricted by the Department of Homeland Security.
Already news features are springing up asking what the American people what more they will be willing to pay to shore up transportation safety. How about simply better allocating the taxes already extorted from our pockets to pay for these services everybody can use rather than as payouts to illegals and other deviants that can't keep their libidos in check?
At this time, it is too early to speculate as to the technical cause of this tragedy. However, as a tool of propaganda, the government could not ask for a better opportunity to fall into its lap.
By Frederick Meekins
Commonsense teaches that, if one deliberately with aforethought puts oneself into oncoming traffic, one is going to get run over. As such, that is what you deserve.
To some, such a sentiment brings to mind elderly grandmothers crossing the street and young children absentmindedly chasing after an errant ball. However, that is not what I am referring to.
Those I am referring to are protestors and self-appointed revolutionaries thinking that they are so important and much more better than you that they somehow have the right to literally bring your life to a screeching halt to compel you to listen to their juvenile tantrums by impeding the flow of oncoming traffic
Two incidents in recent months hint that this tactic may become more prevalent in the future as leftists ratchet up their propensity towards mayhem and violence in an attempt to intimidate the American people into acquiescing to their socialistic demands.
In the first incident, students at American University laid down in front of the limousine of presidential advisor Karl Rove in protest of him speaking at the campus chapter of the Young Republicans. Had the driver decided to role over these delinquents, he should have been given a medal.
Rove’s status as either a political genius or a crooked scumbag is not the issue here. Given that the leftist bilge probably pretty much owns the rest of the campus anyway, shouldn’t these students in the Young Republican Club, who probably rank among the best mannered and dressed at the school in comparison to the slovenly hippies wallowing all over the blacktop, been able to invite whomever they wanted to to address their association without incident?
Seems these vassals of political correctness represent the greater threat to freedom of thought.
One hopes those opposed to cracking the heads of those that get out of line and infringe upon the rights and mobility of the nonparticpants of such demonstration will be as vocal when those going beyond the bounds of propriety resort to violence in the attempt to appropriate for themselves sole use of accommodations to which such they at best deserve secondary usage.
In San Francisco, the movement known as Critical Mass regularly commanders the roadways in order to flout in the face of motorists how morally superior cyclists are to those preferring modes of transportation propelled by the internal combustion engine. Most have no doubt been conditioned by leftist institutions such as academia and the mainstream media to think of such activists as peace loving and harmless.
However, according to an April 4, 2007 story titled “Minivan’s Rude Introduction To Critical Smash”, one family won’t feel so lighthearted and magnanimous if the subject of Critical Mass comes up in the course of a conversation. For as the Ferrando family was coming to town to celebrate the birthday of one of its members, their minivan inadvertently rolled into the midst of a Critical Mass ride.
As such beatniks are wont to do, instead of adhering to the message of docility and accommodation they seek to impose the remainder of us, like the jungle heathen they admire as a culture superior to our own, these radical bicyclists descended in attack formation on the hapless family. In a display of tolerance and understanding no doubt, riders surrounded the minivan and began pummeling the vehicle with fists.
According to the report, one rider even hefted his bike through the air and smashed the wear window of the van even through there were children inside. Yet in a bastion of sodomy such as San Francisco where natural family and affections are so despised such a domestic arrangement is more likely to make one a target of such violence rather than protected from it. After having been set upon by such savages, some in the mob wanted the family in the minivan arrested rather than the perpetrators.
Had things gone as they should have as soon as the unfortunate incident unfolded, the driver should have floored the accelerator and taken out as many as necessary that were impeding the family’s path to safety. Frankly, it would make a good scene for next season’s 24 if Jack Bauer could hop out of a van in a similar scene and put down these fanatical pedal pushers like they ought to be when they so blatantly get out of line.
Those conditioned to bow at the filthy feet of the environmentalists will drone on about the need for motorized vehicles to share the road with bicycles. However, since these protestors do not follow proper procedures by failing to file a permit to demonstrate, they have no right to block the flow of traffic.
As the inherently slower and less powerful vehicles, by default the bicyclists should be compelled to move to the side of the road. This human debris are usually the type to drone on incessantly about the impropriety of blocking access to abortion clinics. Then why are city officials doing next to nothing to stop the infringement of a human right more fundamental than shiskabobbing the unborn, namely unimpeded travel?
Those deluded by Critical Mass will probably liken these riders to the Tinnamen Square protestors in 1989 standing down the barrel of a Red Chinese tank. However, things are not quite at the point yet in this country where those wanting to bring about social change cannot avail themselves of other means of getting their message across. The thing of it is, what they have to say probably isn’t worth considering all that much in the first place.
by Frederick Meekins
Apart from the humor of the headline, is kind of disturbing you can be arrested for a hissy fit where from the sound of it you don't even lay a hand on somebody.
Had he claimed he was impeding traffic as a statement against global warming, he'd probably now be having the ACLU and Al Gore running to his defense.
And I suppose as a result in the grand name of public safety this will be enough to abridge his Second Amendment rights as is the case in a growing number of jurisdictions.
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.
Guess the European propensity towards mediocrity now extends to physical appearance as now the socialists have declared war against the firey individuality inherent to redheads. Most unfortunate.
“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
Some have insinuated my writing style was fitting of the Weekly World News.
Men In Black insinuated this was the real news while the other papers were fake.
Ironically, probably still more reliable than Dan Rather.
Mind you, this hag lives in a 28,000 square foot house and now dares lecture the rest of us on what to eat.
Wonder if the judge would feel as broadminded if she had been the one attacked.
I guess we'll also get a lecture how such abuse is an integral component of other cultures as well.
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
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
