Monthly Archives: October 2017

ICE Detains 10 Year Old Disabled Girl Straight From Hospital – And Some People Still Refuse The Nazi Comparison

Just reading about this, minutes ago, there is no way this action can be justified or interpreted in a somewhat lighter way.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/30/freerosa-supporters-demand-release-10-year-old-detained-trumps-ice

Americans Demand Release of 10-Year-Old Girl Being Held in US Detention Center

A ten-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, who is undocumented, was treated as a priority for detention and subsequent deportation by the US immigration squad. Right off her hospital bed. They have to get them all in the end, don’t they?

Not only do they target schools; it seems they now target hospitals as well. Who knows how many lives the knowledge of that will cost, when people fear they cannot safely go to a doctor in case of an emergency, because even there they are hunted down.

They talk so much about socialism, these folks in the ardent Trump camp.

Not realising socialism is the handing over of human rights and human decency to bureaucrats, which is exactly what they are doing right now in the US, breaking moral codes of any sort in order to comply with the ruler’s directives and fill up targets and statistics.

In cases such as these, we can safely put a “national” in front of the “socialism”.

When entire categories become undesirable and a target for persecution, down to disabled children freshly out of emergency surgery.

It’s not border protection; it’s simply barbarism, to treat a sick disabled child in such ways. Those rejoicing such cases should become aware that as soon as they are done with the outside “undesirables”, this lot, so well trained to be less than human, will be turned against their own people. It’s unavoidable.

Someone was in charge of this decision, to keep pursuing this girl for detention. And this person will soon say “I was just obeying orders”. It’s what they typically say, isn’t it?

On the ACLU website there is yet another chilling story: in 2009, ICE in Boston began a program of outreach, for Indonesians who had fled because of religious persecution. Here’s what happens today with the data ICE gathered:

In 2009, the Boston Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office initiated a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” which it characterized as “a humanitarian effort” meant to “bring folks out of the shadows” and send the message to Indonesian Christian community members that “we will work with you.” Eight years later, ICE is trying to deport all the participants.

It seems the great beam of freedom and hope the US was seen as for many years, through syrupy Hollywood productions, has no moral qualms when it comes to luring people to surrender their information in all honesty, in an outreach program, to then target them for deportation. And fair enough, said data collection may have been done in earnest at the time – yet someone somewhere had no qualms about releasing all those names to the current sharks hunting innocent people up and down every block. Those who gathered this data handed it in, regardless of the moral implications.

They were just obeying orders.

The same with the DACA program, which had the now adult children of illegal immigrants, brought into the US as minors (unable to decide for themselves), register in order to be able to work legally and set foot on a path to citizenship. Because they gave their data to the system, they now face deportation if a decision towards that is reached. These vultures know exactly where to find them now, because they trusted the government with their information.

Who knows how else this alert of someone being undocumented reaches them? Who knows who reports and what? Neighbours, teachers, doctors perhaps? Just like in the days of the third Reich.

Except they have moved beyond receiving reports and now conduct document searches in the street and raids at workplaces. Raids in schools. Searches outside emergency rooms.

The tyranny Alex Jones warned about years ago and is now fully supporting, like a drooling dog at the feet of a drooling monster.

How sick, for lack of a better word.

 

Of Norman Bates And Christian Apologetics

As a non-believer, with no recourse for returning to faith ever again, there is still value in watching debates over the claims of Christianity, if for no other reason than having all I’d taken for granted debunked bit by bit, showing the susceptibility of the human mind to absorb lies, if they are inculcated early enough in life.

I realise why the issue of blind faith is so important in Abrahamic religions – as religious institutions are aware that merely accepting doubt is a guaranteed path to non-theism. If you tear down one brick, admitting that at least one claim of said religion is absurd, the rest will soon crumble, like a house of cards.

It is enough to realise Noah never filled his ark with elephants, penguins, kangaroos and tarantulas, which somehow would’ve made their way from all corners of the Earth and all terrestrial ecosystems to one boat in the Middle East, to understand that some things in the Bible are undoubtedly fictional. And from there, this shadow of doubt is cast upon each claim it makes. Which is why apologists do their best to uphold even such laughable absurdities as Noah’s ark.

Those who still ardently believe do so because that is their core intention and no logical argument seems to be able to shake it. Nonetheless, there are many who took the path of intense Bible study and came out of it as atheists.

Watching Christians debate reminds me of a futile, sweat-inducing strife, the inability to let go of a long disproved concept, hanging on to it by any putrid, disheveling thread. In this strife, so-called holy texts are taken apart letter by letter, in the frantic search for historical facts, logic or meaning. And although the results are always flimsy, there is always some detail to imbue with sheer emotion, to be presented as a wonderful discovery.

It reminds me in a way of the inability to let go of a dead person, taking it to a pathological level.

You can embalm a cadaver, sit in on a chair, groom it, speak to it and even mimic the voice of the dead person to speak in his or her name. You can look for signs of communication, interpreting every trifle with great enthusiasm. You can deprive yourself of sleep to induce a trance and hallucinate, thinking you’ve had a real conversation.Yet undoubtedly, this is the product of your own mind, and you will never achieve this real time communication, as much as you may stage or mimic it.

If this person’s energy or soul exists out there, in a different layer of reality, it’s impossible for you to know with certainty. And whilst this is subject to imagination and speculation, one thing is clear: what you have in front of you and speak to is a cadaver which cannot hear you or answer back. That direct communication is over; it only carries on in your head.

It’s the same with this relationship with an absent, silent God you have no proof of (as by default you cannot have any). You can interpret coincidences as signs; you can thank him for helping you find your keys as someone, the same instant, needlessly dies of cancer across the road from you, but you imagine God is there for your every need, however small. You can engage in role play by praying and pretending to know what God’s message is, when observing what happens next, interpreted as concrete results or lack thereof – either way, “God’s will”.

Needless to say, this is a terrible waste of time and energy.

And century after century, it carries on – the attempt to put flesh on the imaginary bones of an imaginary God; to manifest him somehow.

Many former believers admit to having difficulty letting go of the imaginary friend called Jesus (not very strangely, no one seems to be missing Jehovah that much, when starting to lose their faith). Jesus embodies their hope, their love and feeling of purification through self-sacrifice; their resilience. These are all beautiful concepts and it is heinous of religion to get people to place them outside of themselves, to make them feel that when they let go of this Jesus character they also lose what made life worth living for them.

Ample documentation exists to prove Christianity is yet another man-made system of beliefs, achieved by borrowing elements of older religions. But even in the face of that, Christians refuse to let go of the delusion – because they feel they’d be losing a part of themselves.

That is the surreptitious, perverse nature of it all, which keeps this machine going.

Refusing Doubt – The Mental Barricade Of Religion

Having had many conversations with religious people over the last few weeks, Christians to be precise, I have come to some conclusions regarding their attitude towards the idea of an equal society, where all beliefs or lack thereof are respected in the same manner.

Religions based on proselytism seek the political domination of the area they exist in.

When living in the midst of a religious majority, in countries where laws are generally inspired by secular principles , non-believers are tolerated as long as they are not too vocal or, Heaven forbid, they try to influence or change the status quo by eliminating dogma from laws or politics, seeking to ensure religion is not imposed in any neutral environment, shared by all.

If and when non-believers raise concerns in that sense and try to diminish the imagined superiority of said majority to dictate how things are run (as it happens in the case of LGBT rights or contesting the role of religion in education), the backlash is immediate and comes with a seasoning of moral outrage.

They have no doubt regarding their right to impose their dogma on others. They refer to tradition, as if it were unheard of for traditions to change. And suddenly, they refer to themselves as a monolith, throughout history, although nothing could be farther from the truth.

Respecting others’ beliefs is a false claim, when what they really seek is to “save your soul”.

Intricate mental gymnastics are employed when trying to justify to themselves that agnostics or atheists, when formerly religious at least, are automatically wrong to have abandoned their beliefs. I will paraphrase some of the replies given to me:

Your soul is, really, crying out for God, otherwise you wouldn’t have this preoccupation of sharing your opinion on this subject. Those who contest God the most are those who need him the most.

You must’ve had some emotional problems, of feeling unloved, so you turned against God and all you claim as evidence is just confirmation bias for your decision.

It’s all about your ego, as if you had a brand new toy you want to show off.

All this, as if searching for truth were not a purpose in and of itself, as well as the refusal to believe in a lie (or a potential lie, when at the doubting stage).

This brotherly love, in this particular context, turns queasy, since one realises they are sometimes treated with kindness in the communal hope that they might one day be brought back to Jesus.

Respect for a person’s mental faculties does not enter this context, let alone and admission of the possibility that the person might be correct, at least partially. This so-called goodness is a masturbatory exercise, anticipating to be proven right in the near or far future.

Which makes sense, really; you don’t apply a modicum of consideration to someone else’s processes when you are convinced your point of view will be vindicated sometime by an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Which is why religion is so toxic when it comes to human interaction.

They accuse others of Neo-Marxism while arguing for the propagation of potential falsehoods “for the good of the collective”.

The world would crumble without religion. We would revert to a beastly nature and society would dissolve. Everyone arguing against the respect for dogmas is playing a part in a Neo-Marxist conspiracy to deprive mankind of its divine connection.

It appears as though this modern red scare, becoming clearer by the day, could not have succeeded in adding to the ideological tension, internationally, without the aid of religion. Whereas the left does exaggerate (and it often does), a new type of hysteria has arisen over the last few years, proved to be partially pushed by online Russian propaganda. Namely the right and far-right’s conviction that there is an international conspiracy, rooted in atheism or satanism or both, to eradicate the “true religion”, namely Christianity, through reforms demanded by the left.

Whilst more eccentric theories such as the belief in reptilians or a flat Earth are not so widespread, for obvious reasons, the theory of a sustained persecution of Christians in secular countries is something in the vein of Ebola. It stretches from lamenting the so-called war on Christmas (which they still see as genuinely connected to Jesus, despite undeniable evidence to the contrary), to congregations warned of the dangers of vaccines, seen as a tool of depopulating the planet (again, in spite of all evidence of the diseases now eradicated through vaccination).

There is no end in sight to this. Just as the radical left is driven by a false sense of knowing it all and having absolute moral superiority, the religious right is driven by the presumed need to defend the status quo “in the name of God”.

There is a truck-load of cognitive dissonance regarding what is known and unknown about God.

On the one hand, when discussing this world’s atrocities and the apparent divine uninvolvement in them, Christians for instance claim God’s reasons are unknown, and therefore cannot be judged by us mortal, limited humans. That is the basic response to every question involving why does God allow so and so to happen.

On the other hand, and sometimes in the very next breath, a Christian will claim to speak for God, by claiming this is what God wants or does not want, this is what God feels and this is what God will do.

No comment needed here.

The unwillingness to doubt implies a lack of basic intellectual honesty in debating non-theists.

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of religion is its power to provide unwavering convictions to its propagators, to the point of rendering them unwilling, and through that temporarily incapable of opening themselves up for an honest debate.

Since their stance is combative from the very beginning, coming from a point of presumed moral superiority, there is no getting through to them with hardcore data or logical arguments. These just do not penetrate that shield of apriori “nothing you say will ever make me doubt”.

Which renders the whole conversation rather pointless.

Waco Should Have Sealed The Gun Debate A Long Time Ago

It’s always shocking to see that hours after a tragedy, such as Sandy Hook or the recent Las Vegas shooting, conspiracy theories pop up, focused on political goals rather than respecting the victims long enough for their final number to be established, at least.

What is known about the Las Vegas  shooting at the moment is that one crazy man, opened fire on a crowd at a country music concert. A week before that, he had transferred a large sum abroad for his partner, which shows that this was likely premeditated well in advance.

And many things can be said regarding the deep divide the US is facing right now, spurred on by politicians, who seem to want to radicalise people by the hour. After all, politicians don’t usually suffer when regular people kill each other in the name of their ideologies.

However, this event is being exploited from a different angle as well.

This was a false flag, done so the deep state can take our guns, shouted Alex Jones and the like.

Human life, to some, is worth just as much as a few points scored towards pushing political propaganda.

It’s true that when a person with murderous intent is set on committing a heinous act, there are ways to go about it. They can, as has happened so many times recently, drive a lorry into a crowd.

Yet regardless of a person’s motive and the inability to completely prevent such an act, steps can be taken to limit access to powerful lethal weapons, such as firearms, which would at least prevent a lunatic from comfortably shooting from a balcony with no less than ten of them.

Paradoxically, as the US engages in a major effort to protect its borders from terrorists and religious fanatics, inside of those same borders, people with mental issues can buy guns and use them to commit mass murder. Such was the case of Elliot Rodger, who had already seen several psychiatrists for his issues, and was in the system as having psychological problems, yet had no problem purchasing firearms on the same day he used them to shoot randomly at innocent people.

Political propaganda often works with abstractions – much like religion does.

By worshiping the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, for instance – though it has no practical applicability nowadays. It had one then, when everyone, the government included, had access to the same type of weapons. But that was centuries ago.

It makes no sense to say that in this day and age, guns can protect people against the violence of a tyrannical government, which has an arsenal at its disposal, with the ability to blow up someone’s home by pushing a button, with no warning whatsoever.

More than two decades ago, in 1993, when technology hadn’t even advanced to this level, the futility of piling up guns as a means of resistance was proved by the siege at the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas, where dozens of people were trapped and massacred by government forces. The guns they had amassed were unable to protect them against a tank and chemical weapons which eventually set the whole place on fire. Moreover, their act of buying and amassing guns was what turned them into a target in the first place. However one feels about what they were doing there, as a bona fide religious cult, one can agree they did not deserve to die like that, and that the government can and does act with no scruples, killing people of all ages, including babies, in horrible ways. After detailing what went on in a documentary, to prove the tyranny the US government is capable of, Alex Jones keeps arguing to this day that guns are an effective way of resisting it.

Fast forward to 2015, in Waco, there was a mass shooting between two biker gangs, outside a restaurant. Nine dead, 18 wounded and 117 arrested. The place was littered with guns, as many of the participants had come armed. Guns on the pavement, guns on the floor, guns in the toilets. It was an incident waiting to happen. The police took note of the danger of this gathering yet allowed them get on with their business initially. Because of  this gun culture. Now where else in the western world would this be allowed to escalate, with no intervention? Two large gangs, armed to the teeth, gathering to settle a dispute, as the police stood nearby.

On October 1st alone, besides the mass shooting in Las Vegas, 37 other people were killed by guns across the US, each one in a separate incident.

While so many are polarised by taking one political side or another, this keeps happening. Every single day. It doesn’t take a genius or a US citizen to see there is something wrong with refusing to accept that fact.

And that remains a fact, not propaganda, regardless of what political party holds the reins of power.

This post was corrected by removing the part about the Las Vegas shooter’s  presumed links to Antifa – it turns out this too came from Alex Jones.

Confessions Of A Former Homophobe

Religious tolerance is on everyone’s lips nowadays, yet increasingly difficult to sustain, depending on the circumstances. Tolerance is far more easily attained when equality is present – when a religious group cannot push back the rights of others, justifying it as a crusade and needing no other reason than that.

For me personally, as an agnostic (regarding the possibility of a universal order, yet not regarding the artificiality of existing dogmas), this is not directed at one in particular, but rather at the concept of having a state religion, whether officially consecrated in laws or not.

This comes in the context of my country of origin, Romania, being in the process of “defending the traditional family” by modifying the Constitution to have it state that marriage is “between a man and a woman”, by this making sure that any attempt of legalising gay marriage will not be successful in the near future. As things are now, 70 to 80% of voters agree to this measure, partly driven by the feeling that there is an international conspiracy to subvert Christian nations. This is disseminated through part of the media and on a large scale, in churches.

And I can say, not without a fair amount of shame, that a few years ago I used to think like them, when this delusion added to the Christian base of my education. In order to see religion realistically, one must step outside of it and look at it from a distance, just like one has to when wanting to see the whole mountain and cannot do so while sitting under a tree at the foot of it.

In order to see the poison, the distortion and brainwashing one is subjected to when growing up in a religious country.

In this political context, of the need for a culture shift in order for everyone to have equal rights, a false need for preservation is foisted in people by propaganda, which makes them think a so-called soulless western world seeks to upturn their values and impose a Neo-Marxist tyranny upon them. Nothing could be more false.

They are arguing for a fossilised ideal, which was never a reality and can never be – the so-called sacredness of the traditional family, which is, as we speak, laden with a large number of divorces, child abandonment, infidelity and insecurity, on every level.

Moreover, their views on gay people are even more divorced from reality. Their main argument resides in the Bible, in a country which is not a theocracy, yet has managed to maintain a level of religiosity and ignorance enviable by Middle-Eastern theocracies.

For a member of Parliament to cite the Bible as a reason for discriminating against part of the population they are representing seems unreal in 2017, yet that is the reality.

And this reality is quite grim. Because gay people cannot wait for a few generations to enlighten themselves. They need these rights now. In this day and age, they are living as couples in secrecy, because of the risk of facing a backlash if found out. In the current year, in Europe, this is totally out of place. And yet, when this is debated by politicians, Biblical views are cited as relevant.

It’s quite baffling, really, the influence these archaic, unfounded views continue to have.

That other people’s sky goblins have to be shown reverence, or at least a modicum of respect, by those who do not believe in them.

That anyone should think an infringement on their presumed right to discriminate is an infringement on their “freedom of religion”.

Religious brainwashing is not limited to the countries where violence against infidels is encouraged. Christians lead their own “holy wars”. And some of them explicitly target people who are born with a different sexual orientation, and who have done so throughout history.