Incompetence Inc.

After the overwhelming audience I received for my last article “Does God Exist?” – Does It Matter?, I have decided to write this editorial regarding some of the ignorant and disturbing comments that I have received in reply to that.

I am indeed to referring to things like this:

noob666
“wow, i reckon its impossible to know the truth, believe wateva u wana believe, no point arguein about it tho- right?”

or:

Samantha
“Honestly, I don’t understand why so many people are out there to bash christians as well as religion. Why is it sooo important for people to disprove God, or rant about how God’s teachings are way off.”

Now I will explain why there is a point in arguing about it, why it is sooo important for people to disprove god or rant about how god’s teaching are way off.

Let’s look at the following situation:

We choose to ignore religion (or for that matter anything bad in our society), this appeasement leads to them continuing their beliefs and practices, this leads to continued discrimination against groups of people that they hate, and then another religious war breaks out. We are stuck like sheep in a flock, almost as much as them following their blind faith.

God is your shepherd – he wants to breed you for wool and meat

We have done nothing to stop them, and hence the problem continues.

No, as you might think, the problem is not god, it is not about knowing the truth about his existance. It is about realising that religion is causing problems and questioning it, because without questioning, protesting or condemning it, nothing will ever change.

You see, the only way mankind has progressed has been through challenging the status quo, not being a sheep, sometimes unfortunately, that has been through war.
Revolutions have been caused by revolts, changes in legislation – from people advocating and pursuing their ideals, their rights.

Human progress has not come from sitting still and ignoring politics.

It’s all part of God’s plan!!! :):)

God’s plan??

This is why it is important to argue about the morality of religion and rebut the views of the fundamentalists who hurt this planet.

Sure you may say that not all people are extremists, and hit me with crap like that.

But you are part of an idea, which preaches intolerance and hate, and which is responsible for so many of the world’s wars.

Others may think that it will not make a difference. No religious person will ever be swayed. Plus, what can one person with a small blog do?

But they are oh so wrong.

It is not one person, there are many people who share these views, and the internet has opened up a portal for them to appeal to others.
Let us take a look at any human rights issue, say homosexuality.

As our society has progressed, and accepted diversity more and more, we have seen what may be called the “gay revolution”. Homosexuality was portrayed in the media, and was tolerated (by most) and today there are far more openly gay couples then there were 30 or 40 years ago.

The same can be said with atheism. It is no longer considered Satanism, devil worship, communism or immorality. It is accepted as a point of view, and thus atheist numbers have grown dramatically. That is the effect of popularisation and the free media in our society.

So I hope you heed my call and stop being an ignorant little sheep.

Argue about religion.

Well this is one question that everyone seems to rant on about on interweb blogs or articles and one that I have been asked to write about it since the beginning of this blog, being so avidly anti-theistic and all.

However, feeling that this has been overused, overranted, overwritten, overabused and overwaffled about, I will instead talk about the complete irrelevance of it. I will show that it has no meaning, no point and no reason. It is just, plain, dumb.

This is god:

BOW DOWN TO THE ALMIGHTY!!! GIVE HIM YOUR SOUL! YOU SINNER!

What’s that you say? He isn’t god? He doesn’t exist?

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!
You point to a picture of:

Well they can’t both exist, can they?

There are so many theories about different gods, different interpretations so many differing views, that obviously not one of them is true.

Now apparently far more people believe that this “Jesus” character is god, rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (They’ll all burn in hell)

Now more importantly these so called believers, feel that they must do the work of their one (three apparently) true God/s.

Now that’s quite easy to do because obviously:

God hates fags

God hates America

God hates Sweden

God hates Canada

God also hates homophobes (hmm)

God hates figs

God hates Christians

And more importantly

God hates Fred Phelps

So of course it’s quite easy to do god’s bidding as there’s such a variety of things to hate. Oh, God is so devilishly evil!

So really this all loving god loves everything so much that he just must hate those damned figs.

Quite frankly, I do not believe god exists, but if he did, would that change much? Would that justify all the killings that were done in his name? The death to the infidel? The evangelical blubberings?

All the hate?

Would for so many the need to worship god be justified? Does it not occur to them that if god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnifarious, omnipotent and an omnibus, he does not need to be worshipped?

God

Apparently Christians believe that they must worship “god” and go to church because he tells them that they should meet with other Christians, talk to each other. Yes, because of course, Christians are superior to all other humans, and the status quo just doesn’t suit their elitist organisation.

I ask you now, will the existence of god change anything? If he was all of those omni things, then wouldn’t a lot of Christians, Jews, Muslims etc go to hell? If there is such a place, and if it’s even a bad place. Because Satan sounds nowhere as bad as god. He believes in logical, rational thought rather than blind belief. He is described as intelligent even. Hell sounds like a lovely place to me.

It’ll suit me just right…..

A friend of mine, Jack, has written an article response to my post on censorship. In an attempt to reduce my arguments to oblivion, he has used contradictory arguments and personal attacks, which were neither warranted nor necessary. I will now respond to his article.

The full post can be found here:

here

or

here

Jack begins his claims with an attempt to clarify that governments must do some “governing”. He says that censorship is as much a tool of control as “taxes, laws, town planning and education.”

This argument will now once again take us back to the roots of democracy, another reason for the inaugural formulation of government.

The American Heritage Dictionary offers us this definition of democracy:

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

For the sake of this argument, let us assume that we do live in a democracy as the Establishment has us believe.

All Praise The Establishment

According to the definition, the role of the government is to REPRESENT the people, nowhere does it say that it is a form of control.

In fact governments, a recently new concept, were created once the population grew too large, in order to gather the people, to represent them when making laws, not to control.

Regardless of how well the government represents the population (we’ll leave that for another time), its role is just that, represent not control. In fact, I would disagree with the whole definition of the word “govern”, which should not be a term used to describe “governments”, as ironic as that sounds.

Note that Jack refers to taxes, laws, town planning and education as being similar to censorship. Here is how they are not.

As I share a moderately-left wing economic ideology, I believe that governments should be able to aid some of the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, individuals in society. That is why the taxation of the upper class is important in my view. It would help aid the lower classes with social welfare, education (which is important to avoid government control) and health.

You may also argue that the government representatives need an income themselves and a small share of tax will go to them.

The concept of laws is also a valid part of society. It protects people harming other people. No, words do not harm. Laws prevent such things as violence, theft or dangerous behaviour. All things directly affecting people. Unlike words.

I fail to see your point about town planning. About education, however, I feel that the opposite is plausible. A lack of education would lead to government control. It is easier to control unintelligent people than the educated. And education, when uncensored helps prevent crazed individuals from taking power.

What I believe is that any form of government works, when no corruption occurs. A rarity these days.

They’re everywhere…
Jack then goes on to say that censorship is not linked to greed, although I never mentioned it was. And that a rating system is in place, run by a whole board, which allows everyone to view appropriate material for their age category.

In fact, I not only didn’t mention that censorship is linked to greed, I said the opposite. I explained that people in higher positions feel it is their duty to protect others from words, and I feel that this is wrong. Once again, their may not be one old guy sitting in a chair, censoring the material, but the truth is, most government officials are older than the populations average, have more conservative views (which may come out after being elected) and are completely out of touch with what goes on in their country. Thus this “fair board” is not all that fair at all.

Unfortunately in Australia, the X-rating, the highest rating available, bans all forms of portrayed sexual violence, rape, fetishes or portrayal of under-aged sex. So no, adults can not watch violent bondage and rape scenes.

What you say about gang-rapes and portrayed murder, is only wrong in a society where we make it wrong. Yes, I am proposing a radical view here, but it is plausible if people just think outside the moral high ground Christian box that they were brought up in.

Also you seem to say that self-censorship and fear of retribution is a stupid argument?

Then how do you explain Stalinist Russia, where people chose to disassociate themselves with their family because of fear of retribution.

This part of your article takes a very contradictory turn.

I will quote:

“A person can say whatever they want, so long as it does not directly harm another person or incite hatred, the reality is that nobody will publish or air his thoughts because very very few people agree with him.”

and

“Imagine if a neo-nazi, obsessed with eradicating the jews gets hold of one of these mediums, just once. His advertisement promotes an anti-jewish rally in the city. “

Oh, but very few people agree with him, and he won’t get published… Make up your mind.

I agree with you om one point. The pen is mightier than the sword. Killing people is not showing might, but using your pen to create an intellectual work (such as this) is great, and only becomes greater when you take restrictions off the use of the pen.

Your point about the neo-Nazi is what I will address next.

In a censor-less society, the neo-Nazi will say what he feels, but will be shot down by the majority speaking out. Most people are not extremists, they will not support his views. And the public knowledge that the majority is against him will deter him from committing these acts of hate.

In the censored society, these hateful acts go on behind closed doors, the neo-Nazi supporters will gather in secret, and deal a surprise blow to their opposition. Wouldn’t it be safer to know when and where they are going to strike, if they do something as ignorant as discussing these acts in public.

Another hypothetical to deal with is the direct opposite of the hate-speech situation.

Say a majority hates a certain race, and a minority wants to speak out against the hate shown towards that race. Would we censor them?

Moving on, and Jack claimed that my statement saying Australia does not acknowledge free speech was bigotry. He directed me to this link, which he himself had not read

The analysis of legislature states:

“Freedom of Speech and the Constitution

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.”

Please do not call me a bigot, when you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of.

Bigot

In my conclusion I would like to address the issue of morality.

Yes, my stance on this issue is quite radical and perhaps not tested and tried. However, the issue of morals is what annoys me most about this.

What do you see as being moral? Is there anything wrong with viewing pornography, or children viewing it. Is acting out a death immoral? And how so? What dictates our morals. In a censored world, we believe those things to be immoral, unethical. But in a changed uncensored world, morals can change. Yes maybe the making of a violent pornographic film may be debateable as to whether it hurts anyone, but viewing it never can and never will.

Thank you for everyone’s support on this. After just four days I’ve had 1700 hits, made the homepage of shoutwire.com, and am 50th on WordPress.com’s most popular blogs

…Absolutely nothing.

At least that’s what any sane person should think when posed with this intelligence defying question.

Why have censorship?

Are our human eyes too vulnerable to see something that us humans have created?

Must something as natural as a man and a woman… and a dog making love be so taboo, that we must pretend to look away in disgust?

The concept of censorship in and of itself is just a tool for the government to control its people, the consequence of the greed of people in positions of power. Which leads on to the first question of why governments are initially formed?

Governments were created to effectively gather the people, to increase their production value.Now if somebody were to have an idea of a more effective way of rule, or if somebody thought that someone was using innapropriate techniques in seeking to increase yield then why should their ideas be suppressed, why must their opinion on how to better the system be stifled. In this sense censorship is not only useless, it is hurting the society.

The human mind has evolved to come up with ideas of its own, and now those are considered “dangerous”.

We have seen these societies develop in the 1920s, and at their peak they caused the biggest war in history, and tens of millions of other “removals”. Now our democratic society is heading down the same track. More on that further down.

Another issue that must be addressed when addressing the issue of censorship is libel.

That key word that often gets used along with those such as “complicit” or “rehabilitation”. Quite frankly libel is all that, and nothing more.

It is used, because the government wants us to believe that words hurt people.

Full image credit to Pox of http://hacksawstudios.tk/
Unless they’re censored of course:

Pox again
One must indeed ask why libel must be so wrong?

Surely words do not impale, shoot, or kneecap people. What is the point of having laws against it? Why can I not call someone a terrorist whore, convict them of murdering people and then call him a dirty Commie all in one sentence? Why is that wrong?

Sure, you may argue that people will start to hate him/her, and that someone’s reputation will be ruined.

However, that argument only works when slander IS illegal. If there were no laws protecting that, then who cares what anyone says about you, suck it up, everyone is getting the same shit thrown in their face. Who cares?

Unfortunately too many people care. And those people aren’t the ones who are defamed. They are people in positions of power, who feel it is their duty to carry out the bureaucratic censoring. Even more unfortunately our society today has too many of them, and this could ultimately lead to a fascist state.

I have first hand experienced being censored due to charges of defamation. And this experience has bought a fear of sanctioning into my mind, that I doubt will ever go away.

Sure you may think that writing this blog shows that I have free speech. But little do you know that I myself have censored parts of it to avoid sounding offensive.

Maybe there won’t be a consequence in response to this article or the previous one, but it is that inherent fear, that self-censorship going on, that causes the problem.

My real views are not appearing in the public domain, they cannot be heard due to fear of retribution.

Unfortunately in Australia, our freedoms are not even legally supported, and freedom of speech is not accepted as such.

The Commonwealth Government have tried several times to make flag desecration illegal, and that is just not right. Desecrating the flag, the most important symbol a Nation has, is a strong act of rebellion and is a fundamental part of free speech.

If a society is built on ideals such as this what will stop it from becoming a Stalinist regime? A 1984 in the 21st century?

If my views cannot be fully portrayed in writing, then where is the room for change? How will the society reform, progress?

My blanket argument about this issue, is that censorship has no place in society.

Yes, that means pornography, violence and OH MY GOD PROFANITY on our television screens.

Now you may think this is all blasphemous and wrong, but before I hit you with the “good outweighs the bad argument”, which it does, let me firstly refute the fact that any of it is bad.

Once again return to my introduction. I posed this question:

Are our human eyes too vulnerable to see something that us humans have created?

I sure as hell think that it shouldn’t be.

Firstly, profanity. There is absolutely nothing fucking wrong with saying fuck a few fucking times. It’s a word, it’s not going to burn your eyes, it won’t impale you. I see nothing wrong with saying any word in any language. We made it up… what the fuck does its definition have to do with anything. What makes a word “rude”, the whole concept of words being “wrong” to say is pointless.

Next I move on to the content issue. Why is sex so wrong? It is a natural occurence, it happens everyday, your children were created by it, and now you try to protect them from it? I plead to all parents, instead of restricting what your children see, educate them about it. Tell them that it is not taboo. Also tell them that it is not good to be a slut, or a consumerist whore.

About all other content, television shows and movies are made by actors, who act, with fake blood, and plastic machine guns and computer generated death. VIDEO GAMES HAVE RESPAWN POINTS

They are not fucking up your children.

Censorship is wrong.

Hence we have a non totalitarian society. Simple ain’t it?

EDIT: A good friend of mine has written an article refuting the articles posed here. It can be found here: http://junaman.wordpress.com/rebuttal/ 

A reply will be posted in due time

Also please ensure to direct all hate mail to junaman@gmail.com

This is Israel:

Yes that’s right, the small, peaceful little one, surrounded by the Big Angry Arab Nations, and little Angry Arab Lebanon to the north. Or so the Israelis would like you to think.

The modern Nation that is today called Israel, was officially created on 14th May 1948, when the UN passed a “resolution” to give the Jewish land of Israel independence and remove it from British control. Now “resolution” is one of the harshest things I’ve heard in a while, that would be like slitting your already scarred wrists, dousing them in petrol and setting fire to them, because, quite frankly, the only thing it resolved was the brief period of peace that could have ensued in that region. Nevertheless, the resolution was passed when a majority of UN members voted for a Zionist Jewish state.

Let us have a look at Zionism.

Dictionary.com defines Zionism as:

A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Basically, it’s a form of Jewish nationalism that believes that the Jewish people should have a home in Palestine. That they should kick Muslims out of their homes in Palestine, take away their land and take it for themselves, just because it says so in a nearly 2000 year old book or because god told them it was theirs.

Quite frankly, the concept is stupid. If humans were to return to their historic roots we would all be living in Africa.

That however is not the only problem. The unfortunate part is that the concept is also dangerous: one of the most racist ideologies in modern times. The problem is that the land they so desperately “need” and have is the single piece of terrain that would cause the most problem.
The Jews believe that the land is theirs, and some will stop at nothing to get it. And now that they have it, they don’t care how many people they must kill to have it. And with the support of the whole Western world, who unashamedly hates those “dirty Arabs”, and 27 000 nuclear warheads on their side, there’s nothing to stop them.

Perhaps, one might argue, successfully, that Israel could have gotten the message back in 1948.

Yes that’s right. 1948. Israel receives independence on a shiny platter. SURROUNDING COUNTRIES (yes, all of them) INVADE ISRAEL. War ensues. People die. 700 000 refugees left homeless. Israel gains land. Arab countries return to build up force again.

Now you would think that right then, back where it began, Israel would have realised that maybe being there was not such a good idea. Perhaps they would have thought of another place to go.

Sure you may argue that many countries gained independence through a war, but they usually defeat their enemies, unlike in this case, where Israel REMAINED SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHOSE RAGE FOR THIS COUNTRY HAD JUST BEEN INFURIATED.

I MEAN, I WOULD BE THINKING: GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE. Considering how the surrounding countries had in some cases extremist governments, and definitely extremist organisations, this was the sane thing to do.

Recently I have been advocating a peaceful Israel, in Northwest Texas, USA:

This way, Israel can keep their priceless dessert, keep the West Bank and Gaza, and have about 10 times the land area, due to the incredibly poor scale of those two maps.

But no, Israel sat up on its high horse just waiting like a sitting duck.

Several wars later, we’re at the conclusion of another violent conflict, where Israel has used inhumane tactics against an “extreme” opponent, who in my view has been well behaved comparatively.

Please also note that in the definition of Zionism, it states that the movement was founded due to the increasing Anti-Semitism in Europe. Well unless Israel hasn’t noticed, the “in” thing in Europe now seems to be tolerance. It was quite clear that they took a turn to the liberal politics after the Second World War, and haven’t harmed a flea since then.

Thus I will take the liberty to propose this:

I am quite sure that no one will have any problems with this arrangement.

It is quite clear, that the situation in the Middle East will not solve itself, and I am only proposing solutions for a better future.

I feel that I have said enough, if not too much about this already. I feel the need, however, to reinforce.

Israel should have learnt its lesson back in 1948, when they were invaded only hours after becoming a nation. Unable to wipe out the numerous extremist groups that knocked on its door, the “peaceful” state should have gotten the hell out.

That is why excuses today about Israel only “defending itself”, have little to no weight. Unfortunately they are bought by today’s media, who, have done nothing to condemn their actions. Sure, they may be reporting the facts, about the war, and how there have been bombings on both sides. But they have bought the “self-defense” story and done nothing to report otherwise.

Finally, a post about Israel cannot have no mention of the US. Those bastards, where the Jews rule the media, and have control of the major corporations, have gone against the flow of all other major powers, and have not condemned Israel. They deserve to be punished.

We all know the ceasefire is not going to last.

junaman

Please note that my blog is now also at www.incompetence.tk and direct all hate mail to junaman@gmail.com (please!!!)

To start this blog off, I will write something that has been bothering me for quite a while. In my time I’ve had the great displeasure (or sometimes pleasure) of disliking: Christians, Muslims, homophobes, teachers, Jews, celebrities, Republicans, fascists, conservatives etc…

And only recently I came to a stark realisation. I hate people.

It was Shakespeare who said: “People are such arseholes”. Well no it wasn’t, but that’s just because he is an arsehole. That just proves my point.

Shakespeare – an arsehole

Let’s face it, humans are the scum of the Earth.

Whether white:

or perhaps

White

Black:

or maybe even…
Black

Or Spanish:

Spanish

people are what make this planet the hell hole it is…

So I plead to you all, when hating somebody, remember to hate not their skin colour, nationality, gender, sexual preference, religion, but their species. Please hate the fact that they are human above all else.

Think about it. Had Mel Gibson been stopped drunk and speeding and said something like: “People are responsible for all the wars in the world”, he would not only be completely right, but no one would care. In fact he would probably have been considered the nicest guy in Hollywood for being so anti-war and all… until they remembered his film career that is.

Mel Gibson

No I am not trying to be all anti-prejudice or anything. I truly DO hate all people. They’re selfish, stupid, warmongering bastards.

Before I finish this first attempt at literary skill, I will tell you that you can comment on my post.
But beware, I will leave you now with something that should go at the end of all of my blogs, a great quote from a great mind:

“I Don’t Care”. Shakespeare again… or Hobby or someone.

Please direct all hate mail to junaman@gmail.com.

Well, seeing as my latest boy in space adventures have come to sudden end, (no, I’m not crazy) I have decided to start this better, far more serious blog. Obviously what you’ll first notice is that it isn’t run by Microsoft. And hence it doesn’t deserve the retardedness of Boy.

This blog will be more opinionated, with more English words and less imaginary words. Basically, a place for me to express my ultra Christian, neo-conservative, fascist views and show that America sincerely is the one true Democracy and that it must liberate the East at all costs.

Or if a true conservative was reading this he could describe my posts here as blasphemous liberal trash…

My first editorials will soon follow… these ones will have pictures!