Through these documentaries I was able to learn about the work of some wonderful people like Dr. Micael Ledwith and Dean Radin. However, out of all these the most curious to me was a man by the name of David Icke. I thought most of the people that I saw interviewed for many of these documentaries had some very interesting things to say but David Icke really stood out for some reason. What he said made the most impact on a lot of levels. I took it upon myself to learn more about this person and what he had to say.

To me, reptiles were nothing more than garden snakes, lizards, and dinosaurs. When I was a kid I used to watch a show called Dinosaucers about a group of friendly (and unfriendly) dinosaurs from outer space. It was actually a pretty cool show. But that was the extent of what I thought of reptiles. Fast forward 25 years and here I am listening to this guy talk about a reptilian influence on our world and I was like “What the fuck?”. I couldn’t believe it. But that wasn’t the thing that got me interested in David Icke. All that stuff about reptilians and whatever was all afterward. What first drew me to him was what he said in the film Thrive about being concerned about what other people think. Here is the clip that got me thinking:

I didn’t have to even think about it, it just clicked like a light bulb being turned on. It made sense what he said about how the norms of society have conditioned people to care about what other people think, especially those close to us like family and friends. I had more clarity on this after learning about his history and what he went through. And then I thought to myself, well if he can do it, so can I. It may not be easy but it’s not impossible either. So from then, I learned about his website and about some of his theories and then I learned about the whole reptilian thing. Now, I’m not going to say that I believe or don’t believe what he says about reptilians but I will say this: a lot of times truth is stranger than fiction and if what he says about reptilians is true, then it is stranger than any fiction I’ve ever heard.

I will say this about David Icke, he’s got balls to do what he does. But what I like about him is that unlike a lot of people who stand there and spout off a lot of things and expect everyone to believe them, Mr. Icke says “You don’t have to believe what I say, I’m just presenting it and you do what you want with it”. And it’s not like he’s the only person in the world who can do what he does. Really, anyone can. I think the key is to step out of that “hassle-free zone” that he talks about. And it’s true: there really is no greater stopper for a person than the fear of what others may unflatteringly think about them. It’s also interesting to note the notoriety that Mr. Icke has. Many people claim that he’s basically some kind of charlatan and he very well may be but then look at the nonsense that is being thrown out through the media and how it has been consistently proven to be wrong by many people, not just Mr. Icke. People have known about the manipulation of their minds through the media for quite some time now so it’s really nothing new. However, of those who are aware of the media manipulation, how many of them continue to watch television, or hear the radio, or read the newspaper, and continue to experience the same manipulation over and over and over again and just accept it as a way of life? How many times will those people who are aware of the media manipulation continue to expose themselves to commercials and advertisements? Suffice to say, there are some things that David Icke says that aren’t groundbreaking but when he starts talking about the “why’s” of such a situation, then that’s where it gets interesting.

I watched a program called David Icke: Was He Right? where it shows him more as an individual rather than the “conspiracy theorist” people label him because, whether you believe it or not, “conspiracy theorists” are people too. It was nice to see David Icke as a man who loves to play soccer and spend time with loved ones and walk on the beach. I sometimes wonder what kind of music he likes or what his favorite food is. I know that a lot of people find such things trivial but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wondering what people enjoy for food or music. It’s one of the things that make us united. We are after all, as David Icke says, “infinite consciousness”. And I like that because it’s a nice thing to know and because it is quite possibly true. I mentioned in a previous blog about how I spent time talking with a Lutheran pastor the other day. He was a nice guy and quite handsome. What I didn’t like was how he kept harping on this idea that we’re all “born into sin”. I wish I had the stamina to slap his handsome pastor face for thinking such stupidities. What a terrible thing to think about yourself, being born into sin. No wonder people are the way they are: the minute you start instilling in them that they are crap then the more like crap they’re going to feel like and live like. Ever wonder why there’s a problem in the so-called “inner cities”? Well, look no further than the type of thinking I just described and you’ll see why.

I read a lot of the criticism that he gets and I can understand where they’re coming from. I mean, it’s not everyday that someone gets up there and says “there are reptilian forces out there working against you”. I believe that a lot of the flack that David Icke gets comes from people being too attached to their personalized opinions of the world. In this world people are taught to accept this and not that. Personally, I find David Icke to be a very refreshing voice in the chaos of this crazy world. And so what if he talks about reptilians? It’s funny when you think of it. I remember him saying that at first, after everyone thought he was crazy, he would speak to a few chairs and some people. Nowadays, he fills auditoriums. What does that say about his message? Are more people “waking up” as they say? Or are they just crazy enough to hear some old loon talk about reptiles and world domination?

David Icke and others like him have helped change the way I see the world. I always knew that there must be another way to live that wasn’t what was being promoted by the masses. Because of David Icke and people like him, I’ve learned the truth about money, government, the media, and most importantly, people like David Icke have opened up a new way of thinking in regards to the “self” or whatever that is. Who and what are we, really? Are we the flesh and blood that we see in the mirror or are we something else that we’ve been told we weren’t? I think another problem with people who reject a lot of these different ideas is because they are not the standard norm and because of that they reject the idea out of lack of “scientific proof”. Well (and this goes out to all you precious Christians out there), remember a guy named Thomas who was like “Well, I’m not going to believe it until I put my finger on his jagged hand”? Well, here comes Jesus out of nowhere and shoves his jagged hands in Thomas’s face and Thomas bows to his knees and says “My Lord and My God”. Thomas had to see to believe and Jesus rebuked him for being incredulous. As much as I don’t like using examples of Christianity to prove a point, sometimes it’s necessary to drive home the message. Again, people are quick to dismiss anything that isn’t the established way of thinking. David Icke pretty much tells the established norm to go to hell and that there is an alternative to the media crap and control and boredom that we’ve been handed all this time. Besides, it’s only there to help people and who couldn’t use some help these days?

I’ve heard and read before that there is a cure for cancer. I’ve heard and read that there has been established contact with extraterrestrial life. I’ve heard, seen, and read about scientific knowledge that supersedes the established dogma of mainstream beliefs so much so that it would put it to shame. There has been so much out there that has broken down old ways of thinking and being yet there has been an effort to take over that and suppress it. Why?

I figure that in this world we are lead to believe that life as we know it is meant to be lived a certain way and that it cannot be deviated from or altered in any way. Yet there is so much needless suffering going and those at the top are content with suppressing information and controlling the masses that those who don’t follow the game are left to die on the street forgotten and discredited.

There are religions condemning every person out there who does not follow it. I was talking to a priest today who kept saying that we’re all born into sin. I thought to myself, what a terrible way to look at people. I’m not saying that there aren’t bad forces out there, but the more you harp on how bad humanity is, the more they’re going to believe that and be it and the worse off they’re going to be.

If you think something that’s different or out of the norm, people will think you’re a kook. They call people like David Icke crazy because he believes one thing about humanity and they call someone like Pat Robertson sane because apparently the man talks to Jesus every single fucking day of his life. One man is trying to say “Hey! You don’t have to live like this anymore! You can free yourself and be happy!” while the other one who talks to Jesus says things like “They deserved what they got because  of who they were and what they did and because God didn’t approve”. One man talks to Jesus and says such things while the other guy who doesn’t have anything to do with religion is saying something opposite. Yet the man who talks about freeing yourself from the bonds of modern societal thinking is crazy and the guy who talks to Jesus who’s condemning everyone who doesn’t believe in him is sane. What is wrong with people?

A lot of people say there are no such things as ghosts or extraterrestrials or it’s impossible to live outside of the standards set by society yet somehow a lot of people seem to be able to do this without hesitation. Why is that? Is it knowledge or strength or even finances? Who cares, really? You don’t need to be Oprah to make an impact on the world. You don’t need to be financially wealthy to be rich. You don’t need to follow in order to be an example. 

The television lies. Turn it off. Nobody gives a shit about Demi Moore’s marital status. Everyone knows that TV is a lie yet they still watch it because “it’s there”. I think that’s all the more reason NOT to watch it. People give in to being tracked and followed because “it’s already out there, what can you do about it?” Well, you can take back your power, that’s what you can do. There is an effort to keep people blind, stupid, and weak while others profit from their maniacal actions. Anyone seen thinking or doing something different is seen mostly as nuisances that mainly brushed out of the way. There’s always a reasonably sounding explanation for why something is or isn’t the way it is. And isn’t that funny? There, you have the answer to everything. How weak.

You take someone who wants to do something different that will benefit people and you shut them up with your “status” and what happens? The world continues to grow desperate. You suppress and destroy information and science that can heal people and send them onto another plain of enlightenment and they’re called “devil worshippers” or “heretics” and yet people wonder why the world is in the state that it is. 

Hating the oppressors isn’t going to do anything. Disapproving of their actions does. Doing something about it and standing firm in the face of opposition does even more. Refusing to be chained to archaic ideas and suppressive modes of living is strength and the more people have that strength, the more people can supersede their current condition. I say, step outside of yourself and outside of your world. Learn to love and accept. Love and kindness aren’t weaknesses. One need not be meek to show love and one need not be a doormat to express kindness. I believe the world isn’t affecting you, you are affecting the world and as long as people continue to be dumbed down to the point where the world affected is what we have going on right now, then they will get what they’ve always had. Sept outside of yourself and your world and you achieve consciousnesses beyond the limits of this world.

I was just wondering… 

So, who is in ownership of your information on Facebook? Mark Zuckerberg, in his convoluted English, wants to make you believe that you are but the evidence shows time and again that Facebook is constantly keeping your (and my) information and giving it to websites, institutions and to whoever else Facebook deems fit to give your information to. First, let’s clear some misconceptions. Facebook does not intend to limit its data mining to just Facebook users. Even people who don’t use Facebook and happen to get to a Facebook page or page with a Facebook “like” button have cookies implanted on their web browser that will allow Facebook to follow what that individual is doing on the internet. So, even non-Facebook users are susceptible to Facebook’s “Big Brother” tracking, even though at first Facebook denied doing so, as it has done so many, many times before.

How about deleting your profile? Ha! YOU WISH!!! Facebook has stated that even if you delete your profile, the information stays in their database for up to 90 days . Almost three months!!! My question is, what happens in those 90 days? How do we know that Facebook hasn’t successfully created a backup of that information before it gets deleted from one of their 60,000 servers? How do we as a public know that the information once posted on Facebook isn’t really stored on some other database? Why is Facebook working so hard to steal information, because that’s what it’s doing? How long will people stand for this? Furthermore, how long will Facebook continue to justify the theft of personal information under the guise of “sharing”, as Zucky claims that Facebook does?

And let’s not forget everyone’s favorite, Facebook Timeline! Yes, that wonderful new adaptation of Facebook that, if it is allowed, will trace a person’s ENTIRE LIFE HISTORY right down to the jobs they’ve had throughout the years to the very day they were born. There may be scary monsters and demons running rampant in our world and imagination, but HOW DOES THIS NOT SCARE THE BEJESUS OUT OF ANYONE? If this isn’t the most blatant attempt (not like the other attempts weren’t blatant) to track and hone down the very person that you are short of stepping right up to you, taking your picture, hanging out with you 24/7, and sifting through your drawers to see what kind of underwear you have, then I don’t know what is. Information will be even more transparent (a word Zucky likes to use) and easily viewed by anyone. And what’s worse, EVERY Facebook is user is REQUIRED to have Timeline! You simply cannot opt out of it! You have to have Facebook Timeline!!! HOW DOES THIS NOT PISS PEOPLE OFF?!?!!

SOLUTIONS

While writing this, I asked a couple of people what they thought of Facebook. Their responses were pretty predictable: they like it and they like using it to keep in contact with people among other things. Most of the people I talked to had no idea of the information gathering techniques that Facebook was using except for one person who was told by 4 of their friends of this. One person I mentioned this to said basically, “Well, it’s out there. What can you do about it?” I thought to myself that was an incredibly weak answer and it’s the answer I’m sure a lot of people would give: the information’s out and there’s nothing we can do about it so why fight it? If there’s ever been evidence of a powerless “sheep” mentality, then that right there is a clear example. So what can be done about this, other than throw our hands in the air and accept defeat?

The good folks at LifeHacker.com have been kind enough to provide certain methods to limit or stop the data tracking done by Facebook. Alan Henry of LifeHacker recommends adding browser extensions that will block all Facebook cookies from your browser, particularly if you use Firefox or Google Chrome. I myself have changed the settings on my Chrome browser so that cookies are either limited or not accepted and even then, I clear out my cookies after every session regardless. I would recommend following the link above to see what the extensions are and how they work. Also, ABC News tech writer Lauren Effron gives additional suggestions on how to protect yourself from Facebook’s data mining operations.

The majority of websites offering solutions do clearly state one thing: clear your cookies! If you don’t know how, here are some helpful links to guide you in clearing cookies from your browser:

Google Chrome for PC, Mac, Linux, and Chromebooks

Firefox for Mac

Firefox for PC

Safari for Mac

Aboutcookies.org has a wider selection of newer and some older browser versions (although it does only contain the first version of Safari) and it gives instructions on how to delete and control cookies on your browser. Be sure to check your browser version by going to the “About” section on your menu options.

Short of deleting your Facebook profile, which I personally recommend doing anyway, the above mentioned techniques are some good ways to keep that pesky Facebook off your back. Regardless, I hope that these suggestions and others that you search for will help you combat Facebook and other websites like Google and Yahoo (among the many out there tracking you) on their attempts to track what you’re doing online and where you are in the world.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE…

I really didn’t have any reservations about leaving MySpace when I did. I was just plain tired of it but I wanted to find something that wasn’t so juvenile and so I found Facebook. Even though I thought it was strange that it still had my profile information after I had requested to delete it initially back in 2008, I thought nothing of it and went on from there. 4 years later and look at what’s happened and what’s been on the wires about Facebook. I thought it was fun at first because I really did like some of the features and things like throwing a pig at one of my friends or something. I thought that was fun. I’ve made a lot of interesting connections and have attended many wonderful events and met many people outside of Facebook because of it. And if it weren’t for their shady practices, I might still be using Facebook. But now that I know what I know and knowing how that affects me and my friends and loved ones and their loved ones as well, I cannot consciously continue to participate in this social phenomenon anymore.

Mark Zuckerberg has turned what at first might have been a fun and neat idea into something sinister and evil, granted with the backing he’s had from the sources it came from. I have yet to see The Social Network but since I’m not a movie buff and since I know that it’s just a movie I’ll steer clear of it for a while longer. The sad thing is all the people that I will be “leaving behind”, so to speak. No bother, I think. I can get their e-mail address or something to keep in contact. I say that there was a life before Facebook and there will always be a life after it. As I’m writing this, I haven’t been on Facebook for almost a whole day and as the curiosity is there to check what’s been happening, again, knowing what I know, I’d rather just leave it where it is. Eventually, I’ll have to get back in there and manually delete every picture, detail, comment, whatever I can find so that Facebook no longer has a record of it, I think. And you know what’s worse? I, like a lot of other people, really trusted Facebook as a way to really connect and to really share with others our lives because that’s what a lot of people want to do: to share their lives with their friends and loved ones. But as I see it, Facebook took that trust, flushed it down the toilet, and keeps giving justification for why it flushed our trust down the toilet and how I and others would supposedly benefit from Facebook flushing our trust down the toilet. And we’re supposed to just accept it! Well, maybe some people are willing to sit back but I and others refuse because Mark Zuckerberg and the whole of Facebook can tell me why I should be there and how safe and secure trusting them with my information will benefit me in the long run and the truth is that I don’t believe them.

FINAL NOTE

On January 27, 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook will be filing papers to go public. According to the news report, Facebook’s net worth is between $75 to $100 billion dollars. Think about it: how safe would you feel knowing that a public company worth that much is in ownership of your information knowing that they can do whatever they want with it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser (1977-1981)

MARK ZUCKERBERG AND THE FACEBOOK AGENDA

Mark Zuckerberg is a human being and as a human being, he is deserving of love and understanding like all human beings, regardless of who they are. However, his actions and the actions of those at Facebook make me mad. For starters, hearing him speak is irritating to say the least. Secondly, I’m further irritated at how dumb he thinks the general public is by constantly undermining the mentality of people out there. That’s not to say that there aren’t dumb people out there because there are, but his smugness is blatant and obvious.

I’m more than likely not the first person to feel this way about Facebook, let alone present the information you’re about to read, but let’s get right to the point: I was watching this interview at a D8 conference in 2010 where he was being questioned mostly about the privacy issues regarding Facebook. What I saw really shocked me: an incredibly nervous and shaky young man who deflected questions and gave befuddled responses to questions it seems he didn’t want to answer. He was sweating profusely and had to wipe his brow a few times because of how much he was sweating. You cold tell he was VERY uncomfortable being questioned about user’s privacy. Throughout that, he apologized not for one moment Facebook’s constant invasion and theft of privacy and defended it to the core. Based on that presentation at the D8 conference, it led me to believe that Mark Zuckerberg was hiding something. After watching that interview, which I HIGHLY recommend that you do, it would be hard to believe otherwise.

(Click here to watch)

Here’s the deal: It is widely known that Facebook collects and keeps information about a person when they enter it on their Facebook profile. What many people may not know is that Facebook has found a way to track where you go on the web and collect data on you by installing cookies on your browser (it collects data on what type of browser you’re using, too) and it does it without your consent. Mark Zuckerberg’s justification for this is simply for “sharing” purposes between you and your friends. Not only that, according to USA Today, Facebook also collects data on your name, preferences, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and time stamps websites you visit that have a Facebook plug-in among other things. And even if you’ve logged off, Facebook with its cookies firmly implanted in your web browser continues to monitor your web activity. So either on or off Facebook, it still follows you wherever you go on the web and in the world.

SHARING IS CARING?

Mark Zuckerberg throws out the pretext of “sharing” in order to justify the collection of personal data. And it doesn’t stop there. Facebook has also implemented a plan to share user’s home addresses and telephone numbers with external sites. Despite the outcry of this new plan, Facebook continues to assert it and refuses to withdraw the idea with the hope of “evaluating methods to further enhance user control in this area.” Well, I have an idea: why not just NOT DO IT? Nobody wants their information given to third parties and nobody should have to customize anything to prevent this. Nobody wants to be followed when they search the web. It doesn’t matter what they’re searching for, it’s not Facebook’s (or Google’s or anybody else’s for that matter) business what you or anyone else is searching for on the web regardless of what it is. All of these tactics are what’s called “data mining” (I was unfamiliar with the term until recently). These and I’m sure other methods is what Facebook does to its users to keep leashes on them and monitor them. But why?

One of the primary reasons considered is that Facebook is actually connected to a series of organizations including the CIA, In-Q-Tel (a company created by the CIA that provides the latest in information technology), DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is a military organization that does God-knows-what), and the Information Awareness Office (an office set up by the government to be, you know, AWARE of information). Facebook was started in 2004 and at the time it used to be called “thefacebook.com”. Even back then, it was still believed that “thefacebook.com” had backing of some sort from the CIA. The video below gives an illustrated account of the connections between Facebook and these organizations.

In a nutshell, it is believed that Facebook is actually a tool used for mass surveillance of the general public, gathering as much information about a person as possible. These methods that have been explained through various articles and opinion pieces show how this is being done. Of course, Facebook will vehemently deny these accusations as it has done in the past, but the evidence shows up time and time again as to how Facebook grabs your information and distributes it freely and without your consent to organizations who have no interest in you personally, but in how they can use that information to their advantage.

One of the things that I found most disturbing about Facebook is their use of facial recognition technology. It basically uses this so that when people “tag” someone in one of their pictures, the technology will then match the tagged picture to that person’s Facebook profile, in essence. And what this does, according to PC World, is it creates “a huge, photo-searchable database of its users”. So basically, there’s your profile picture (what you look like) and all of the pictures in your profile. There are people who are tagged in them, which are then linked to their profiles and identities, which will then create a record of what your tagged friends look like since Facebook now knows what you look like. And then your friends tag you and their friends and other’s friends and so on and so forth until Facebook has a tangible database of people and information about where they live, who they are, what they’re into, where they work, where they are or have been (check-ins), what their spiritual and political views are, and lastly, what they look like. In essence, Facebook owns the data of who you, your family, and your friends are.

AHI ESTA EL DETALLE/ THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

Ever notice how Mark Zuckerberg gives such convoluted responses to questions that actually have a very simple answer? Just in reading his blogs and hearing him talk, it appears to me that he is throwing people off with what he says by what people who speak Spanish call “Cantinfleando”. To understand this, you must know about Mario Moreno or Cantinflas, a Mexican film actor who was famous for the comedic manner in which he spoke. Basically, he would throw out a lot words in response to a question without ever giving a clear answer and without ever really saying anything. This is what the CEO of Facebook does and he does it constantly, again, without ever being clear on what he’s saying or means to say. This can throw any person who’s familiar with the English language off their English-speaking rocker.

END OF PART 1. CLICK HERE FOR PART TWO.

Gays live a very sad life and it’s part of Satan- Michele Bachmann

Hatred. Throughout history, people have shown the extent of their despise for another human being creating reasons and justification for their hatred. From slavery to The Holocaust to ethnic cleansing, there has been an attempt to either wipe out or to submit people that others saw as unworthy of decency or even existence. Even with the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks were still seen as second class citizens of this country after they were maliciously taken from their native lands and brought to this country to become slaves. Then, with the Montgomery Bus Boycott that started the American Civil Rights movement, people had signaled that they have had enough of racial discrimination and segregation. The criminalization of interracial marriage was finally lifted in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court. To think that there had to be laws that criminalize and limit who a person could marry and what nationality or color that person had to be is profoundly backwards and absurd. Unfortunately, such absurdity continues to this day with the ongoing debate over Gay Equality.

THE BIBLE

There is a crusade in this country to humiliate, discredit and destroy gays and lesbians and their image. Gays are seen as immoral, sexually impulsive, predatory, and even pedophiles. Because it is seen as unnatural (and at times unholy), people have allowed themselves to be led around by religion, the media, politics, and whatever it is that people have been saying for years in order to make the decision that being gay is wrong and punishable by God and, apparently, society as well. One of the things that people use to justify hatred of homosexuals is the Bible. In particular, the book of Leviticus 18:22 where it states:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”

Just these few words have sparked one of the largest hate-filled campaigns against a single group of people ever. These words are taken from a book that is supposed to be about love and life and that’s been translated and renditioned more times than JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series of books. Those books have been translated into 68 languages whereas the Bible is currently available in just under 500 languages but has been available in as many as over 2500 languages, each of them with their own individual syntax and meaning, distinct from language to language and with none of them ever saying or meaning the same thing though people believe that they do. Then again, most people really don’t know anything about linguistics and just assume that every language is like their own with the same inflections and meanings which obviously isn’t true. Not only that, the Bible has been used to justify wars, slavery (since the Bible didn’t have any problems with people owning slaves), and general hatred for people. Not only that, Jesus Christ, the main figure of Christianity, said absolutely nothing on the subject of homosexuality. Yet people give constant justification toward the hatred of homosexuals and to their humiliation and even murder. What’s interesting is that the Bible also says that people shouldn’t work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), eat shrimp (Leviticus 11:10) or any other animal for that matter (Leviticus 11: 41-45) for people who break these laws face punishment by God including death. Yet people today eat animal meat and seafood and work 7 days a week and no one seems to say anything about it. Even with that, gay people have been demonized and persecuted because of who they are. This is a sign of a highly imbalanced society which places its priority on the common pleasures of the group rather than the rights of the individual and uses divinity as an excuse to justify their hateful and destructive behavior.

NATURE

There is also the argument that it is unnatural. People believe that nature is of God and anything that is deemed unnatural is not of God and therefore it gives people the incentive to persecute homosexuals. Also, there is an immense emphasis in society for procreation. For a moment, let’s step outside the human condition and look at homosexuality in the animal kingdom, which is replete with examples of homosexuality.

It would be difficult and painstaking to list every single animal based on their behavior, but let’s talk about some of the more clear examples. Male and female lions have been documented as having homosexual behavior, indicating that 8% of male lions engage in homosexual activity while females exhibit this behavior as well. That’s not to say that ALL lions show signs of homosexuality because then there would be no lions. It would probably be better to say that Lions are at the very least bisexual, procreating when necessary and then indulging in homosexuality as so desired.

The Whiptail Lizard is an all-female species of lizard that reproduces by a process called parthenogenesis, which is where an egg is developed without fertilization. The Whiptail Lizard, as an all female species, is known for having sex with each other. Granted, despite the homosexual nature of their reproduction, when one wants to mate with another, one of the females takes the “male” role and the other the “female” role, with the “male” flicking her tongue around her head hoping to incite the “female”. According to Nerve.com:

-If “she” is receptive, “he” grasps the nape of her neck in his mouth, climbs onto her back and swings his tail under hers so that their genital regions are in contact. Then he switches his jaw-grip to her pelvic region, so that his body loops around hers like a doughnut. The two animals remain in this posture for a few minutes before they disentangle themselves and go their separate ways.-

Roy and Silo are two penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York. Both are male and exhibit homosexual behavior. The zoo has offered female companions to them but Roy and Silo have refused them and the females equally refused them. The two male penguins were able to care for an egg until it hatched; they fed it and took care of until the penguin was able to go out into the world.

Shall I go on?

Giraffes are known to exhibit homosexual behavior, especially necking between two males. This act then leads to actual sex between the two males. Yes, sex like SEX. And they’re not the only ones. In fact, a gentleman named Bruce Bagemihl wrote a book in 1999 entitled Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. In it, he describes the homosexual behavior of about 300 different species of animals- and that’s just the ones that he’s researched! The subject of homosexuality in animals has been seen as controversial by the social conservatives because it asserts that homosexuality is indeed natural and not some abominable act as described in the Bible. If homosexuality is so abominable, why isn’t God smiting every bug, mammal, bird, and lizard that engages in homosexual behavior? So-called social conservatives cannot argue this point because they have no backing for their position now that the very science and biology they have held so dear has shown them just how wrong they and everyone else who believes homosexuality is a choice is.

PROCREATION

There is a heavy emphasis in society to procreate. So many politicians talk about family and the nature of it. There is pressure for men and women to get married and procreate and bring children into the world. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but let’s take a look at that for a moment. Right now, the world population is at almost 7 billion people. Population in the United States is just over 300 million people. The cost of raising children has gone up 40% from 2000 to 2010 and continues to climb. Schools in urban areas are becoming increasingly overpopulated while teachers are being left underpaid and overworked. Funding for education is constantly cut from state budgets. Resources for food and water are there, but their price is going up and so is the general cost of living. College tuition keeps going up and so are the costs of textbooks (which can range into the hundreds of dollars) and materials and even with that, there is no guarantee that after that individual graduates that they will find a job in the field that they mastered in. Furthermore, there is a little known but concerted effort by governments to depopulate the planet by means of sterilization, the creation of disease, and other methods. There is a lot more but here is the question: with the state of the world as it is and with people constantly preaching intolerance despite their beliefs, is this really a world children would be happy living in? What kind of adults are the children of back then turning into? And what of the children of today? What kind of adults will they be turning into? Wouldn’t it be more humane to have a segment of the population that doesn’t procreate, either by design or by want regardless of whether they were gay or not, that would just regulate the flow of people into the world without having to kill anyone for it?

RELIGION

Since homosexuality has been established as biologically natural, why are gays still feeling the danger of persecution? Well, one need look no further than the primary culprit: religion. Religion has been the sole cause of irresponsibility, havoc, destruction, and death more than any other man-made source in the world. People would say politics is destructive, which it is, but many politicians belong to a religion and are fueled by their religious beliefs (Michelle Bachmann is a prime example). If you want historical evidence of the violence in religion, just look at Northern Ireland. A dispute over the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and a difference of opinion between Protestants and Catholics led to a conflict that lasted over thirty years. If any of those people are truly Christian, how are any of those actions of God? How is bombing and killing each other a sign of religious sovereignty? How can God bless the actions of murder towards innocent people? Maybe Pat Robertson can answer that question, but any sane person can’t.

In today’s world, many Christian religions offer something called “conversion therapy” where essentially a person is “de-gayed” and “made” heterosexual. Many people in the scientific and medical field have confirmed that these programs don’t work and in fact cause more damage than good. So sorry, Ann Coulter, but you can’t “pray away the gay”. Christianity isn’t the only culprit in the persecution of homosexuals. Be it Islam or Judaism, ANY organized religion, unless otherwise stated, openly condemns and even kills people who participate in same-sex relations (OF NOTE: The link proving this has been listed as “no longer available”).

SOCIETY

As a side note, ANYONE who says that they used to be gay and isn’t anymore is LYING to you. Anyone who gets visibly upset over the implication that they might be gay or lesbian and says “I’m not gay” is LYING to you. Suppressing amorous feelings for the same gender by saying that you’re not gay or lesbian anymore or that they aren’t gay to begin with feeds the homophobia and it feeds the mainstream idea that being homosexual is wrong when clearly, as it has been demonstrated, is no more wrong than hair growing on the body. Now, because of religious and societal pressure, many individuals go into a sort of hiding, be it internally or hide in plain sight. They either use the above mentioned “conversion therapy”, prayer, or just plain act out in front of their friends and family giving the illusion that they are heterosexual. For example, a man who feels this kind of guilt is likely to attend a hang out with “the boys”, talk suggestively about women, be intensely involved in the security of their biological family (particularly their mother), get married and even, at the most extreme of cases, have children. Eventually what ends up happening is that the secret ultimately comes out. The pressure to live out acting as something that someone is not for the sake of staying within the confines of a societal norm can be so overwhelming that eventually the lid comes off and when that happens, one of two things will occur: chaos can ensue or peace can prevail. Either way, the outcome ends up leading to a divorce. Outcomes vary depending on individuals. Some individuals feel so much guilt and pain that they take such extreme measures that can eventually lead to suicide. Meanwhile, others are able to overcome the hurt and make peace with their former spouses and even remain friends afterwards. The choice remains in how the individual responds to the situation. If the person is constantly worried about what society might think, they are doomed to live out societal prophecy, whereas if someone decides to let go of the societal mindset, they can be free and live a self-assured and happy life. Again, the choice is theirs to make.

END OF PART ONE. CLICK HERE FOR PART TWO

The media offers a smorgasbord of misinformation about everything under sun and influences people to a great degree, provided the individual allows themselves to be guided by what the media puts out. The perception of various ethnic groups has been largely distorted in the media. For example, the perception of African Americans has been melded into society by such outlets as BET (Black Entertainment Television) and other mainstream programming, magazines, and music. Gays are no different. Gays have been presented as overly flamboyant, trendy, and effeminate whereas some Lesbians have been shown to be man-hating yet overtly masculine. Only recently has the media shown gays and lesbians as regular individuals who are prone to the same situations as heterosexuals. That’s not to say that there are people who don’t fit the stereotype because there are. They are still people. However, it is inappropriate to assume that all gay males dress up as women (drag queens do that and not all drag queens are gay), watch LOGO (which further embeds the stereotype of gays by presenting the same mind-killing programs mainstream media does), are fashionably trendy, and act like adolescent girls and that all lesbians hate men and are overly aggressive. But what is also more disturbing is another view of lesbians that suggests lesbian relations and even lesbian intimacy as a source for sexual pleasure for some men. What is the problem with this? Intimacy between two women has been regarded as some sort of masturbation fantasy for men and women are constantly subject this kind of material objectification, therefore demeaning the woman as a person and reducing her to a living sex toy. This is no different than confining women to the kitchen and to be baby-making factories. The objectification of women in this society is partly due to the homophobia predicated in mainstream society by sexually overactive heterosexual males who want nothing to do with being identified as gay and view women as nothing more than fuck machines.

“I ain’t into faggots. I’m not prejudiced. I just don’t go with gay people and kick it—we don’t have that much in common. … But women who like women, that’s cool.”- Curtis Jackson (aka 50 Cent)

Further examples of the media’s bash on homosexuality also comes from celebrities themselves. Comedian Tracy Morgan once stated that he would stab his own son if he were gay. Mel Gibson, who is known for his less-than-chivalrous comments, has also stated his opinion of gays. Other offenders and their quotes include:

“Well, you know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.”- Tim Hardaway

“When did everybody get fucking lumped in with the gays? Really? What percentage is transgendered?”- Adam Carolla

“They take it up the ass. This is only for taking a shit [pointing to his butt]… But with this look, who’s going to think I’m gay? It would be hard to take me for someone like that. Do I sound like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them? What happens is when you’re an actor, they stick that label on you.”- Mel Gibson

“Aww, hell no! I don’t want any faggots on my team. I know this might not be what people want to hear, but that’s a punk. I don’t want any faggots in this locker room.” – Garrison Hearst, Former Running Back, Denver Broncos

Because these people are high-profile, it gives the idea to most people that it’s ok to hate and bash gay people. What’s worse is that some don’t even apologize for it like Jackson and Gibson or give some half-hearted “I’m sorry” like Carolla. Sports entertainment is replete with anti-gay sentiment and because a lot of people like sports, they see it as normal and if they do apologize for their remarks, most fans lament the fact that they had to do it because homophobia is seen as OK by people. It sets a double standard. You call someone a “nigger” in sports and there’s huge outrage in the public whereas someone calls someone a “faggot” in sports and no one seems to turn their head. And it’s not just sports, it’s in popular music, movies, television, and publications where the media takes homosexuals and uses them as targets for rage, misinformation, and humiliation. In essence, they are considered less than human by mainstream society and the media.

THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY AND AIDS

Gays and Lesbians have also been the targets of the medical industry. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973. The almost equally-named American Psychological Association followed suit by declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1975. Still yet, gays and lesbians were prodded, shoved with medicines, and psychoanalyzed for exhibiting a natural behavior. Still, the biggest medical misconception about gays and lesbians is AIDS and HIV. It was once thought that AIDS and HIV affected only homosexuals, whereas now it affects all people from all walks of life regardless of “sexual orientation”. It is important to state that HIV does not necessarily lead to AIDS. Many people who contract HIV can live a long and healthy life without the virus ever developing into AIDS, but the idea that a person who contracts HIV will immediately get AIDS is not true. According to AMFAR, as of November 2011, there are 34 million people worldwide with HIV or AIDS. Since the AIDS epidemic started, it is estimated that 30 million people have died due to HIV related illness. The majority of the AIDS cases in the world live in Africa. Now, it is rational to say that not all of these cases are related to homosexual activity. However, there is a lesser known but accepted notion in some circles that AIDS and HIV are actually government manufactured agents used to control population.

CONSPIRACY?

Not very many people know about experiments done on hepatitis B patients in New York during the late 70′s. The New York Blood Center was experimenting with a new drug for hepatitis B and injecting it into healthy gay males. This was a vaccine that was reported to be developed in chimpanzees. The center was also reportedly linked to experiments in chimpanzees in Africa and at the New York Zoo before the AIDS epidemic began. As reported by New Dawn Magazine in 2005, the final version of the vaccine was developed by Merck (makers of Claritin and Pepcid) and the National Institutes of Health. The original drug was tested on chimpanzees by Alfred M Prince, M.D. in 1970. The Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery, or LEMSIP, tested the chimps at their facility. This organization also worked closely with the New York University Medical Center which received government contracts and grants to research biological warfare. Incidentally, both the NYU Med Center and LEMSIP were involved in the development of this new hepatitis B vaccine. In 1974, Dr. Prince moved his chimpanzee research to Liberia in Africa. Some of the chimpanzees used for this hepatitis B research were released back into the wild, which would make one wonder whether or not these chimps were infected with the virus now known as AIDS. Back in the United States, 1,000 gay males were injected with this vaccine and a high percentage (96%) were shown to have developed anti-bodies for hepatitis which would not have happened had their immune system been compromised. Tests went immediately underway in various cities in the West Coast, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Denver. The tests were completed in 1981- the same year that the AIDS epidemic was reported to have begun. It is also suspected that the World Health Organization (WHO) is linked to smallpox vaccine experiments in Africa during the 70′s. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute was reported as saying:

“The link between the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines, such as that used for smallpox, can activate a dormant infection such as HIV.”

It can be hypothesized by the actions stated above that there was some effort by the part of the government and pharmaceutical companies to develop some sort of agent. As to what the reason for the agent is, it is unknown. Reportedly, it was for hepatitis B. But it is interesting to note that as the tests for this new drug ended, the call for the AIDS epidemic to begin was made. It is also worth nothing that the story was never aired or reported in the media in the United States and was suppressed. The first cases of this new disease called AIDS would’ve been the gay males tested during the late 70′s in New York, since they were the ones who would’ve initially participated in the drug testing in the first place. As the coverage for AIDS grew and the cases of AIDS being reported to be mostly gay males, it would give the appearance that only gay males were affected with this disease, thus giving way to all sorts of confirmations of immorality and punishment. Hence, the world had another weapon to fight against homosexuals: the “punishment” of AIDS.

NAZI GERMANY

Speaking of punishments, Nazi Germany was notorious for handing out punishment to those who didn’t fit their ideal for humanity. It is estimated that over 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. What isn’t more widely recognized was the internment and killing of Gypsies, Soviets, Poles, people with disabilities, people with any religious affiliation (Catholic, Protestant, etc), anyone who opposed the Nazi government, and lastly, homosexuals. In total, it is estimated that between 10 and 11 million people (Jews and non-Jews) were killed by the Nazis (Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, Snyder (2010)) however, that number varies from source to source. So far, it has proven difficult finding the exact figure of people killed during the Holocaust. While there, prisoners were given a marker identifying the reason for their capture and stay in the concentration camps. This was usually a triangular badge of some kind. For example, a red triangle meant that you were a political prisoner, socialist, or freemason. A green triangle meant that you were a professional criminal. A pink triangle was used for people who were considered sexually deviant, such as homosexuals and rapists. If you were Jewish, you were marked by two superimposed yellow triangles, thus forming the Star of David. If you were Jewish and a homosexual, the pink triangle would be placed in front of the yellow triangle still forming the Star of David. In any case, people were branded, treated like dirt, and a lot of them killed for nothing more than being who they were in contrast to the propaganda that Adolf Hitler was spewing out to the German masses. In the book The Hidden Hitler, the author, Dr. Lothar Machtan, discusses Hitler’s sexuality and the possibility that Hitler was bisexual, asexual, or homosexual, despite varying accounts of his relationship with women (some who apparently committed suicide after). Although there is no solid evidence of this, Dr. Machtan suggests that Adolf’s relationship with a person named August Kubizek, a childhood friend of his, might’ve been one of a sexual nature, however, this cannot be proven. Incidentally, Hitler was described by Kubizek in his memoirs as saying the time he spent with him were “the happiest hours of my earthly existence”.

SO FAR…

So far, we’ve covered the attack of homosexuals by religion, the media, sports entertainment, pharmaceutical companies, and governments. That seems to be a lot of hating for groups of people who allege their benevolence by providing either wellness or happiness. All that’s left is the general public and their behavior towards gays which has gotten better throughout time but still needs a lot of work, particularly in areas where homosexuals are constantly demonized and treated like dirt. Still, gay-bashing is a problem in this country and examples like the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 and the severe beating of Jack Price outside a Utah bar in 2010 are signs that this society still has an unwarranted vendetta against homosexuals for no reason at all other than it’s taught to hate gays and that ideology is handed down from parent to parent, generation to generation, person to person, without justification, without variation, and without reason other than its acceptance as an acceptable form of institutionalized hatred and the “go to” target for aggression and hate. Nobody teaches anything else. Tolerance in society is on a conditional basis and as we enter into 2012, there are people who want to hold on to the values that this world had back in the 1950′s but guess what? WE DON’T LIVE IN THOSE TIMES ANYMORE!!! This is a new era, the beginning of a new period in the existence of humanity. This is a time where we are encouraged, more than ever, to exhibit love, compassion, and understanding. Not as a sign of our weakness, but as a sign of our strength and resilience that says, “We will not accept this hate anymore!”. Hate is bred from ignorance. People all over are taught to hate themselves and their lives because they will never live up to the standards set by the media. They mask their insecurities with preposterous show and pass themselves off as secure and stable. People are taught to go against one another because, quite frankly, “they’re not on our team”. And all of this lies in the ignorance that people can never be equal. Well, THEY’RE WRONG. People CAN love themselves (not with vanity, for vanity is fear) and each other without the media and society to dictate the standard for which they should love. That in turn means being able to love their neighbors, friends, co-workers, and people in general walking down the street. This is not some la-la land fairy tale pipe dream, this is a doable and workable reality that can be achieved through proper education and teaching, letting go of the old ideas that shaped the current thinking and forming a new one, and just the pure desire that says, “I’ve had enough of hate and intolerance!”.

IN CONCLUSION

One last thing, because this article can go on and on with more examples and more data. Here is the thing: with all of the examples above, it is important to remember that fighting back against homosexual bigotry is not to say that the same hate that is projected onto homosexuals should be projected back at the persecutors. People are still people. It is important to remember that love is the most important factor in anything. If anyone is a true follower of any faith, particularly Christianity, then remember the teachings of loving one another and the teaching of the “golden rule” of doing onto others as others would do unto you and not with any conditions and if the Bible teaches otherwise then maybe people should put that book away. It serves no purpose to hate anyone for any reason and the only way to decimate homophobia or prejudice of any kind is to exercise love- love for yourself and your fellow human beings. That and education. Educate yourself and other people about the things you don’t know about. Find out from varying sources, not just the ones recommended to you by the media. Besides, how can people fight prejudice with the same force and intent that created it? It would only feed it more and then it becomes a war and in the end, all that is left is casualties and there have been far too many of them already. It is time for a new way of thinking about each other and about life. Let go of the old ideas and welcome in the new. We can succeed and eliminate homophobia and prejudice everywhere. This may sound a bit cliché, but it only takes one person to say “yes” to a new way of thinking and it goes on from there to make homophobia and prejudice a thing of the past.

Thank You For Reading.

SOURCES USED:

http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/homosexual-behavior-animal-kingdom

http://www.nerve.com/content/the-science-of-sex-lesbian-lizards

http://www.learnanimals.com/giraffe/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/pf/cost_raising_child/index.htm

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/192884-Connecting-the-Dots-Mass-depopulation-on-its-way-and-the-Secret-Team-s-management-of-the-world

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.psychiatricnews.org/pnews/99-01-15/therapy.html

http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/gay-men-dating-women

http://www.affirmation.org/suicide_info/suicidal_behavior.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20070795-10391698.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2766213

http://jalopnik.com/5831323/could-adam-carollas-homophobic-rant-kill-the-car-show

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/brett-ratner-oscars-anti-gay-comments-259628

http://www.outsports.com/nfl/20021123eserahearstfollow.htm

http://www.outsports.com/antigay.htm

http://www.amfar.org/abouthiv/article.aspx?id=3592

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/the-secret-origins-of-aids-facts-fallacies-conspiracy-theories

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-dach-early.htm

http://prideinutah.com/?tag=gay-bashing

People say that there are two things you should never talk about: religion and politics. Reason for that is that people hold these things very close to themselves and if anyone even slightly differs from their perception of what is for them, then people tend to get very testy. It’s understandably so, especially in this society where beliefs are highly personalized and at some points stylized to fit a person’s level of comfort. The problem is that people can get a little too comfortable with these things and can get stuck on just believing the same thing over and over and over again and from the same source, too. For example, people get too comfortable watching the evening news for their source of world information, seeing it as the only viable source of news out there. Any references to the alternative media are seen with disdain because it isn’t Brian Williams or some other talking head giving the news.

And religion… forget it! No one dare speak ill of religion, let alone God to anyone. Does anyone have any idea how many religions there are in the world today? I saw on something on an Atheism forum that read “Too Many Gods, Too Many Religions: All Can’t Be True, But All Can Be False”. Really when you think about it, Atheism is a form of belief. It’s not just NO belief, it’s the belief that all religion is false. It’s a belief in something. Somebody had posted something on Facebook about loving and following God. I posed the question as to whether or not we should love ourselves because God would want us to love ourselves. The person responded with “Yes but he is best”. I followed up with, “So, you’re saying that we shouldn’t love ourselves as much as we should love God.” to which he responded, “Yes you can love yourself” and I said OK to that. I may be wrong, but the responding sounded a little like he didn’t really believe his answer and was just being resigned to answer it. To be quite frank, I don’t recall my old religion teaching me about loving myself, just that I had to love God above everything else. When I think about it, that sounds to me a little like submission. Submitting to a God for love? I’m sure people will find reasons and explanations to justify why that is but I think it’s all shallow. But there’s more fun from that conversation. After I had posted my ok, someone posted, “When you learn to love and obey God, you learn to love yourself more, to take care of you, specially when lives in you.” to which I responded, “Why must God be obeyed?”. I have not received an answer to this query. Strange.

So let’s think about that, why must God be obeyed? The common belief among people is basically that if you don’t then God will condemn you to something. Yet it is taught that God supposedly loves us.

Huh?

Let me get this straight, I have to follow God lest he condemn me to something yet I have to accept that God loves me. That would be like a father who beats his child for getting bad grades yet tells his son that he loves him.

Crazy, isn’t it? Why would anyone want to believe something like that? What kind of a God is that? To me, that sounds like a very conditional love: do as I say and I will love you and if you don’t then something else will happen to you. Is this how God works? Maybe in Christianity and some other crazy religion. The sad thing is that I see so many people literally bowing down to this idea. It’s sad, but there are people in this world who think that loving God is more important than loving yourself. I’m sorry but how is this not the most backwards line of thinking ever? So, as long as I love God, I can consider myself shit yet somehow God still loves me. So, God must love shit, is that it? I remember in church they used to sing this song called “Tuyo Soy (No Soy Nada)” (I am Yours (I’m Nothing) which is actually grammatically incorrect because “No Soy Nada” literally translates to “I’m Not Nothing” in Spanish. Anyway, the words of the song go like this:

Yo no soy nada y del polvo naci
pero tu me amas y moriste por mi
ante la cruz solo puedo exclamar
Tuyo soy, tuyo soy…

English translation:

I am (not) nothing and from dust I came
But you still love me and died for me
I proclaim before the cross
I am yours, I am yours…

How can I belong to God if I’m nothing, or not nothing as the song says? So, am I something or not? Which is it? I’m so confused…

So… obey God, do as you’re told, and be nothing (or not). Either one. Or not at all. I don’t know. I’m still confused. In all of that, God is supposed to love you. Hmmm. Am I supposed to feel something right now? There’s no tingling sensation. Hmmm. Shall I go and flog myself for being human, or will God still love me after that? Or maybe destroy me? Have I disobeyed him? Well, I don’t know, have I? I don’t know. More confusion. Hmmm.

Ok, let’s get out of that before we really lose brain on this. Really when you think about it, most religions only rattle people’s mentality into submission of an idea that is flawed from the start. It only makes sense if you don’t question it. My quarrel isn’t with God, but with what has been taught and continues to get taught in churches all over- the idea that God is a conditionally loving entity which condemns you if you don’t obey him. It’s just such nonsense and it’s the main reason a lot of people feel dejected by religion. Along with that, the conditions people place upon God to love “his people” are then passed on to other people so that they, in turn, can love others in the same conditional way that God supposedly loves “his children”. No wonder religion is so fucked up and no wonder people hate the idea of God. It’s stupid. I would hate that, too. And let’s not forget Jesus who clearly hated everyone who didn’t agree with him.

Some people say “There is no God”. I agree with that. Well, to the extent that there is no God who conditionally loves people in the conditional Christian way. I think that’s what Christianity is: conditional love. And what’s funny is that Christianity in all of its self-righteousness goes and puts down other religions like Buddhism and Wicca and considers them as either not important or “pagan” and of course, anything that is not even remotely related to Christianity is purely bullshit, right? I mean, the Buddha didn’t have anything good to say or do because he wasn’t Jesus and Jesus was the only one who said anything of any real value, right? I mean, a quote by the Buddha that says:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

… is pure bullshit, right?

Another one of the Buddha’s quotes was: “The mind is everything. What you think you become.” I guess because it wasn’t Jesus who said it, it must be bullshit and readily dismissed, since obviously this following quote that didn’t come from Jesus but came from the Buddha is also one in a series of his bullshit quotes that says:

“You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.”

See, that right there? That’s bullshit! Everything that comes from this line of thinking that does not coincide with Christ’s teaching is PURELY 100% BULLSHIT, RIGHT?!?!?!?!!

*a moment of silence, please*

Why does Christianity have to be the only one? Why does Christianity have to have the monopoly on faith and belief? How can Christianity be so arrogant? Why can’t wisdom and peace come from different places? Why can’t the good of life come from sources that encompass all wisdom, not just the select “wisdom” of Christianity? And why not love yourself enough to find it? People have to love themselves BEFORE they love anything or anyone else and that includes God (so, sorry Billy Graham and Robert Schuller). Think for no one but yourself. This is not the 50′s anymore, think for yourself.

I have received some feedback on this article and what I’ve done is divided it up into two parts and broke it down into sections so that it will be easier to read. So, please click here for part one and click here for part two. Thank you for reading and I appreciate the support.

My World And Yours

Sports in and of themselves are not bad. They help keep the body physically fit and, if done properly, can be a mood stabilizer and stress reliever. Not only that, a good sport can be a wonderful hobby for people to enjoy. If good sportsmanship is applied, it can teach a valuable lesson in being able to win fairly and accept losses with dignity and honor. But in reality, that is not how sports are presented. Instead, they are shown as a means to an end, a way to teach conquest and submission, and as the definition of what it is to be a particular type of person, among other things. Not only that, in today’s sports world, the very act of sports is both highly lucrative (unjustly, I might add). What people don’t suspect is that sports entertainment is also a big divider in society not only between fans of particular sports teams, but between those who do and don’t like sports and what those who don’t like sports are made out to be. The sad thing is that people see these divisions as normal. They do not see people as kin, rather, they see others as opponents in a game, much like sports, and they are opponents that must be beaten because in sports, it is taught that winning is everything.

Let’s look at the salaries of some sports stars and their teams. Kobe Bryant of the NBA makes over $25 million a season. The Los Angeles Lakers is at the top of the NBA payroll list paying over $95 million in salaries. In American Football, the top earner was a man named Peyton Manning who plays quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts, earning a salary of $23 million in 2011. The Minnesota Vikings had a top payroll of over $123 million. For Baseball, the New York Yankees shelled out over $202 million in payroll during this last season. The top earner was Alex Rodriguez who was paid $32 million for the last MLB season. Now, adding just the numbers from each of these three sports in payroll payouts and you get a total of $420 million. The salaries combined of each of the players mentioned above amounts to $80 million. And that’s just salaries. Even more is made in merchandising and other ventures. On average, a high school costs about $15 million to build. Using these numbers, the $420 million from the payroll of the NBA, NFL, and MLB would build about 28 high schools. The $80 million from the individual players salaries would build roughly five high schools. Just imagine what that amount of money would do for hospitals. It costs about $20 million to build a hospital in Los Angeles, CA. $420 million would build 21 new hospitals in Los Angeles. Just think of it. Kobe Bryant’s salary alone would build ONE hospital able to help thousands of people instead of helping Kobe Bryant and the few people he might be supporting. And how about instead of building new hospitals, fix and reconstruct an abandoned hospital? The money left over from rebuilding an already-established facility would be enough to fund for new equipment and a furthering of wellness programs. So the question arises: is the payroll of these three sports organizations alone a justified amount, considering that the money spent on a player’s salary could be used elsewhere in the community?

As mentioned previously, sports are heavily advertised and made to look like these grand events with bold letters in ads and this very heavy sounding music and announcement (if it’s televised). Players are made to look like warriors, tough yet dour in appearance. They all have these serious faces and almost never ever smile for God knows what reason. Sporting events are presented with such gloss and made to sound like an event that NO ONE should miss and phrases like “battle to the death” are occasionally used. The psychology behind this kind of advertising is laughable at best. At the L.A. Live center in Downtown Los Angeles, ESPN has a huge electronic billboard where sports programming is shown ad nauseam. This screen dominates everything else so that it is the only thing you see and off to the side is a huge banner that has all of the professional sports team that play in Los Angeles urging people to buy tickets to these events. In essence, sporting events are advertised with such urgency and importance that it can literally intimidate anyone not aware of what’s going on. Along with that, huge stadiums like the Staples Center are built to accommodate all of the attendees to these sporting events. It’s almost like a religious gathering. As many people who come to a megachurch to worship God come to the Staples Center and worship the Lakers (and their mighty savior, Kobe Bryant). Teams are revered in an almost God-like manner in these stadiums and if you get the nosebleed section, then you can’t see anything of those “gods” but little specs of humans running around but thank heaven for the huge monitor that is placed at the top center of the stadium ceiling so no one misses any of the action. To be honest, the purpose and psychology behind a sports stadium and its purpose, when you think about, is kind of psychotic. And it’s not just basketball, it’s baseball, football, “proffesional” wrestling matches, ultimate fight challanges, hockey, and even monster truck rallies (a car with big wheels runs over a bunch of old sedans, big deal). These stadiums are built like huge gathering mosques for people to literally experience and worship these athletes. Ever notice how a stadium is almost like a church? There’s the field, which is like the altar and the seats surrounding the altar, which is like the pews in a church. The food stands are where people commune, like receiving communion at a church, except you’re not exactly receiving the Body of Christ (or of Kobe Bryant for that matter). And people, like mindless drones, automatically go to these events, pay the exorbitant amount for tickets, food, and merchandise, watch, yell, and chant out slogans as the event takes place (like kneeling, standing, passing the communion basket, and saying a ritualistic prayer in church) and then go home afterwards to reel in the time wasted in another in a line of futile activities society has deemed as “normal” just distracted enough for others in power to not just reap the financial benefits of such an activity, but to exercise their control over society by dictating what they should like and to what extent.

Speaking of normality, let’s look at other social effects of sports entertainment. Harry Anderson, who played Judge Harry Stone on Night Court stupidly said once while hosting the equally stupid Oops! The World’s Funniest Outtakes that “if you’re normal guy, you like sports”. So, if you don’t like sports, then you must be some sort of weirdo. Is that the idea that people have about those who don’t like sports? Men who don’t like sports are usually seen as either effeminate or just plain losers. Sports are generally seen as a definition of masculinity in today’s society. A “real” man likes sports whereas if you are a man who doesn’t like sports, then you must be some sort of panty-wearing homo. I’m sure not all people feel that way but that’s the general consensus, as if a man who doesn’t like sports is lacking in something, God knows what it is. The thing is that it is seen, like Harry Anderson said, as normal. It is normal for a guy to like sports and spend money on it and have it as a hobby and define himself by a particular sport or sports team. But what does that do, exactly? Or yet, what can that lead to if not controlled? Well, it can lead to a few things if not kept in check:

1) Homophobia

2) Violence

3) Obsessive Fanaticism

The homophobia is obvious, seeing as how homosexuality is seen as evil in this society and men can’t be associated as homosexual because of the negative connotations that have been identified with being gay (against nature and God, immoral, etc). Men are to be seen as bold and daring and not as weak and passive as most gay males are usually seen. Sports are for men to show off how bold and competitive they are, not how docile and compassionate men can be. The odd thing is that contact sports require a lot of physical contact with other men. Is it possible that some of those players get turned on from gracing the jersey of another player or while staring at another player’s pecks or penis while they’re in the shower or locker room and not tell anyone about it for fear of the repercussions? How about the aroma of a recently used jock-strap? Of course not. Why? Because it’s not seen as normal. Of the most homoerotic of sports is the Ultimate Fighting Challenge. This repulsive display of testosterone shows two men beating the living the shit out of each other with dire consequences for either participant. People try to justify the significance of this venture but let’s look at it for what it is: a violent display of unnecessary aggression against another human being for the sake of pleasure. If football isn’t the most physically damaging of sports, then Ultimate Fighting is. Aside from the barbarism, the sight of two husky men physically rubbing each other’s skin with their sweat and blood is very homoerotic- whether a person is aroused by it or not. They’re on top of each other, stepping all over each other, rubbing themselves all over each other while wearing nothing but black underwear. It’s no different than watching two girls mud wrestle wearing nothing but a bikini bottom: both are dirty and involve two individuals of the same gender physically coming in full body contact with each other wearing nothing but underwear. How is one more appropriate than the other? Doesn’t it come down to just human beings, after all?

And if a woman likes sports, some men consider her to be abnormal and lesbian. They look at someone like Martina Navratilova who played tennis but later publicly came out of the closet and think “Well, girls who like sports must all be lesbian”. They must all be lesbians because women are supposed to be like how Walt Disney outlined them to be: skirt wearing kitchen maids who sing and play with birds. If that is the case, then all men who like to watch and play sports must all be raging homosexuals like The Village People. See the dichotomy here?

As mentioned previously, there is the issue of violence and aggression. Not only are sports an agent of segregation, but they can be divisive, on or off the field or court. Hockey players are constantly getting into fights with each other over some trivial play or call by the referee. They do this while ice skating. The violence in Ultimate Fighting has already been established as beyond barbaric and criminal. Anyone who fights like that outside of that realm is usually charged with assault with intent or something. So inside the ring, it’s ok. Outside the ring, you go to jail for it. That sounds imbalanced. If an NBA player gets in a fight with another player, it is usually punished with a fine and suspension from a few games depending on the severity of the fight. Rarely are criminal charges pressed against each player. However, fans who get into scuffles with either a player or each other do face criminal charges. What is that saying? Criminality and violence in the field is ok but not outside of it? Is the playing court a sanctioned area for acceptable and controlled violence where the offenders are not punished with the same severity as a spectator would had they committed the same act of violence on the street?

And speaking of violence on the street, let’s look at the rioting after a game is won. In 2010, the L.A. Lakers beat the Boston Celtics earning the Lakers their second NBA Championship in a row. Celebration turned to rioting causing fires, cars to be overturned, property being damaged, and people getting hurt. Winning has now turned into an excuse for people to act like complete lunatics. What’s ironic is that the rioters weren’t the ones who actually played the game. They sat in their respective places and watched it all happen while guzzling beer. If memory serves, participation and not spectating is part of playing a game. If that is the case, why are these people rioting? People rioted in 1909 after a Scottish Cup Final. Regardless of the circumstances, is there any logical reason to go out into the street and wreak havoc onto the people and the city for the mere act of a sports team winning? Again, what is being prioritized here?

Sports fanaticism is best characterized in the 1996 movie The Fan where Robert DeNiro plays an obsessed baseball fan who will stop at nothing to get to his favorite player, played by Wesley Snipes. There are other effects of sports fanaticism, such as abuse towards towards children and other family members. Ironically, a lot of parents tell their children to look up to these sports stars as “role models”. Let’s look at these role models: they make more than enough money to build a school or hospital, have illicit relationships with other people, complain during contract negotiations that they’re not earning enough, and inject themselves with drugs in order to supposedly play better. Despite the above, sports are still highly valued in this society above a lot of other more important things. Some kids still talk about being a huge sports star. Children are very impressionable and though most are quite smart, they are still susceptible to the actions and words from others around them. This is nothing new and if they hear their friends talking about it and if they hear their obsessive parents talking about it, then they will adapt those values. Then there is how far these parents will take their kids with sports and their reactions to situations in youth sports.

In 2002, Thomas Junta of Reading, Massachusetts beat a referee during a youth hockey game, of which the referee died of his injuries later on. Mr. Junta was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2002. The fight was over a rough play that Junta felt the referee (Michael Costin) did not call fairly and Junta rushed over and pounded his head into the ground. Junta was denied parole in 2008 but was released in 2010. Mr. Junta goes home to his family after losing 10 years of his life in jail while Michael Costin lost his entire life all because of a severe overreaction in Mr. Junta’s part. The cause wasn’t the sport itself, but Mr. Junta’s reaction to the sport, specifically, the call made by Mr. Costin that eventually cost him his life.

While there are a myriad of other effects of sports entertainment that have yet to be covered, the point is to demonstrate the effects of it in society, at least from an observational point of view. As mentioned previously, sports and exercise are indeed a good thing to keep a good balance on an emotional, mental, and physical level. However, when it is taken to the extreme that it has in society, it can lead to all sorts of dangerous outcomes that end up hurting individuals rather than helping. Also, it helps to see that this kind of emphasis just on sports entertainment alone is detrimental to people’s affect on other more important social matters that bear more relevance to the overall aspect and well being of life than the average free throw shots a particular person makes, among other things.

My personal opinion is that these women suffer from a combination of a severe case of low self esteem, daddy issues, and personality complexes. All of these combined are, in my opinion, the cause of the “whore-ification” of women. It’s sickening and it’s very prevalent in society. I just saw a picture (a mock picture, mind you, but still a picture) of two women down on their knees “worshipping” a man. What is this saying? That this man has these two women as his slaves? That these women enjoy being mere objects to this man? How is this a good thing? It’s obvious that these women aren’t thinking twice about their actions because they don’t see that there is anything wrong with it. But anyone with a sound and sane mind can see that this is just ludicrous. I think it says something about both men and women involved in this sort of “activity”.

It’s been suggested that this type of behavior is a deep sign of repressed homosexuality not in the women, but in the man. If a man is so disgusted by the sight of two men and pleased by the sight of two women, then it suggests some sort of homosexual repression in themselves. It’s also been suggested that all people have a tendency to be bi-sexual, preferring both genders. I can admit to liking women before. Well, actually, when I was in junior high I liked this really pretty Columbian girl who refused to go out with me because I was geeky and unpopular. I ran into her later in life and she was married and I had been out of the closet for years since. We chatted and by the time I had seen her again, she married a rather attractive black man who helped her create three very fat children. Phew! Dodged a bullet there…

As a disclaimer, I would just like to say that I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE OR THEIR RELATIONSHIPS. Believe me, watching two overly flamboyant gay men walking down the street flaunting their gayness all over the place is just as annoying, even for some gay people. Straight men are no different. And you’d be surprised at how many homophobic men there are out there who are actually turned on by homoerotic imagery. A study was conducted in 1996 by the Department of Psychology in the University of Georgia. Both homophobic and non-homophobic men were tested in the study. The point of the study was to “investigate the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals.” Now, mind you, this says in men who did have a “negative affect” toward homosexual individuals, not just males or females, but both. Basically, measuring devices were attached to the men’s penises and measured for arousal after being exposed to homoerotic, lesbian (same difference), and heterosexual imagery. The conclusion of the study was:

Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

It was Sigmund Freud who suggested that “people often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn’t have.” So, you have a guy who’s got two women draped around him like he’s the God of… something. I don’t know. What does that suggest to the general public? A couple of things: 1) He’s able to get women easily and really likes to get it on with women. 2) He’s a man who’s overcompensating in some area where he lacks. There really is no law, in nature or otherwise, that states that men and women are supposed to be the only people who should be coupled together (yes, that excludes the Bible because the Bible is wrong). But really, I digress. The whole point of this is to talk about women. I never really talk about them and now is my chance to do so.

There are women of strength and achievement. There are also women who think that a nice topless bikini will get them to where they want to go. This is where society in general goes horribly haywire. The objectification of any individual is one of the lowest forms of prejudice and hate ever, even though it is masked with the seeming appearance of love. Tell me, what love is there to be found when a man is anally penetrating a woman? In laymen’s term (no pun intended), that’s called “fucking”. Anyone can “fuck” a man or a woman but is that love? Now, either the definition of “love” has changed or an action like “fucking” cannot be concluded to be love. So then, if that is not love, then what do these scantily, if not nude, women seek?

Can it be concluded that men have no respect for women at all? Is there any wonder why women are still paid less than men in today’s world? Is there a carryover from the old world where women were mere property and not persons of value? Is that, then, why some women overreach and become complete superbitches like Janice Dickinson? To me, most men see women as one of the following:

1) Baby-making factories.

2) Sexual stress relievers (because there aren’t any pills for that).

3) A way to hide from mommy and your friends the fact that you are gay.

4) A validation of manhood (see #3 above).

Certain women allow their objectification for the following reasons:

1) Nobody loves or respects them, not even themselves.

2) Overcompensate for what they lack (like a man does).

3) Don’t know any better.

It’s a shame to see this kind of ridicule in people. It’s funny because if you did the same thing to a man then it would be considered “gay”. Why is that? Save for a few biological differences, men and women are basically the same, in my opinion. People can say that men and women think differently but that’s a load of crap. Some women think better than men do and vice versa. There really are no differences except for the ones I described. It’s not to say that sexiness is a crime. I suppose my problem is how that sexiness is used and how the person being used feels about it. Anything that is destructive to their well-being should be reconsidered. I think that it’s bad when a woman doesn’t have a problem with being objectified, but I think it’s just as bad when a man does it to a woman without remorse. To me, it’s not about appreciating a woman’s body, but to satisfy some deep sexual craving that they’re not getting in their sexual regiment. When that happens, the body then becomes a tool and when that tool gets used up it becomes old and ugly. And when a human being sacrifices their self respect just for the sake of hard-on, well, I don’t know what to say about that, really.