Sexual hypocrisy

This is probably just me, but I swear modern people have some hypocrisy regarding their agenda or attitudes towards human sexuality. Whenever I hear someone complaining about sexual or sexy imagery in our culture and in advertising, it’s always directed at the female body, and images of the female body that are deemed unrealistic, but I have not heard anyone raise a voice of complaint against images of the male body that fall under the same category. I swear that in advertising the male body is more obviously flaunted than the female, and somehow it’s more acceptable for women to ogle men than man to ogle women, when both are natural and should be treated as such.

Also, I don’t mean to sound like I’m the wrong crowd, but I feel like we are defending everybody’s sexuality except that of men who like women. Men who like women are always made out to be pigs, and the idea of the attractive woman is treated as the representation of a victim because apparently all men are pigs and their sexual urges are evil. We think we’re protecting women by treating them as victims for being sexual beings and being seen through sexual eyes by other sexual beings, but all we’re doing is enforcing the idea that sex is ugly and exists only to be predatory.

All just another symptom of our detachment from our sexual nature, which is of course caused by the dominance of Christianity. But hey, that’s kind of another story.

Christian hypocrisy and American pride

One thing I noticed about American Christians is that many of them (or at least all of them who are of a conservative persuasion) are very patriotic in the sense that they have a large sense of nationalistic pride towards America, while simultaneously view the country as filled with “sin” and “immorality” (no doubt referring to everything they don’t seem to like, such as gay marriage and women’s rights to have abortions). It seems to me like Christians in America don’t really like America that much, unless by America they mean America as the Christian theocracy they think it should be.

They also seem to think America is a Christian nation (which is nonsense), and if they don’t think that way then they want America to be Christian nation, despite the fact that this blatantly goes against America’s constitution, which states that Congress shall (or should) make no law that impedes the religious freedom of individuals to choose their own beliefs or express them. Thinking about it, as long as any Christians in America are fighting against the freedoms that should be guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus seeking to defile constitutional liberty, one could make the case that they are in fact guilty of treason, not for any beliefs, but for campaigning and lobbying against the liberty of the nation. Of course, that’s just my side of the story anyway.

Russel Brand is not a revolutionary!

A week ago, I found a Facebook page called Russell’s Revolution, which you can see here. It paints Russell Brand as some left wing hero and claims to represent his ideology or fans of it. It states that “Society needs to create a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibilities for energy companies exploiting the environment.

Trendy left wing noise aside, is anyone forgetting that Russell Brand is a celebrity, not a revolutionary? Sure, he participates in various causes, such as Gaza, Tibet, and Bradley (sorry, Chelsea) Manning. But think about it, why does any celebrity participate in causes? Usually, it’s not for genuine reasons, and mainly for show.

Late into last month, Russell Brand had an interview with Jeremy Paxman, where he talked about how profit makes him sick and how he predicts or wants an anti-capitalist or socialist revolution. Problem. His net worth is $15,000,000, and he profits off of people who find him funny or watch movies he’s in. Besides, if there was a socialist revolution, and it succeeded, guess who would be on the chopping block. Not just bankers, CEOs, and plutocrats, but high earning politicians and celebrities, like him (unless assuming he led the revolution or is sponsoring, or gave his wealth to society). Did anyone not realize that?

Honestly, I’m sick of this whole idea that we can turn celebrities into revolutionaries, let alone part of some left wing trend that happens to have seduced a lot of people.

My problem with Krishna

One of the most famous entities in Hinduism is Krishna, the eigth avatar of the deity known as Vishnu. He is variously hailed as a great teacher, a manifestation of God, even just God. Except that this is nonsense.

OK, before I begin with my criticisms, I feel I must mention things I like about him. He’s certainly a beautiful deity, he has a good way with women, very playful, and for someone who doesn’t look so strong he is capable of some impressive feats, like dropping a solar disk from the sky, and facing off against someone who threw an entire freaking mountain at him. Holy shit! It seems power and strength and beauty go very well together in Indian lore.

I can’t help but think I want that to be me at times. But how many guys don’t?

But, you’re not here to see me praise Krishna. You’re here so I can show you the bad side of him.

For starters, I find he’s for the most part an avatar of Vishnu who thinks himself “God” almighty. And in the Bhagavad Gita, he asks that you surrender yourself unto him so that he can “deliver you from sinful actions”. Am I the only one who thinks this is the same attitude as YHWH or Allah? Seems to me that Krishna is just the Hindu expression of the monotheistic (mainly Abrahamic) idea of God.

There’s a some hypocrisy too. Krishna proclaims lust to be a gateway to hell, and preaches for the destruction of desire, passion, and lust. So why is he playing around with all those beautiful girls? In fact, he thinks any form of desire is sinful except his own, since he calls pleasing yourself a sin but pleasing Krishna a form of love. What kind of bull crap is this? He also seems to advocate the destruction of ego or self, and seems against ego, lust, strength, anger, and pride (Bhagavad Gita chapter 16 verse 18), when in reality he has got to have the most overblown sense of self-worth in all of Hindu lore. And why do we have someone who is against strength? Especially someone who kills monsters and demons and survives all kinds of powerful attacks on a regular basis?

Also, this guy denounces lust, but finds himself having tons of girls flock to him like a rock star and even steals the clothes of gopis, and he gets away with it because he’s supposedly “God” while the average man can’t. And that’s what bugs me, he can do whatever he wants regarding women and get away with it, but denounces lust, self-pleasure, and desire, and would probably make sure you don’t get away with it. What the fuck kind of deity is that?

All-in-all, despite all the good I’ve said of him, Krishna is simply not appealing to me or worthy of any of his excessive praise.

Real quick, I wanna mention ISKCON for a bit, since they glorify Krishna so much. They are not Hindus. They’re just Indian Christians or monotheists with Hindu mythology and ideas. It doesn’t help that they sometimes advocate separation from non-devotees (kinda like how Christianity and Islam advocate hostility towards or shunning of non-believers).

And lastly, to borrow a phrase from a good friend, why should the destroyer of the universe take orders from a blue Justin Bieber?

America’s contradiction of values

Recently I was told of the story of Edward Snowden, the man who worked for the NSA and leaked secret information kept by them and handed it to The Guardian newspaper. According to the stories, he had revealed that the NSA was putting surveilance programmes in the Internet to spy on just about everyone. The fact that the American government is spying on its own people using technology seems shocking, but to me, it’s not too new. Because the way I see it, this is another example the hypocrisy and contradiction of American political values (I don’t mean religious, as I already covered).

One the one hand, America is classically known for placing high value on freedom, more specifically freedom of speech and expression, and the right to privacy. But on the other, the American government seems to place high value on stability and “order”, sometimes more than freedom, even to the point that they’ll back up foreign dictatorships rather than support the rebels trying to depose them, while publicly condemning those dictatorships. And does anyone remember the PATRIOT Act, which Obama extended until two years from now? Some knight in shining armor. Some change.

Our saviour? My ass.

Speaking of Obama, this guy actually supports what those bastards at the NSA are doing. I thought he was the president of the land of the free, not the UK, or Russia, or fucking China, but America. But I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. Guys like him and Hilary Clinton (whose ass just gets bigger every time she lies) have been supporting security states and foreign dictatorships and tyrants this whole time. It’s among the reasons she’s so horrible, along with any other politician. The reason I put the UK in that list of coutries that Obama is not president of (to make a point) is because, let’s face it, the dream of nanny-state is secretly in the heart of the UK government, and it has people like William Hague to support the statism of the US and the dictatorships of foreign lands, while spouting venoumous lies regarding how “law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear” (that sounds so much like what Bush’s cronies would say) among other false truths.

I wonder, why does the supposed land of the free have such a difficult time deciding what it really values. Does it truly have freedom in its heart, or is its soul fixated on control? Right now America and the world still suffer from those afflicted with the twin shadows of ignorance and evil in pursuit of the madness of social control in the name of the myth of order. The world has no need for any such people, and neither does humanity. I wonder, will America decide what it believes is the right thing, or continue to follow a policy of hypocrisy? I’m not even sure how I can know America’s answer. I can only hope, but I’m just not that patient.

Note: I feel I should make something clear here. I do have a major problem with America’s government, to the point that I see them as evil, but I do not feel the same way about America itself. I just feel America is struggling between the twin forces of freedom and security, and can’t seem to decide what it values more these days.

Catholicism and me

With another old geezer being given the seat of papal authority, just another voice to tell people what to do, I figure I’d talk about something I really don’t like, again.

To be honest, when it comes to Christianity, most of the time I don’t even see Catholic or Protestant. It’s all the same insidious crap to me. But the Catholic church as an individual religious entity deserves a mention.

My family is part Italian (my dad’s side comes from Southern Italy), and my dad wanted me Catholic. Apparently my twin brother and I used to go to a Catholic Church when we were only babies and my other older brother and sister were only toddlers. There was this other family and their kids were out of control, and the priest didn’t bother them, but when my siblings were doing the same thing, the priest had the balls to tell my mom to keep them under control. That’s when she called him out for his hypocrisy. You might ask: what hypocrisy? You know the family the priest didn’t bother? They gave money to him, or rather more money. My mom told me the story just this morning. It’s the reason we never go to a Catholic church anymore (except for one time in Italy and that was sightseeing as far as I was concerned).

She went on to tell me two things about the Catholic church. (1) The church is always asking for more money, even though they’re already pretty damn rich (it doesn’t help that most if not all religious organizations are considered tax-exempt), and (2) they’ll absolve any bad you do and then say “It’s alright, Jesus forgives you”. You can kill someone one day, get absolved, do it again, and Jesus will forgive, whereas that person should be punished.

Then there’s the Crusades, the pedophile priests, Papa Ratzi, the Church stopping Africa from having condoms, Catholic schools, and nuns scaring children to near death. I’ve heard all that more than a few times, and I obviously don’t like it, but all that pales in comparison to the two primary reasons for my hatred of the Catholic church, though to be fair it’s the same reasons I hate Christianity as a whole. First is their long campaign of oppression and subjugation of everyone who disagreed with them, including their oppression of pagans and witches. This culminates in the witch hunts and Inquisitions all over Europe and even one in India. Secondly, perhaps most They nurture a weakness in millions of people that leads them to seek out false hope in the form of a voice telling them what to do. The church seems to have some influence, because there are still millions who travel to Rome to hear the Pope’s words, they seem eager to be told what to do. Hell, if you need proof we as a society still sides with the church, the next Pope being chosen has been given too much attention by news media. If we really didn’t care about religion, this would’ve only gotten mild attention at best.

And have the crimes of the church been punished? No! No justice. Their actions have gone pretty much unpunished. No due punishment. If any pope has apologized, then it makes up for nothing, it is as worthless as David Cameron apologizing for Bloody Sunday 38 years after it happened, all while he was never personally involved in it, and while no justice has been delivered to the culprits. And in spite of that, and the bullshit dogma, my Dad was not only Catholic, but tried to raise me and my brother Catholic? He must not be very smart.

And that’s why I hate Catholicism, but really, as I said, it’s all the same Christianity, all the same crap.

Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite

Richard Dawkins criticizes religion a lot, it’s role in society, and that our children are so indoctrinated to believe, which I don’t mind. But the prominent atheist/overglorified douchebag is one to talk, for you see, he is trying to do the same.

In 2008, Dawkins announced that he would be retiring from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at children, trying to convince them not to believe in fairy tales or tales of magic, witchcraft, and wizardry because they are “anti-scientific”. I’m not sure if the 2011 The Magic of Reality is that book, but that is outside the point. Do you know how Dawkins’ antics translate to me? Indoctrinating kids into believing what someone else tells you.

Instead of Christian priests at sunday school indoctrinating kids to believe what it says in the Bible, we have Richard Dawkins trying to persuade children into dogmatic materialism, and I don’t see the difference. All I see is that double standard Dawkins has: he’ll criticize religion for mindlessly venerating some sacred dogma or some figurehead, while doing little other than preach science and evolution like religious gospels, promote dogmatic scientism, and spray Charles Darwin with praise.

He has no right criticizing indoctrination of any sort considering he is doing the same thing.

I’ve heard of a rumour saying that Dawkins didn’t actually resign from his post at Oxford University, but was canned for his increasing outlandishness and his tying of science, dogmatic materialism, and atheism together, which some other faculty members and outside scientists opposed, which would mean the book story is a cover to save both himself and the university from embarassment. But the truth of that rumour is a different story, though it would certainly explain a lot.