Request: Gene Burmington | Softer Dreams

This entry has been removed from Preliator and can now be found over at Creativitas. (See here for more info.)

Gene Burmington | The Gay Agenda, or How Homosexuals Want to Destroy America

The following is a guest post by Gene Burmington.

---

I've seen numerous opinions and tenuous experiments basically describing everything from the destruction of American values and weakening of our overall power down to how the intentions of homosexuals are mainly focused on destroying the tenets of Christianity through the alterations of marriage.

The former listed explanations by well-meaning persons ass-backwards fools of religious convictions are concepts worth bearing some discussion, if there are any issues caused by the demands of the homosexual demographic. That is, if there are, which there are not. Pundits railing against these attempts at justice really need to ask themselves certain serious questions before they assert the existence of some kind of nasty hidden agenda by a minority group that badly needs government protections and whom would otherwise be trampled on by people who have neither love nor respect to give for such maligned persons.

The following questions are (reverse the terms if you are a woman):

How would I feel if my wife and I were denied our right to marry despite loving each other very much?

How would I feel if my wife and I couldn't produce offspring due to infertility, and weren't allowed to adopt because of government regulation?

How would I feel if I were bullied in school because I only had one ear or some other birth defect that was out of my control?

How would I feel if I couldn't feel safe out in public because Schizophrenia or some other illness made me appear strange and threatening to persons who might cause me harm from how they perceive me (in Africa, they call these witch hunts)?

How would I feel if I couldn't go to church or engage in any social activity just because I have a tumor or some other medical anomaly, and I felt that the right thing to do was be honest and up front about my condition?

How would I feel if I were not treated the same way as everyone else because of something outside of my own control?

Before you blame homosexuals or blatantly disclose your negative opinion on how you believe they are poisoning America's wells with their hidden covenants, ask yourself those questions and be honest. If one of those fundamental desires up there were an infringement on your liberty, wouldn't you stand up for your equality as well?

Because if your answer is no, then you're either dumb or dishonest, because these are the fundamental rights that most any given American takes for granted. If someone gave the matter all the serious and unbiased thought that it requires, they would realize that we are paving a new road in a similar manner to the way that we removed the blemish of segregation from our lives and made all races equal under the law. Now is the age where we make everyone else so.

Tags: gays • lesbians • homophobia • homophobes • anti-gay

Gene Burmington | An Open Letter To Dave Vara

The following is a guest post by Gene Burmington.

---

Davy Vara [source]

I'm noticing a great deal of drama on this blog due to your misunderstanding of very elementary materials. What makes your claims illegitimate is that Mr. McKen has been running the blog the same way for years, and it can be argued that he is ultimately doing a good job with it, as he hasn't received any other complaints from others that he quoted from.

Given the grand cosmological odds of the internet, you'd think that if Joé were doing something wrong or dishonest, he would have been caught by now, but no. Perhaps you think blogs must follow the scholarly edict that requires a great deal more citation for a work, but for such strictly casual purposes as these, no serious authentication is required.

In McKen's second response to your further threats of litigation, he is more than reasonable to elaborate all that he has done to outline fair use and give an author all credit needed as per the free use statutes of the internet. Despite your bold claims and those of your legal representative, McKen is not "stealing" any of your work. Quoted in context, it is very clear that he didn't write or take responsibility as the originator of those words. Imagine for a second, sir, how tedious it would become if Joé had to place your name right under every single quotation, as is required of other, more formal works.

I do not know what the typical traffic is that your articles receive on average, but I'm sure it's more than a fair assumption that some of views your article received came from the reference in Joé's post. I personally went to read your article after I found it referenced on this blog. People following Joé often follow the hyperlinks he provides so that they may see the author's original words for themselves.

In regards to your accusation of libel, you present a contradiction. How can there be libel against you if you claim not to be represented in the article? That is a fair bit absurd. Sir, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is clear indication that you are being directly targeted with false accusations, or there is no such mention. Furthermore, exactly how are you being libeled, seeing as Joé makes no mention of you in his post? All he expressed was his remarkable distaste for the behavior of the police officers mentioned in your article, not yourself.

Lastly, I am fairly in agreement with Mr. McKen with regards to your legal help. As in, they aren't. Whatever silly ideas your paralegal representative has filled you with, he is either ignorant of common-use laws, or he is simply arrogant, if he thinks he can find a loophole in that mess that is your plagiarism fantasy.

Tags: Davy Vara • cease and desist • copyright law • Fair Use • Fair Dealing • Mick the Attorney • libel • plagiarism

Gene Burmington | Gabe Suarez: Blaming the Victim is Old-Fashioned

The following is a guest post by Gene Burmington in response to this item in yesterday’s Daily Blend.

---

Gabe Suarez

I read this article by former SWAT officer and militant fuckhead Gabe Suarez, who's worried about the effects of the Indiana defense against the police bill. For the post part, concerns about that law are sound. Only problem is, he didn't address them:

When I was on SWAT our view is that "We will always win....even if we have to burn down your entire house by bombing it....we will win". Period.

Yeah. SWAT always has to win. Even if it means breaking into the wrong house and vandalizing the fuck out of it just because you can when someone has a justifiable complaint and anger towards the intrusion. Not to mention all those dogs that SWAT teams kill just for (what I assume) entertainment purposes.

A SWAT team is like a military unit. You can moan all you want about the militarization of the police and all of that but your tears will not change a thing.

Which is really too bad. Aren't people aware that when you militarize something, there always has to be an enemy to fight? It isn't a police officer's duty to condemn people as enemies; our system is supposed to catch, rehabilitate, and release like a fancy sports-fishing league. Once we begin to demonize these people who are considered criminals, we strip away their rights as human beings and their ability to change their ways. We also condone the opportunities that our police take to abuse such individuals.

Notice that I have not even gotten into the "right or wrong" discussion. Why not? Because it is not relevant.

You fuckhead. You're a police officer; right and wrong is your job. To call ethical choices and distinctions "not relevant" is to say that you don't care if an intrusion is justified or not, you just want to support your own agenda that police forces are always right no matter what brutalities they engage in. Well, let me remind you of your duty, former officer Suarez: It is to protect the innocent and defend the peace. As long as you justify false break-ins by SWAT units, you are saying that in the long run of your power and corrupted authority, that the safety of the innocent does not matter.

If economic events require you to live there, work as much as you can (you can get by on 4 hours of sleep) and make enough money that you can go live in a normal neighborhood […]

Request: Gene Burmington | Leading Man Main Theme

This entry has been removed from Preliator and can now be found over at Creativitas. (See here for more info.)

Gene Burmington: Every American a Terrorist

The following is a guest post by Gene Burmington.

---

For the past ten years, terrorism has been a very popular word. But what exactly is it? If I or you truly knew, the United Nations would worship us as a hero for condensing one term from their official definition of several manuals to just one sentence.

As a rule, people assume terrorism means violence directed at civilians for political gain (or destruction of freedom). What it overlooks is that people then assume from there that only Muslims are capable of terroristic threatening. Radical agendas are declared by everyone who uses fear to get what they want. What is the difference between terrorism before and after the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union? Muslims help us so they are freedom fighters, yet when America does the same thing, their response is now seen as terrorism?

Americans, who have popularized the term itself, do not see the bigger picture because the media only has one side and sensationalizes this word unto a pedestal as hated and despised as 'pedophile', 'atheist', and others. Words turned into a vehicle for emotion and tainted into ignorant simplicity are loaded and cannot possibly be given to reason.

The side the media ignores is a view which is not American nor kind. Our goal is to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, but the real question is if the people of those countries want that government or even our help. Case in point, the average Muslim in such countries doesn't have much stock in the government with either a tyranny or a democracy as long as their lives go unmolested and there is enough to eat. The more developed a country is, the more prone to boredom the populace is. Boredom implies lack of work or vital thoughtless tasks to perform, so politics as farmers and the lower class understand it doesn't affect them.

If there is any real reason for lingering in the Middle East, it's a two-fold dilemma: America faced a great moment of shame by pulling out of Vietnam on the verge of victory. Later reports indicate that Ho Chi Minh's regular army was basically destroyed by the Tet Offensive failure, but what we learn by Sun Tzu is that perceived failure of one side can be the implied success in the other, so it ultimately comes to wills and conviction to fight, which the American media utterly destroyed by airing footage of Vietcong in the major cities of South Vietnam despite the fact that our troops overpowered them. In this motive, America does not want to lose face in abdicating the original long-term goal of the region.

The second reason is our sacrifices; the money and blood spent in making a pointless conflict into one that has a purpose. I don't want to put down our troops; they're fantastic, brave guys. Instead, my point is that after losing so much, what horror it would be if we pulled out and accomplished nothing except for the main goal of killing two major enemies of America.

Request: Gene Burmington | Munchhausen’s Theme

This entry has been removed from Preliator and can now be found over at Creativitas. (See here for more info.)

Gene Burmington: Being an Unpatriotic UnAmerikan with Sympathy

This is a guest post by my friend Gene Burmington.

---

Thought it fit. And was funny

Since McCarthyism and the rise of nationalism in America after resounding victories in a world war and other conflicts prior to Vietnam, we as a nation have been overcome by ideals that make our country wrong and others that make it weak.

See, the traditional segments of the country have a habit of calling out others as being unpatriotic or un-American. For instance, it's unpatriotic not to want to go to war and it's un-American to want to protect Muslim-Americans' free speech from reprisals from those of the more conservative caste.

Given that Islamic extremists have destroyed a great symbol of America with callous disregard for our values and human lives, it's soundly understandable on some levels. However, it's not understandable that citizens approach this horrible act by counteracting it with another horrible act: persecution of our own American peoples just because they fall into a minority, just because they belong to the same ethnic group as some enemies of America.

Let's back all this up to two centuries ago. Everyone applauds our Founding Fathers for the beginnings of a great new country and constitution. When our old enemies were the heavy-handed and boldly colonial British Empire, we were certainly at war but we did abstain from persecuting all British loyalists in the states, nor did we find ourselves with an eternal hatred for the British after they burned down the White House, itself a far more poignant symbol of American values.

In 1812, British soldiers destroyed the White House and many other important structures intrinsic to our way of life. In essence, it was a political statement which defiled our very government. Yet, we aren't declaring war on the British or burning King James bibles or what have you. There are numerous olde English pubs up for business, spreading the ideology of the British way of thinking, and not even their sense of humor is reviled.

Gene Burmington: Hazardous sites with unhealthy substances

This is a guest post by my friend Gene Burmington.

---

At least this definition of “fundy” has some use. … Sorta

Familiar or not, there are locations called "Superfund Sites". These are areas that people with any measure of sanity or common sense avoid at all costs. That's because these are sites of interest to the government due to concerns of leaking hazardous waste leading to a lethal risk of exposure to the public.

Most chemicals in a toxic waste dump are industrial grade byproducts of various manufacturing processes such as metallurgy, mining, or the manufacture of plastic goods. Considering that a lot of these toxins were buried before proper disposal methods were researched and implemented, a lot of carcinogenic leakage occurs, such as in the case of the "Love Canal" (not so lovely with cancer causing agents, is it now?).

Due to potential risks to innocent unprotected persons, the United States government has authorized a multi-billion dollar budget to combat the scourge of these various pollutants that have languished in improper storage containers ranging from a few years old to several decades.

However, not even the government has plans in place to deal with a far more sinister threat to innocent persons. For years, different ills have been passed around like a cold and people become sick from exposure. Either it changes their very behavior, or it makes people of stronger stamina sick and suffer through a great deal of nausea before they can get over the condition.

I speak of SuperFundy Sites; where different militant preachers inform a gullible public of their definition of religious figures. Most notable is with groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, which spreads an unhealthy doctrine to healthy minds about the theoretical sins of various minority groups, which is a dangerous content to spill around.

With different leakages such as "GodHatesFags" or "PreistsRapeBoys", it is clear that there is a certain toxicity spreading about which affects all those around who cannot help but fall under the influence.

Guest post: Dealing with the lies of god

This is a guest post by Gene Burmington. (Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed below are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect my own.)

Special Comment: Dang, now I almost feel guilty. But I respect my friend too much to coddle him with things I know are untrue, no matter how temporarily and cheaply reassuring they may appear to be. As Greta Christina once said, reality is a harsh mistress, but we must accept her in order to see just how magnificent she truly is, far more than any fantasy we can conjure to replace her.

---

Not insofar as we can ascertain with science and human understanding

This essay wasn't written for Christians, Hindu's, Buddhists, or Muslims: they have their beliefs and won't be shaken of them no matter what. Instead, this is for those others who are incredulous and don't know what to believe.

Ever since the owner of this blog came out with the facts of life on atheism, all my thoughts and pretenses have turned to shit. I mean, how can any sane person just simply accept an end to existence at death?

All the time, religion tries to consolidate our trust into these unproven farces of things that happen to us as we go through the beliefs and eventually our death.

But let's be realistic, if science has already proven that our minds work from electrical signals that can process things faster than computers, and that our personalities can suddenly CHANGE from brain damage, what hope do we have to believe in an afterlife if the proof leans toward our existence being tethered to a physical mass of flesh and combined learning experiences?

To be candid of truth, that's what everyone wants--a happy ending. From our fairy tales, to our religion, and even in massage parlors; people just want to pretend that everything's fine as long as someone or a respected system is stroking them, as George Carlin once said.

Guest post: The Bad Guy Mentality and Social statification Issues

This is a guest post by Gene Burmington. (Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in below are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect my own.)

---

“Bad guy” [source: Peter Roskam]

I say statification instead of stratification as other renowned sociologists are known to do, because stratified hierarchy implies many layers or levels.

This is the opposite, as stratification implies possible advancement and advancement is impossible for "the bad guys". Throughout life, certain elements become the enemies of society through unlawful or unpopular means and are thus cast as the evildoers.

This status doesn't cease when penance is completed, either. Once you go to prison or you're declared an enemy to America's "moral fiber", you are always detested and are never truly part of society. Your life is miserable and pointless, and everyone makes sure to continue to punish you for something you already went to prison for.

You are a bad guy if you use drugs, were an enemy of the United States in a current conflict, or are generally disliked by the majority for who you are.

Basically, you are "bad", and it never stops at rehabilitation or punishment; you are always a bad person no matter how you think you've changed on the inside.

People say different and they think they know different. After all, everyone is a liar, and no one trusts anyone else for what they say about themselves. It's a reprehensible mess and it starts with the demonization of human beings.

As I said before, judgment taken out of context along with assumptions upon wisdom or facts is a perversion of truth and should not be indulged in by people who consider themselves intelligent.

Making assumptions is a symptom of ignorance. Making assumptions is the same thing as the tunnel vision of investigators in a murder case. Just because nine out of ten other cases seem to confirm an assumption, that isn't a guarantee. A guarantee is out of the grasp of human beings until true infallibility can be found.

Guest Post: Gene Burmington on anti-gay movement in Uganda

This is a guest post by Gene Burmington. (Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in the guest post are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect my own.)

---

Ugandan anti-gay pastor Martin Ssempa He eat da poo-poo and he like it

Ssempa is an ignoramus who embodies every aspect of Christianity which could possibly go wrong. By condemning homosexuality, he refuses to reaffirm the forgiveness of Christ; a right guaranteed even a man on death row.

Not only does he refuse to acknowledge this fact, he is also very blatant to ignore the reason why early Christians killed people. People in Salem were unanimous in their selection of persons which were unfaithful in their congregation and would execute them to save their souls before the Devil could make them more wicked.

Ugandans who are staunch opposers of homosexuality and gay rights make no mention of this; even under the guise of religion, Ugandans don't care about the purity of these people's souls or want them to reach heaven-they just want them gone.

Rather than export them from the country, it is a far clearer demonstration of their condemnation to kill their own sick deviants, as god hath intended.

Of course, god really isn't too specific about how to punish sodomy, is he? He says it is abomination-he doesn't say what to do about it.

It can be expected that people with a limited sense of social responsibility and appreciation for overall rights would quickly connect the dots toward murder.

After all, let's be quite clear; throughout history, death has been the immediate solution to something that people fear and hate. When someone is killed, they are gone forever and nobody else has the courage to stand up.

If it worked for Hitler and Stalin, Uganda can do it too.

After they kill enough people, homosexuality will be so far underground in Uganda that they'll need an oil drill to find the rest.

Of course, Ssempa would inflame people with his two most biting examples in his kangaroo court of homophobia:

Guest post: On the Indian caste system and Dalits

This is a guest post by my friend Gene Burmington. Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in the guest post are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect my own. [Minor spelling edits.]

---

Indian Dalit children [via The My Hero Project | click for full size]

Mahatma Gandhi was a man who could move mountains and mobilize a country for peaceful anarchy, but even he could not move the stone of the Caste system in India.

To be more specific, the caste system was loosely comparable to Feudalism in Europe, in that everyone was born into a specific role in the system whether they liked it or not.

The caste system is heavily tied to Hinduism and reincarnation, in that people are reincarnated into higher or lower life forms depending on their deeds and conduct in their previous life.

With regard to this, Dalits are considered the people who were either upgraded from a dog or pig, or seriously fucked up in their life as a member higher in the infrastructure.

In either case, Dalits are considered to have so much sin and bad vibes around them (that's karma, baby) that nobody wants to touch or associate with them for fear of being polluted by whatever has been stuck to them in their previous life on the wheel of reincarnation.

If it ended at that, things would be fine.

However, everyone in India has to be a huge bullying douche and do to Dalits what the rest of us grade school assholes outgrew.

Persecution, inequality, and even things as simple as "no dalits allowed" or "no dalit bathrooms". Basically, Hindus took a simple idea of untouchable and turned it into a full blown case of hypocrisy called "your the funny smelling retarded kid in class, so I'm going to bother you".

Funny retarded kid in class being the Dalit at India high. Brahmins are the teachers and principle in the school, the Kshatriyas are the popular kids and jocks, the Vaishas are the people into Pokémon or Yugioh, the Shudras are the nerds, and the Dalits are everyone else who isn't good enough to fit in and get their lockers filled with carcasses, spit on, punched, and harassed.

Now after reading this, you tell me if you want to be that unpopular group of kids that nobody likes-especially when the teachers and principals could care less about what happens to you.

Of course, don't forget school shootings.

One Dalit gets pissed off and goes to school trying to join a different group or better himself in life, the next day everyone freaks the fuck out and packs guns to cap every Dalit they can find.

Congratulations for mixing grade school immaturity with adult violence, India.

Guest post: From the horse's mouth: Bestiality at the source

This is a guest post by my friend Gene Burmington. We have an arrangement where he periodically sends me content that I reproduce on this blog unedited. (Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in the guest post are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect my own.) [Minor spelling edits.]

---

Classic bestiality sculpture at Khajuraho Lakshmana temple, India So don’t come to me and say it’s a recent thing, ya hear?!

As the person behind this blog already asserts, there are different levels to bestiality. Now some might consider me being outlandishly favorable of bestiality is a moot and biased point since I have everything to gain by declaring its validity so of course I'd 'lie about it'.

However, the reason for me coming here to talk about it is much simpler. What better leading authority is there on bestiality than a person who is active in the underworld society hidden from view?

We have the pope as an authority on religion and judges as authorities on law so why can't a bestialist be a valid authority on bestiality?

Anyway, it's a difficult concept to outline for others due to the fact that I don't think like other people. Where most people see disgust or depravity, I see safety, love, and opportunity.

Well let's start with disgust. Considering that animals are not compatible with our DNA, it shouldn't be something that's gross or disgusting-besides the ridiculous notion of "pregnancy", animals have NO STDs that humans can catch.

On top of that, it's only depraved if you think of it in a religious or close-minded point of view. What's so honestly depraved about it? these are just ideas placed in the mind by the attitudes of society.

I am very clear to emphasize that interracial sexual relations were also considered depraved until recently. Don't forget that hundreds of years ago, people tried to make African-Americans into animals as well as they could. You can watch movies like Oprah Winfrey in "Beloved" and catch those sorts of overtones.

Religion will always stick out as a proponent of any liberal thinking. Before you give religion the merit to tell you what's right and wrong, remember two things religion tried to do:

It tried to stop the advancement of science and production when Copernicus and Galileo were exploring the universe.

Guest post: On Holocaust Denialism

This is a guest post by my good friend Gene Burmington. I wanted to diversify my blog content a little, and we arrived upon the horrible subject of holocaust denialism; I forget whether he offered or I asked, but regardless, here’s what he sent me, in full and unedited, save for a few spelling fixes (because those red underlines bug me). (Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in the guest post content are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect my own. Though, considering I accepted to show this on my blog with my recommendation, they tend to align.)

---

Unidentified painting of internees at a labor camp

Holocaust Revisionism is defined as any definite action to either deny or curb the seriousness of the event everyone understands as the Holocaust.

This is an important thing to bear in mind because there are few events in history that should not be diminished in meaning and scope, and the holocaust is one of them. It is a black mark on history to remind all of us that horror and cruelty is entirely possible even in civilized countries.

Before world war two, Germany was just as industrialized a nation as any other country in Europe. Sure, they were reeling from the consequences of the Great Depression, but overall Germany was held on par with France and Britain as far as sophistication was concerned even despite the fact that there was much blame on Germany for starting the first war.

That aside, yes, this was the proof that not merely lawless countries can perpetrate genocide. Thanks to the wonders and organization of bureaucracy, though, the process of killing people was made much simpler and organised-sort of how we slaughter cattle nowadays, unfortunately.

The problem is that this system of death was so efficient that deniers claim that if the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews as soon as possible, then there would be none left. By that logic, there was no Holocaust because the Nazis did not do so, so genocide was not their final solution.

I'm sorry to say that this is incorrect; If German bureaucracy was so efficient, it would have all the supplies and fuel that Rommel or Paulus needed and they could keep on pushing the Allies back. Fortunately, Germany only lost because they didn't know how to allocate their resources or how to use them. If Germany had focused on building fighter planes instead of bombers or V-1 rockets, there would be no Battle of Britain and the Nazis would control all the islands of the U.K..

There have been a number of different arguments used by revisionists, but they all fall into the same cache; the Holocaust either didn't happen or wasn't as bad as people portrayed it to be. Here's a question-why are there no revisionists claiming that the Holocaust was WORSE than it was, or claiming that Sudan is perpetrating a modern Holocaust?