Bill Hicks had the right idea, he was just too early

So, amidst the darkness and despair of human devolution I've fully embraced Bill Hicks.
- Man, you're like 20 years behind the rest of us.
I know, and that bugs me, but for those who wait for something good... Some artists, musicians, politicians, philosophers and those in-between the seats of contemporary idiocy with labelling work, have over the years touched some part of me, projecting different understandings of the world we live in and how our actions affects us all. The sceptic in me, however, often hinders my fascination of ideas alien to me, and lets it sink in over a long incubation period. So, it's a rare thing when an individual comes out and wins me over, instantly.

I've tried to maintain a somewhat positive view on humanity, or at least acknowledge that I was ambivalent towards human society. But over the years, when you encounter the douche bags, the idiots and feeble minded turds, who believe they can behave like kings, treat others like slaves, and who always craves the centre of attention, that's when you start to wonder how this kind of human garbage can pollute the media, the production circles and the different platforms for performance, where honest people have to endure the sight of their donkey-headed faces. How can we change the world to something better, when we allow these idiots to ruin it with their short-sighted minds on exposure and personal gain?

I imagine a world without them, without their superficial personalities, their useless "ideas" and their masculine insecurity, and I find myself in the deepest respect of Bill Hicks' sincerity and willpower to address the commercial world in Western society that lobbies for human mediocrity, human shallowness and how he makes no discrimination when he challenges an asshole in the audience.

Now, for some reasons, some feminists have found Hicks' approach to simple-minded idiots to be sexist and abusive. This is bizarre, if not plain stupid. Have they even understood the broader view Hicks introduced during his sets? Or that Hicks' had a calm and loose approach on sex? Not everything is about your fucking body, you self-centered attention idiots.

"The arrogance of clergy"

A much appreciated speech from the ranting comedian Pat Condell, a man I seldom agrees with, but in this case, he definitely has a point:



"Public religion exist for the sole benefit of clergy, and clergy exist for the sole benefit of clergy". Priceless.

Arrogance in the metal scene

Obituary Interview HARDTIMES.CA

HARDTIMES.CA|MySpace Videos

Obituary is one of the classic death bands I used to adore, alongside Carcass, Death, Dismember, Entombed and Morbid Angel. They've done excellent music and their approach to death metal is unique.

Sadly mr. Ralph Santolla, guitarist in Obituary, seem to think that militant islamist (in general i assume) is determined purely to destroy the U.S. This sounds more like arrogance, and those who propagate it haven't much clue on the political islamist culture (both the peaceful movements and the militant ones) and how the West has influenced it. Next time these xenophobics stop by the library, they should visit the History and Religion - sections. Maybe it'll help them develop a broader sense on cultures other than their own. Militant islamistic movements, as an example, has been created over a long period of time. Mainly outside (West) extortion on sitting governments in the Middle East and North Africa thru military invasion and occupations but also grave cultural offence (such as U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia), Western economic exploitation of these countries' resources and labor, Western colonialism and political manipulations of elections, and their support to antidemocratic factions and assassinations of officials opposed to the Western states is some of the factors that have influenced the re-growth of radical Islamic movements and the military side of them.

Also very disturbing is Ralph Santolla's view on the U.S. political power structure and their political tradition: "That's because in America the power really flows upwards from the people to the top, rather than downwards, and people don't want to turn the United States into a socialistic country, period", as in response to the reporter's notion: "...now it has been revealed that, in fact, he [President Barack Obama] doesn't have as much power as everyone hoped he'd had".

First: The U.S. has had a long tradition of segmented corporate lobbyism in politics, directly affecting the agendas and policies of ordinary day-to-day legislation and administration. On the surface it might resemble other state-institutional traditions of the Western countries. But in reality U.S-lobbyism is a big client-based organisational system, which influences judicial and administrative praxis and also operates a lot with unofficial handshakes, and that's why some honest politicians for once legislated against it, in order to make the government and the Congress a more transparent, consistent and reliable institutional foundation. To believe that the U.S. politics (in general) is incentive for grass-root movements is therefore false and wishful-thinking. Especially when the U.S. has always been advocating the individual as the main player in ordinary life and example of consideration in law decision, therefore creating obstacles for collective groups in society to influence the government and the parliamentary work.

Second: Barack Obama and his government doesn't act socialistic. He/their ideas does not originate from that ideological tree at all. He/they may talk in socialistic terms sometimes but their idealistic background and actions are based upon the same political realism and liberal ideas that Carter, Clinton, Johnson, Roosevelt and Truman embraced, especially when it comes to foreign policy and U.S. domestic security, which is based upon strategic thinking and pragmatic decision over most moral codexs.

Third: Robert Dahl, Professor in Political science at Yale University, U.S., noted that "...democracy provides opportunities for: 1. Effective participation...[] 3. Gaining enlighted understanding, 4. Excercising final control over the agenda..." (note).
Now, how many citizens can actually participate in U.S. legislation, how many citizens actually vote, and moreover, which kind of citizens do vote? We know from statistics that the U.S. has had a long history of pretty low voting participation, sometimes under 50%, which is demoralising for a constitutional body and its mandate ability to wield power. Moreover, how easy is it as a private person to try and influence the legislation, whether it's on federal level or in a member-state, when you're competing with institutions and organisations (=lobbyists) who have a network of intelligence and partners to halt your efforts, resources that easily outmatches your own when it comes to marketing your ideas to the legislators, and a decisive position in the labor market, a crucial part of the society, influencing a lot of the workers political ideas thru labor-producing campaigns or indirect extortion with pressure on labor unions?

Summary: It's always easier to fear what you don't know anything about, especially when it comes to foreigners and their "strange" cultures. Unfortunately that's a very destructive behaviour and has been a contributing factor to many wars.
It's also very destructive to believe a political system is constituted from the people, when in fact the political participation doesn't have full inclusion, for example the leftovers of McCarthyism, which hinders all real socialistic ideas to come forward in U.S. legislation and bureaucracy.
Many people in the U.S. still seem to think that socialism automatically equals communism, which of course is false. Communism is a derivation of Marxs ideas. Communism propagates public right over both produced goods and services and private property, while socialism only propagates the workers rights over their own produced goods and services. This crucial difference is something that people, sadly, tend to forget, or ignore.

Note: Page 38, Dahl, Robert, On Democracy, Yale University (ISBN 0-300-08455-2)

Pinsam version av feminism

Vilken jävla planet kommer vissa människor ifrån, Mars eller? De verkar tala ur arslet när de egentligen borde använda den där slemhögen i kraniet som insamlar information. Och denna paranoida übermenschen-feminism finns alltså i Umeå. Undrar hur många män dessa så fina och ädla kvinnor egentligen har träffat i sitt liv. Kanske en, vilket var ett rötägg. Eller? Tiina Rosenbergs välpolerade ridstövlar och läderpiska gör återigen entré i folks tankegångar.



Frågan är om man ska skratta eller gråta över detta. Jag är fortfarande häpen över graden av inskränkthet och hur korkade vissa människor kan bli i en viss miljö. Kanske man behöver uppfinna ett helt nytt språk för att förstå sån här goja, där Män blir lika med Ondska och Kvinnor synonymt med Godhet, eller Heterosexuellt sex översätts till Våldtäkt och Hat lika med Frihet. Du är stark och modig om du hatar, och du är fri om du yppar ditt hat mot någon. I och för sig låter det inte så tokigt, eller hur? Vi vill ju alla lufta våra personliga fördomar och oförrätter för någon, men det är ju oerhört fult att säga det i öppen debatt. Bättre då att maskera all denna bitterhet och missriktade frustrationer i en hafsigt paketerat version av en ideologi.