Two years before Benedict Cumberbatch was Doctor Strange, he was Alan
Turing, a witty yet socially awkward mathematician. Turing is self-proclaimed
the best mathematician on earth and it becomes his mission to crack the Nazi encryption
Based on a true story and set in the early 1940’s, when the war was just
underway for England, it is Turing’s responsibility to organize a team of
linguists and mathematicians ingenious enough to crack the most advanced encryption
machine known to man. Enigma is the
primary machine used by the Nazi Germany to code secret intelligence. According
to England intelligence, cracking the code is the best chance England has at
defeating Germany and ending the war.
However, as Turing points out, the war isn’t really against Germany,
it is against time. As each precious month passes by, England gains more
casualties and famine becomes a growing concern. The conflict of the story doesn’t
strictly revolve around the struggle to break Enigma in time though. Instead,
we find Turing constantly harassed by those around him, who see Turing as an
outcast and doubt his ability to succeed in this mission.
To find success, Turing ends up partnering with an unlikely compadre,
Joan Clark, who he must meet with in secret to gain assistance in the attempt
to crack Enigma. The dynamic duo begins to make the seemingly impossible
mission appear imaginable. As Turing claims, “It is the people, who no one
imagines anything of, who do the things that no one can imagine.”
The storyline of the film is played out with flashbacks into Turing’s
complicated childhood, as well as many obscure scenes of Turing’s future, where
he is being investigated about an accusation that is unbeknownst to the
audience. These glimpses into Turing’s past and future end up being essential
in making sense of the plot.
Throughout the story we are presented with themes about the
persecution of homosexuals by England’s Whitehall, the struggle for women’s
rights, and a riveting and dynamic conflict. One could say that the film is
riddled with enduring moments of optimism and triumph, as well as moments of strain
So, despite the huge victory that is inevitably to come for England, not
all the cast can be expected to find their ever after. If I may say, this film
is a real tear-jerker.
In the end, I found The Imitation Game to be utterly gripping and both thought-provoking. It is also comparable to Inception, Fight Club, or The Prodigy, in the sense that you are going to have to pay attention to every nonsequential scene and iota of dialogue. There is not a wasted scene in this movie.
As we enter a zenith of ignorance and incuriosity, it has become apparent that mainstream media has devolved into a complete circus. This phenomenon is also frequently referred to as “clown world” by right-leaning online trolls. However, the alt-left has already redefined “clown world” to be an alt-right propaganda meme. So, I’m just going to lay low here and custom the euphemism of circus.
President Trump’s election in 2016, we have witnessed a distinct shift in many mainstream
news networks. Whereas once the role of a news network was to report
non-partisan news, they are now being clearly repurposed by adopting the “watchdog
The “watchdog role” is the obligation for a journalist to inform the public of matters that may cause them harm. It is plain to see how this role is quick to cause more harm than good. By advocating a watchdog role, journalists and news networks are inclined to warn the public of matters that are bound to cause harm to – wait for it – their personal political agendas.
instead of news networks publishing non-partisan reports, we now have reports
that are agenda-setting; seeking to influence the public for political gain. Their
preferred mode: fear.
The reality about contemporary mainstream media is that the majority of what is reported is trivial, due the fashion in which it is presented. If there is a matter worthy of reporting to the public, like a shooting or a natural disaster, it quickly becomes diluted by the baroque nature of the reporting.
A mass shooting quickly turns into a two-part interview with a liberal arts professor, discussing why white nationalism and the 2nd Amendment are to blame for the death of innocent civilians. A natural disaster becomes a campaign against climate change. A public service announcement from the President devolves into a quote taken out of context and repurposed to present Trump as a racist.
Speaking of President Trump. Here is a quote from the President, following the 2017 conflict that arose in Charlottesville over the controversial decision to remove the statue of General Robert E. Lee.
“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.”
the President’s punctual responses to every incidence of violence that has
occurred since his inauguration, and the countless times that he has spoken out
against racism and hate, mainstream media incessantly reports him to be the
exact opposite of what he claims to be.
To name a few perpetrators, CNN did it here, The New York Times did it here, The Atlantic here, Vox here, HuffPost here, USA Today here, and former President Obama even did it here, courtesy of CNN.
just served you a list of news sites to abstain from on a silver platter, and
since we’re on the topic of mainstream media being a circus, I will throw Fox
News into the mix, despite my conservative views.
Media, specifically newsroom media, has
become entertainment. Entertainment, as we know, is reliant upon evoking
emotions; drama is unnaturally added to the narrative by forging stereotypes, structuring
caricatures, and raising tension.
So, Leftist media is assuming the watchdog role by claiming that the half of America who voted for Trump is a Nazi, and Rightist media is assuming their watchdog role by rebuking and debunking every claim from the left. The latter only being natural for a party who elected the first President to ever publicly lambaste mainstream media and essentially coin the term “fake news”.
Fake news indeed.
There is an abundance of dishonest reporting, and American citizens are fed up.
All in all, mainstream media is failing the
public. The media is a public service and they are currently triumphing at
providing an onslaught of disservice.
What is the solution?
The solution starts with you and I.
The resolution to this “clown world”, both republican and democratic, is to deliberately choose what you consume.
This logic is the same with dieting. If you want to be healthy, eat healthy food. If you want to be an unhealthy, overweight, depressed pig, then eat garbage.
If you want good news, find non-partisan news.
A new site that I recommend is AllSides.com. They report brief, non-partisan news. They will also give you links to other websites from the left, the center, and the right, so you can check for yourself. If you’re interested in a story, check multiple reports and corroborate.
In the meanwhile, abstain from Vox, The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, The Atlantic, CNN, Fox News, and Breitbart. They’ve all become TMZ. If you would voluntarily watch TMZ, you’re incurable, go crazy. If that’s not you, then steer clear.
Here is a short list of random proverbs and adages that I’ve created and clung to over the course of some time.
“Eternity starts tomorrow.“
“If we take the Bible literally, our life will change rapidly.”
“There is no instantaneous reward for discipline, only a life well-lived.”
“Mankind’s greatest obstacle: himself.”
“Obedience towards God is really our only mission in life.”
“Any man who fails to heed his own advice is committing himself to be a fool.”
“Vanity is to feed the flesh, for it cannot be satiated.”
“‘Deny himself’ is the key that we use to unlock our true potential.”
“Accountability is the privilege of having a community that will hold you morally responsible for your actions in a loving and caring way, thus motivating you to conquer over yourself and find freedom.”
“This life is but a fragment of eternity.”
“Does Christ really call us to much more than to ‘be responsible’? To be responsible for ourselves and others, according to his standard of justice and love?”
“Allow your flesh to suffer, and to let your soul be glad.”
“Christ did not die so that we could live this life in comfort, he died so that we could spend eternity with him.”
“The miseries that exist in our life are brought to our awareness once they are contrasted to the hope and love of Jesus Christ.”
“Every time we come closer to understanding the magnitude of God’s grace, we can expect our faith to be uplifted.”
“It does not matter what our infant culture has to say. Culture is a creation of man, and man is a fallible creature indeed.”
“Truth can often times be offensive, even divisive. Nevertheless, speak truth. Speak truth in love.”
“What happens to truth when you allow people to speak freely? Nothing. What happens to truth when you restrict the ability to speak freely? It becomes lost.”
“Satan’s favorite Christian is the biblically illiterate Christian.”
“Confession keeps us vulnerable. Confession keeps us walking in the light. Confession keeps our walk with the Lord genuine.“
“The inspiration of one man can bring about the imagination of a thousand men to liberation.”
As if there weren’t already an adequate amount of subject matter to conclude that women are incompatible with the military, politicians have presented one more token of incongruity. They’re calling it the MOMS Leave Act. It’s a hypothetical bill that, if passed, would grant military mothers an entire year of paid maternity leave.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger has commented on
the bill saying, “We should never ask our Marines to choose between being the
best parent possible and the best Marine possible.”
My only comment would be “If being the best parent is more important
than being the best Marine, then why don’t you give the father a year of paid
paternity leave, considering he is also a parent, and considering this bill is undergirded
by the premise of equality?”
However, I don’t really mean that. Giving a year of paid
maternity leave already depletes the lethality and readiness of the military
enough. Handing out that same privilege to men would only cause more unnecessary
I may be wrong about all of this entirely. However, after serving five years in the Marine Corps myself, I’ve witnessed firsthand the abhorrent level of inequality that exists in the Marine Corps. I’m not talking about the inequality that is directed at women. I’m talking about the uncanny amount of inequality that is dealt to men.
As the record stands, of the 26,000 Marines deployed during the war with Iraq, 0 women died compared to the 195 men who died. Just an unassuming inequality statistic. Moreover, women are required to pass a physical fitness test (PFT) and a combat fitness test (CFT) at a standard that is lower than that of a man, for the same score.
If you evaluate the charts, you will find this: Males ages
21-25 are required to perform 23 pull ups, 115 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3
miles in 18 minutes in order to receive a 100 on their PFT. On the contrary,
women of the same age demographic are required to do 11 pull ups, 110 crunches
in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 21 minutes in order to also receive a perfect
score. In other words, women are required to perform 75.6% of the male’s
standard in order to receive the same score. If you calculate the comparison
for the CFT, you will find that number to be 69.7%.
What does this mean? Well it certainly means that women can feel comfortable enjoying a low risk of death and a high chance of promotion compared to their male counterparts. Female Marines also report having worse shooting scores and higher rates of injury than male Marines.
This is an attack on men for its inequality. I digress. This
is an attack on women. It’s an attack on women because it does nothing to
prepare them for the legitimate threat that is out there. The Marine Corps has
created a standard for the sake of combat effectiveness and survival. By
lowering that standard for women, you set them up for failure.
This is also an assault on the military itself by producing Marines that are less combat effective. However, if that were not already enough, now women are going to be incentivized to take a hiatus from active duty to have children. Why? Because an entire year of paid off time is certainly more preferable than preparing for war.
Once again, maybe I’m wrong about all of this. Perhaps I’m a
misogynist and I just won’t admit it; a bigot who shouldn’t be allowed to spew such
Or maybe I’m a former Marine who is concerned about the lethality
and effectiveness of our military.
Currently women are permitted a standardized 42-day period of paid maternity leave. I’m an advocate of the current standard. However, if there is a job willing to give women an entire year of absenteeism, it shouldn’t be a job that is dependent upon an actively engaged and lethal fighting force, ready to defend the American people from a foreign threat.
Last I checked, the military was not about individuals receiving
special privileges. It was about a body of men possessing the lethality to
effectively neutralize a threat.
If you’re really concerned about equality, then make the physical standards the same. If you’re really concerned about equality, then regard a “parent” as both the mother and the father. If you’re really concerned about equality, then stop setting the bar low for women. You’re doing them a disservice.
Bottom line: Politicians claim to fight for equality. Yet, their actions towards women in the military are unequal than that of their actions towards men, proving that they don’t really believe in equality. Men and women are an entirely different breed, and all human history is aware of it.
If there is one evident truth about the nature of humanity, it is that we are all in search of something. It is as if the entirety of mankind is in search of something else or something more – something to make us feel like more.
The reality of this observation reveals to us that although we are all individuals, we are not quite independent. We prove to ourselves far too often that we are very much dependent upon something. We’re dependent because the very nature of our essence is incomplete, for there exists an almost insatiable void within every one of us. This truth is displayed in the lives of both skeptics and believers. Skeptics (that is, individuals who are skeptical of Christianity) may seek to find that “something more” in the pleasures of this world, or they may attempt to find it in the metaphysical: in an ideology or philosophy or some type of new age spirituality. Whereas we believers not only seek it, but we find it. We find it in Christ and in Christ alone.
However, it’s not really that simple to describe a Christian in such a way, for we all struggle with where we devote our attention. We Christians are still very much a part of this world, and we often fall short of the standard that God has called us to live by. What can I say? we are sinners! We prove this to ourselves time and time again, and that is why we need Christ. He is the only one who is capable of covering our multitude of sins. But despite us knowing this truth, we Christians are still inclined to sin against God. Why is this so?
We are all in constant need of satisfaction. The problem is that we don’t always go to the right source.
Satisfaction without sin. You might be wondering what I mean by that. What I mean to say is that there exists a life abundantly full of satisfaction and everlasting fulfilment, and it is also void of sin. This is the life that Christ offers us. However, there also exists a life that is full of sin and the pursuit of chasing after worldliness, yet it is also void of genuine satisfaction – it only offers temporary happiness. This kind of life could be referred to as sin without satisfaction. This is the life that we offer ourselves.
As I’ve said, “there exists an almost insatiable void within every one of us.” I say this because well, I think that it is evidently true. We’re not like other animals. We cannot find true fulfillment through gorging our fleshly desires.
We know that we’re uniquely different from any other animal in a thousand different ways. To mention a short list of unique traits that humans have: Intellect and conceptual thought, free will, ethical responsibility, moral accountability, and inalienable rights of personhood (and if one were to attempt to disagree with this standard of humanity’s unique state of being, they would in fact be engaging in “conceptual thought, exercising their free will, believing that there is an ethical responsibility to teach what is right/true, seeking to hold me morally accountable to teach the truth,” and demonstrating that they have the “right to disagree with my position”). Truly, we are not animals with mere instincts. We are unique. Scripture refers to this unique quality as being ‘made in the image of God’ (Gen. 1:26).
So, we cannot simply find lasting fulfillment from quenching our body’s basic needs because there exists a “higher calling” within every one of us. If we know a “higher calling” exists, then why should be ever expect to satisfy that calling/desire with the things of this world? Our desire for satisfaction and fulfilment is not of this world! It is an immaterial and unworldly desire. It is the innate desire to be elevated.
Unfortunately, humanity too often attempts to obtain this elevation through their own authority, as if we’re all attempting to become the saviors of our own life. This is where we miss the mark. This is where we fall into sin (hamartia is the Greek word for sin, meaning ‘to miss the mark’). We fall into sin every time that we seek something other than God to satisfy our unsated state of being. We’re all guilty of this mistake and it’s because “this is simply the nature of being a creature rather than the Creator, who alone is whole and complete and lacking in nothing.” Therefore, we who are incomplete must seek He who is complete.
Do not love the world.
Scripture tells us that we must “not love the world or the things in the world . . . For all that is in the world – the desire of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions – is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 Jn. 2:15-17).
Because the world is temporary, all that it can offer is inevitably temporary. We mustn’t put our trust in the things of this world. For all that is of this world must remain with the world. Your house, your car, your job, your bank account, your social media accounts, your sex life – all that you have acquired on earth will abandon you in the end. It will remain on earth to be eaten by rust and rot. Even our body is destined to turn to dust. All that we can take with us when we go is ourselves – our soul.
We are not bodies with a soul, but instead a soul with a body. All that we are worth, all that we truly are is that which distinguishes our soul. And without Christ, our soul is distinguished as sinful and unholy. Our fallen condition has rendered us helpless in reversing this reality by our own work. It is only through the work of Christ that we can hope for our sinful condition to find restoration. It is only by the blood of Christ that our soul can be distinguished as worthy and holy before God.
It is only God the everlasting, the all-loving, the all-knowing, and the all-forgiving who can grant us exactly what it is that we are looking for. He satisfies our every need and He forgives our every sin. He knew us by name before time began, He hand-crafted us in our mother’s womb, He knows our every desire and shortcoming, and it is only by Him and through Him that we will find rest from our long, exhausting quest for meaning and fulfillment.
He loved us long before we knew Him, which is why He has sent His only begotten son into the world to save us from ourselves and to forgive us of our sins. Our only response to this kind of grace and mercy is to trust in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, confess with our mouths that He is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God has raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9). We must allow Him to be the King of our lives, and follow Him. For He is the only one who can offer us a life of satisfaction without sin.
 Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004), 131-132.
 Barnes, M. Craig. Body & Soul: Reclaiming the Heidelberg Catechism. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011), 50.
It has been impossible to ignore the trending, refashioning of American history that is incessantly circulating in the media. One article I was unfortunate enough to stumble upon left me completely inundated at the audacious display of partiality and ignorance that the author willfully espoused, during their retelling of American history.
The article can be found here, ranked among a list of genocidal atrocities that have taken place in human history.
I really hate to bash this article since endgenocide.org supports a good cause, however a one-sided history of the North American conquest doesn’t quite appertain to a website aimed at ending genocide.
Hell, I was so confused when I found ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans’ on a website titled ‘End Genocide’, that I thought I was reading satire. The article is simply out of place; it would be suiting to be published on The Onion, because this article is a stunt.
Anyhow, after reading I couldn’t help but criticize the author’s blatant attempt at delivering a message construing American history to be abounding with racist white men, committing deliberate acts of genocide on docile, peaceful, kumbaya-singing Native Americans.
Here are some of the outlandish, partial, and ignorant remarks:
“Even today, Native Americans face … ongoing cases of discrimination.”
“Several wars broke out between tribes and American settlers which led to large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism.”
“Ultimately, while Columbus is remembered as a daring adventurer, he was also a perpetrator of atrocities and his legacy is viewed as the starting point that sparked hundreds of years of exploration and exploitation of the Americas.”
“By the time Christopher Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492, historians estimate that there were 10 million indigenous peoples living in U.S. territory. But by 1900, the number had reduced to less than 300,000.”
The author cites that early settlers distributed smallpox blankets to the natives and proclamations for “redskins” (scalps) were given, which is a “a major indicator of genocidal acts.”
This publisher also couldn’t help but refer to the Hoover Commission’s urge to assimilate the Native Americans as a “modern atrocity.”
Okay, now I’m required to chime in on these claims.
My first question is “what form of discrimination are Native Americans currently facing and where is this taking place?” I’ve been unsuccessful at locating systematic cases of discrimination against Native Americans in the 21st century. Could it be that there aren’t any?
To mention that war resulted in “large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism” is to simply speak of war. In the context of war, land dispossession is a common goal, oppression of the enemy is necessary, and racism is unfortunately a customary occurrence in the context of war. Just read any memoir on any war where the opposing forces were of different ethnicities. It wasn’t a racist, systematic form of genocide. It was the hatred of the enemy that resulted in hatred of the race (on both sides), not vice versa.
Also, why must Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas be so quickly discredited due to the wars that were inevitably to come? Are we really signaled to believe that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 in search of an undiscovered, underdeveloped civilization that he intended to commit acts of genocide on? Or was he sent out in search of a trade route to India?
Also, the author’s claim to 10 million Native Americans is a frequently debated numerical claim, however 10 million is quite eccentric. Anthropologists have estimated a mere 800,000.
In regards to the distribution of smallpox blankets, this atrocity happened on maybe three occurrences, only one of which can be confirmed. And once again, the settlers were engaged in war.
In regards to incidents of scalping, this strategy was utilized by both sides. To suggest that it was merely settlers who engaged in scalping is obtuse. Where do you think they adopted this idea from? Yeah, the Native Americans. This practice was common well before any settlers landed at Jamestown, and it was recurrent among many Native American tribes, who by the way, were commonly engaged in civil wars with one another. If scalping is supposedly considered a “major indicator of genocide”, then you ought to paint the entire picture.
This article, ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans‘, is found among a listing of genocidal atrocities throughout human history, to include the Holocaust, the Armenian extermination, and Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide. Are we really hellbent on listing Columbus and Truman alongside Pol Pot? Are individuals earnestly willing to rewrite the conquest of North America as an act of systematic genocide?
The founding of America was simply that, a conquest.
The motivation wasn’t racism, and the reduction of the Native American population wasn’t a deliberate act of genocide.
Just pause for a moment and ponder what the world would look like had America never been founded by Europeans with Judeo-Christian values. The technologically underdeveloped communities that once roamed this land were bound to be conquered. Would the world be a better place if the Soviet Union owned this land? How about Imperial Japan? The Third Reich? We mustn’t dare to assume this that land would still be occupied by indigenous people.
If the proponents of identity politics are truly convinced that American History is riddled with angry white men committing acts of genocide on Native Americans, and that these acts merit reparations, then once again, you must use that paint brush of yours to paint the entire picture.
Essentially every square mile of currently owned land on Earth was previously owned by someone else. So, in regard to reparations, where do we even begin?
Are you curious about learning to enhance your ability to delude and overwhelm all those disgusting, altruistic proponents of the pro-life movement in an argument?
By following these three rules correctly, you can be sure to triumph over the next radical, right-wing dullard foolish enough to square off with your newly established, pro-choice, rhetoric repertoire.
Rule #1: Deny biology.
The first tool you’re going to want to add to your double-dealing
toolbox of chicanery is the art of denying biological facts.
Every citizen in America who has at least the cognitive capacity of Burn After Reading’s Chad Feldheimer is able to grasp a rudimentary understanding of reproductive biology.
In other words, if someone is 9 or older, they’re likely aware
of the biological composition of a human zygote.
Biology is simply not going to help you in this argument.
So, you’re going to have to be crafty about it. Don’t say it
outright that you don’t believe in the facts of biological discoveries.
Your pro-life opponent is going to want to allude to the “fact” that the random cluster of cells is human. Prevent them from doing this at all costs. If they’re unyielding, then you’re going to want to use some duplicity once they begin coursing down that path.
For instance, instead of the word “fetus”, a word the pro-lifers love to pound out like a drumbeat, use the word “parasite”.
If this fails, I recommend keeping it sophisticated by using
shifty euphemisms when speaking about the unborn.
Speaking of euphemisms, here’s an exceptional one to add to
your political jargon.
Rule #2: Use the word “viable”.
This word is your rhetoric bread and butter when debating against the sanctimonious, pro-life milksops.
The heroes over at Planned Parenthood are more Janus-faced
than the supervillain Loki himself, and they’ve managed to reserve an ambiguous,
legal term to utilize when speaking about these trivial parasites.
As we know, killing a human is murder. However, the termination of something that isn’t viable” is simply practicing a human right, handed to us by the fallacious Supreme Court.
Since the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, it is the interpretation
of viability that holds the verdict
of the legality of abortion. Therefore, it is your mandate to treasure this
word like pure gold.
Remember, the goal of this debate is for you to dehumanize the unborn and justify the convenient termination of the unplanned. Never use the word “fetus” or “zygote” or “human”.
Always use the word viable or nonviable whenever viable.
By utilizing this word correctly, you will be able to quickly turn any debate for human life into a debate for human rights, thus refashioning your adversary’s attempt at preserving human life into an assault on women’s rights. Nobody is fond of a bigot.
And this brings me to my next point.
Wow, the segues are falling right into place today.
Rule #3: Substitute the term “human life” with “reproductive rights”.
Don’t be foolish enough to believe that the cunningly devised euphemism of pro-choice is enough to coax the pro-lifers into believing that we’re not anti-life.
We use the label, pro-choice, because we’re resolute about abstaining from the debate for human life.
This isn’t about human life. It’s about human rights, and women have the right to choose.
Therefore, when utilizing this rule, you must remember to handle it with finesse. Show some passion.
Assuming you’ve already attempted Rules #1 and #2, turn the tides at this point in the argument by cooking up some red hot fervor.
Make the debate personal.
Bring up the fact that you’re related to a single mother, and that she would’ve been better off without that nagging inconvenience.
If you don’t know any single mothers, then just get creative with it. Bring up the fact that less than 1% of abortions are the byproduct of rape and incest, and that those anomalies warrant the right for all women to terminate any unplanned pregnancy due to raw convenience.
Women have reproductive rights. If they don’t want to share their body with an unviable parasite, then they have the right to terminate it.
See what I did there? I just used all three rules in a brief comment. Like I said, get creative.
So, ensure to publicly lambaste the next pretentious wrangler seeking to subvert the freedom a woman has over her body.
Also, this rule is especially potent when used against men. In fact, when debating men, I recommend jumping straight to this rule. By arguing over reproductive rights, you shrink their credibility by turning them into a sexist and an oppressor.
Remember, “iron sharpens iron” and Planned Parenthood murders babies. If we keep up our fight against the bigoted, misogynist, right-wing, pro-life radicals, then we can be confident in being one step closer to the complete dehumanization and degeneration of racist, sexist America.
After thirty long days of the LGBTQ community gallivanting in the streets and shouting “Me, Me, Me,” it’s finally over.
I realize I already sound like a homophobe, since as the politically, polarizing argument would assume, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
But imagine how that argument would play out if there were a straight pride parade or a white pride parade or a male pride parade? A straight pride parade would seem like an insult to the homosexual community, and a white pride parade would construe the message that all attendees are white supremacists, and a male pride parade would seemingly promote misogyny.
So, is there a possibility that I’m not against the LGBTQ community, and that I’m instead against any movement that promotes pride?
For when has pride ever been considered a virtue? The fundamental
apex of all virtues is humility, and as we know, pride is the opposite of
humility. So, why would anyone celebrate something as egregious as pride?
If white pride or heterosexual pride or male pride only has the potential of causing dissension, then why should anyone expect gay pride or trans pride or queer pride to be any different?
The answer revolves around the issue of oppression.
The political left purports pride to be a virtue as long as
the community has faced oppression, and pride parades to be acceptable for the purpose
of liberating the oppressed community.
However, the fight for gay rights is over.
It’s not 1960. It’s 2019. Gays currently have the same
rights as everyone else. Gay marriage was made legal by the Supreme Court in
2015, and discrimination against employees is virtually impossible without the
EEOC tying a noose around your neck.
Are there still bigoted meanie pants out there willing to throw out a discriminatory epithet? Of course, but a parade won’t save you. A hate speech bill might, but then we’d all be truly oppressed.
The political oppression of the LGBTQ community is ancient history. If there’s an argument for oppression, it is the oppression that this community has brought upon themselves.
Are these matters of oppression? Or are they, as LGBTQ Pride Month would insinuate, matters to be proud of?
What about the 41.8
percent of transgender youths that have attempted suicide? What about the epidemic
of handing out hormone blockers to children who are not old enough to have sex
or have a vote in political matters?
This is most certainly oppression.
Instead of approaching the issue of gender dysphoria as a psychological issue, the LGBTQ community incites mayhem by promoting it as a point of pride. Once again, celebrating pride only results in conflict.
It’s hard to tell what LGBTQ History Month is truly about. If it’s about celebrating the freedom from oppression, then the community should reevaluate where the majority of the “oppression” is coming from. If it’s simply about celebrating that you’re prideful, then that’s fundamentally obtuse.
It’s nonsense to be proud of something arguably inherent.
If you want to be proud of something, be proud of the 7,000 military members that have died fighting the War on Terror, so that you can keep your freedom here, granting you the abundant liberty to throw a silly pride parade.
Political oppression against the LGBTQ community is a non-issue. If the LGBTQ community wants freedom over their private lives, then how about not throwing a massive, public parade that revolves around your private lives.
Annabelle raises hell in this third installment by inciting a demonic bust out.
Continuing off the intro to The Conjuring, Ed and Lorraine Warren quickly discover Annabelle’s demonic potency on their drive back home. Annabelle, who is a beacon for other spirits, doesn’t hesitate to incite violence and terror by summoning spirits during their unexpected halt at the Maryville Cemetery. After Ed’s near-death experience, the couple manage to return home and lock the doll away in a glass case after having it blessed by Father Gordon. We’re told by Lorraine, “the evil is contained (as long as she remains locked up).”
The Warrens must head out for a day on a demon-hunting escapade, and leave Mary Ellen to babysit Judy while they’re gone. Mary Ellen’s overcurious friend, Daniela, shows up uninvited and gifts Judy with a pair of roller blades. While Mary Ellen heads outside with Judy to test out her new blades, Daniela manages to tactically acquire the keys to the artifact room. She ventures inside, only to touch just about every haunted artifact (to include Annabelle), despite the multitude of “do not touch” signs strategically placed around the room.
Normally, this horror film miscalculation cliché would have given me an aneurysm. However, we soon discover that Daniela’s interest with the supernatural is justified by her longing to make contact with her deceased Father, as well as her knowledge of Lorraine’s ability to communicate with the dead.
What should have been a birthday bash for Judy instantly turns into a monster mash, thrown by the post-prison break Annabelle, and it goes without saying, there’s a huge turnout.
Terror ensues at the Warren residence and invites a multitude of jump-scares, anxiety-ridden anticipation, and soul-seeking demons. We’re presented an entourage of evil spirits, including The Ferryman, a haunted suit of Samurai armor, a malicious wedding dress, a vintage monkey toy with clanging cymbals, and a black shuck, who is essentially just a werewolf.
The long night grows into a claustrophobic fight for survival and sanity for the three girls who are constantly being separated and locked into different rooms, only to be beleaguered and terrorized by Annabelle and her demonic coterie, whose mission it is to obtain a soul.
Unlike the current horror film movement that has been spewing out hate and barbarity, Annabelle Comes Home leaves the humanity in tact by presenting more anticipation and less death. I was also thankful for the soft, comedic relief that broke the seemingly, enduring moments of trepidation.
Overall, the film is by far the most creative of the Annabelle series, and hopefully the cap off for this trilogy. It did seem a bit like a feminist version of Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, however the lineup of strong actresses support the action to be tenable.
After watching the Warren’s artifact room come to life, we can surely expect more spin offs to become part of The Conjuring Universe. This film is currently scoring over 70% on Rotten Tomatoes’ audience score, which is solid as far as horror films are concerned.
It would be simple to suggest that the discoveries of modern
science have disproven the existence of God. As time progresses, mankind
continues to discover more about the universe and where we came from. The discovery
of the big bang, the evidence for evolution, and the multitudes of modern findings
from fields like archaeology, anthropology, biology, and astronomy have all eliminated
the need for the crutch that is religion.
The Age of Enlightenment, coming in the 18th century, was the savior we had really been waiting for. Men like David Hume, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau guided us out of the religious fog and away from our archaic, superstitious beliefs, and led us into a new realm of philosophy, based on reason, evidence, and observation. It just goes to say that you don’t need faith when you can simply have the facts.
What are some of the faith defeating facts?
Well, for one we know that the universe had a definite
beginning. It’s logical that the universe had a beginning because if it did not
have a beginning, then it would have to be an infinitely existing universe. An infinitely
existing universe is illogical because it would mean that we would have never
arrived at today. In other words, there would
have had to have been an infinite amount of days before today in order to
arrive at today.
Even Stephen Hawking has admitted that “Almost everyone now believes that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang.” Alexander Vilenkin, a renowned cosmologist, has also said, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
The fact that our universe was birthed at the big bang is fundamentally
irrefutable. Our universe had a beginning.
Science has also revealed to us that everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is also referred to as the Law of Causality. Since our universe had a beginning, it also had a cause; something caused our universe to have a beginning.
What caused our universe to exist?
Stephen Hawking has proposed that “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
So, we have gravity to thank for the spontaneous creation of the universe. We have gravity and spontaneity to thank for the infinite expanse of the cosmos and the infinitesimal infinite; atoms, quarks, neutrinos, etc., and all that’s in between: the vast diversity of plant and animal life, mankind, and how it all fits together.
It is because of spontaneity that we now have a universe
full of fine-tuning. It is because of chaos that we now have a world full of
order; human DNA spelled out in 3.5 billion letters, all in the correct sequential
order, the water cycle and the carbon cycle, working together in unison and
harmony, the earth’s axial tilt, rotational period, and correct ozone layers. It
is because of unconscious minerals that we now have 7.5 billion humans full of consciousness
and intellect. It is because of non-life and accidental explosions that we now
have the miracle of life.
Gravity, as impersonal and unintelligent as it may seem, has
found a way to create a world full of personality, consciousness, order, and
The only question now is, “Did gravity have a beginning?”
The origin of gravity.
What must be understood about gravity is that it is a law of
nature. Gravity, being a law of nature, does not exist without nature. Gravity needs a platform like space and time to
operate within before it can have a reason to exist. It would appear Hawking
has thrown us into a bit of a pickle.
This is a prime definition of catch-22.
Gravity cannot be the cause of the universe because it is
the by-product of the universe.
I’m sorry but Hawking was wrong on this one point. The universe can’t create itself out of nothing, especially when gravity is something. And you can’t have the cause of the universe be something that is caused by the existence of the universe.
Laws of nature do not create anything. Laws of nature exist because nature exists. Therefore, the cause of nature cannot be something found within nature. It must be something outside of nature; it must be supernatural.
What is the
supernatural cause of the universe?
Our universe is comprised of space, time, and matter. Therefore,
whatever is supernatural would be outside of space, time, and matter.
Whatever created our universe would have to be space less,
timeless, and immaterial.
Our universe is also infinitely expansive, meaning that whatever
created it would have had to have been powerful enough to set all the universe’s
energy into motion.
Our universe is also the host of a multitude of fine-tuned variables. Oxygen, for example, comprises 21 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. If oxygen were 25 percent, the earth would be too flammable to support life; if it were 15 percent, we would suffocate. Carbon dioxide, another atmospheric variable, is so finely tuned to support life that if it’s too low, no photosynthesis; if it’s too high, we all burn. Gravity, although already mentioned, is so finely tuned to support life that if its force were adjusted by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, we wouldn’t have a sun.
And these are only three of over thirty different physical
and cosmological parameters that allow for life. But it just goes to say,
whatever created our universe would have had to have been extremely intelligent.
Our universe is also full of personality. The minds that exist within every human are a bit of an anomaly, and an albatross for most scientists. The amalgamation of fizzing chemicals and firing synapses summon the existence of our mind. The mind brings forth our personality, but the mind is also supernatural in and of itself. Consciousness can be neither seen nor touched, in fact, we can’t even prove that it exists. We’re stuck having to simply infer from the evidence.
Whatever created our universe would have had to have been personal enough to create the mind of man.
When you use science. When you use reason, observation, and evidence. You arrive at this conclusion:
Whatever created our universe must have to be space less, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, and personal.
I can’t help but think that these attributes are beginning to sound like the characteristics of a theistic God. But these are the facts. The facts that extinguish the faith required to believe “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing…”
It’s hard to listen to Hawking when all of creation is shouting the existence of a Creator.