When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?
One thing I’ve noticed about atheists is that they seem to use the principles of science to dismiss the existence of god. Instead however, I believe science supports the existence of god.
The numerous discoveries in physics, chemistry and in other sciences have demonstrated that our universe obeys laws: the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, rather it can only be transformed from one form of energy to another. Moreover, in chemical reactions, to conform with the law of conservation of mass, there must be the same number of each type of atom on both sides of the arrow. Human beings, for example, are created according to the makeup of their DNA. Our brains are simply a medley of electrical signals and biochemical reactions behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. If we accept these concepts, we are able to conclude therefore that the universe does indeed have order. Science in general seems to be a method of accounting for the phenomenon in the universe.
Furthermore, Newton’s third law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this is true, it leads to the following conclusion: every action is a reaction to another prior action. This substantiates the notion that the universe is ruled by cause and effect or causality, which in turn lends credence to the fact that we are, in the present moment, defined by our past. This also means our future can be hypothetically predicted based on our past.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system is always increasing. Accordingly, our universe will reach a point in time when there can be no more disorder. Either that or the universe will reach point in time very close to a state of ultimate disorder. This would be the hypothetical death of the universe. If in fact, this will happen, that our universe is destined for some sort of theoretical death, then logically our universe must have also had a beginning. Isn’t the idea of an eternal universe contradictory to the reality of the present in which change does exist? If I drop a ball onto the floor from my hand, there is change. That is, the ball moves from my hand to the floor. So if we were destined to become a sea of photons as some scientists say we are, then shouldn’t we have already arrived at that stage an eternity ago? Why, if the universe is eternal, is there change? If the natural tendency of our universe is going toward a state of ultimate disorder and in times past, our universe was, by nature, less disordered, that means that whatever the opposite of a sea of photons is was the initial state of our universe. It then begs the question: what forces and powers brought about this primary state of the universe? If you line up a series of dominoes and push the first one over, it therefore necessitates that the line of dominoes had to have been set up at some point beforehand. If I empty a bag of marbles onto the floor from a certain height, the marbles will hit the floor and disburse and go in multiple directions. This therefore implies that, in the beginning, I had to gather the marbles together and put them into the bag. I had to raise the bag to the starting height from where I dropped them.
The crucial point to understand is that the timeline of our universe is a sequence of unfolding events in which one event gives rise to a subsequent event, which in turn, gives rise to another event and so on. This leads one to wonder that if events of times past have engendered the events of the present, what produced the first event to begin with? What tipped over the first domino? What came before cause? Although the answer seems irrational, it is the only rational answer. If we predicate our argument on the premise that our universe does indeed have a beginning, that means that some force must have engendered the progression of events of the universe in the first place. How can such a chain of events originate from nothing? Well, it can’t. That would defy the laws of nature. Therefore, the answer must point to the existence of a force that, in fact, defies the laws of nature. This evinces the existence of the supernatural. As what is the supernatural creator of the universe customarily known? God.
In order for democracy to function properly, one of its requirements is that the electorate have sufficient knowledge of all candidates running for any given political office. So what percentage of the modern public goes out of their way to research all competing candidates instead of just passively swallowing the political propaganda in the news and in the universities in small increments over time? Not enough.
It stands to reason that if suffrage is a vital human right, it follows that there should be a mandate that the citizen have a healthy knowledge of each candidate. Not only should the citizen know that, but he should have a solid understanding of economics, history, and the political process. What percentage of the public is defined by these attributes?
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
The show Bates Motel has a relatively special significance to me. I identified a lot with the main character, Norman Bates. Aside from bearing a strong physical resemblance to Norman and being almost the same age as the actor who played him, I found myself not only wholly understanding the rationale behind the many murders that Norman committed, but I found myself championing his actions with alarming remorselessness. Not only that, but like Norman, I too deal with mental illness and the timeline of the show coincided with my own struggle and conquest of mental illness.
Furthermore, I wistfully associate this show with nostalgic memories. I remember when the show began in 2013, I met my then girlfriend in person for the first time. We first met in an eighth floor Holiday Inn hotel room that had dark wallpaper. The hotel room was divided into two sections: a large bedroom with a king sized bed and a separate living room with a couch and a TV. We watched TV in between bouts of energetic sexual play. She would curl up next to me on the couch as we watched, discussed and deconstructed not only Bates Motel but other shows as well.
Anyway, the fantastic writing on this show had me glued to the TV. As someone championing Norman along, you could say I was quite disappointed with the ending wherein he was killed. My ideal ending would have been seeing Norman in a cushioned cell in a straight jacket in a mental hospital at least alive and knowing that he would be forever blissfully content in the stupor induced by the medications the hospital staff would force him to take. After Norman killed Sheriff Romero and after imaginary Norma abandoned Norman, I was half hoping in that moment to see Norman entirely overcome his mental illness that plagued him for so long. I was half hoping he would run away and live out as a fugitive somewhere else in the United States, an ending which is not inconceivable given that pretty much all other loose ends on the show had been tied up. It was an opportunity for him to start over but when he drove Norma’s dead body back to his house in his car, I became distressed at the thought of the foreboding outcome. To be honest, my stomach filled with dread every time Norman killed someone or attacked someone knowing the likely horrible consequences for him. However, each time I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the universe had given him another chance afterward. I don’t think it was beyond the ability of the show’s writers to craft such an ending but alas, that was not the case. Nonetheless, I am appreciative that the show did at least culminate and end.
To conclude: as far as TV shows go, I must say that the bar is set unbelievably high. This was my favourite show on television.
A topic of discussion that floats around sometimes is religion and the belief in a deity. I thought I would give you my personal take on it. Does god exist? I believe he does. What is the definition of god? Well, according to the American heritage dictionary, it is “a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.” I believe there is an entity that has characteristics of what we define as god. If god doesn’t exist, I think there must be a being very similar to God.
Going back thousands of years and seeing many different peoples and nations around the world worship some form of deity, one might ask: could they all be wrong or are they on to something? What I believe is that gods of all different cultures are simply attempts at defining the same phenomenon, a phenomenon we do not yet fully understand. Our limited understanding, however, doesn’t mean that that entity we are trying to define doesn’t exist. Are billions of people throughout the world and throughout history all worshiping nothing at all? Now an atheist may argue that the majority of religious people are simply blind followers of their respective faiths simply because religion is something that is culturally encouraged in their region and that perhaps only a very small percentage of religious people are believers due to well thought-out reasoning.
I think, however, for billions of people around the world for thousands of years to have some sort of deity in their culture is saying something. It’s saying that humans are observing real phenomenon in the world that leads them to rationally believe that some form of god-like entity exists. Many religions contradict other religions, but that doesn’t mean that one religion is right and another is wrong. They could all be valid. Differences in religion are commensurate with the differences in various ethnic groups from which different religions originate.
Our perception is what makes the world around us real. To other animals like flies or snakes who perceive the world differently, what’s real for them is different than real for us. Is there one correct way to perceive the world way in the way that it naturally exists? I don’t think there is. This leads to the question: what is the true nature of the world?
As an example, when light hits hits an atom, the atom absorbs all of those electromagnetic wavelengths except for those wavelengths which are reflected, some of which we can see with our eyes. What about all of the wavelengths we can’t see? What if we could see them? Would it change our understanding of the world? We don’t see those invisible wavelengths because it has not been something required of humans by the imperative of survival. Survival is the only driving force that gives us our traits. In other words, all the traits we possess, we possess in order to survive. None of them are just luxuries.
My point here with wavelengths is that it’s a microcosm of the way we perceive reality in general: that it seems like human understanding perceives only a small sliver of all true phenomenon. There’s too much we don’t understand. This would point to the existence of a greater force, a greater power.
So overall, this film was great! Seriously. Unfortunately however, because I’m writing a movie review, I’m obliged to say a bit more than that. Thus, this brings me to talk about the things in the movie that I didn’t like. I know. I know. The negative things in a film, or the negative things in anything in general shouldn’t get more attention then the positive things. I hate being a cynic and bringing up the negative side. I totally understand that but I felt the following topics were the things in the film that stood out the most. Caution: the parts I’m about to describe contain spoilers.
I’ll start by saying that the acting in this film was satisfactory and convincing, with the exception of Chris “Ludacris” bridges.
I felt the story itself was rather trite. The female villain in the film, Cipher, seemed more preoccupied with destroying the protagonist, Dom than achieving her main goal of international terrorism. Dom caught up with one of the Cipher’s henchman in an alley in a city. The henchman was pointing a gun directly at Dom’s wife. Dom then pointed his gun at the henchman’s head at which point the henchman lowered his gun and walked away. Dom followed, leaving his wife behind, and the two men finished their heist by escaping with a briefcase containing nuclear codes. Later, on Cipher’s airplane headquarters, Cipher decided to punish Dom for defending his wife by having her henchman shoot his Dom’ son’s mother in the head (a different woman), an act which is although predictable for a stereotypical villain in a movie, made no practical sense. It did not seem to bring Cipher any closer to achieving her ultimate goal.
Her ultimate goal, by the way, was rather vague. Cipher wanted nuclear codes, but she didn’t explain exactly why she wanted them other than for the reason that she wanted to “hold governments accountable” assumingly by devastating national capitals with retaliatory nuclear strikes, a line of logic that is neither immediately clear nor relatable to the audience. It was your quintessential movie plot where the villain just wants to take over the world for reasons not really imparted to the audience other than she’s evil. This part of the movie surprisingly stood out because in recent years, Hollywood actually has done a very convincing job of conveying the rational of the motives of the antagonist, not only the motives of the protagonist.
I have to admit also: the special effects in this movie are sublime with one small exception which probably only I could notice. I could plainly tell that the high speed car chase scenes in this movie were shot while the cars were going relatively slowly. It stole a sense of reality from the film.
Finally, Fate of the Furious is a totally entertaining film which I give a “yes.” Definitely worth the price of admission. The escape factor in this movie is huge.
I have a theory: it’s possible that the white “racism” observed by non-white people is falsely rooted. I believe this “institutional racism” they perceive is in fact a misconception characterized by the failure to recognize the commonality among all peoples: struggle is a basic part of life. My assertion is that what blacks or brown people might perceive as white racism is merely a misdirected interpretation of the basic struggles of life or the “eternal struggle” as Hitler referred to it which leaves no group untainted. When times bring the black man down or when times bring down the brown man, there seems to be no shortage of people in media and education ready to indirectly convince them that white people play a crucial part in their problems. I think, in turn, many non-white people begin to attribute their novel problems to whiteness in some significant way. I say this because for most of my life, I did not think in terms of race or color, and yet during that time of my life, there was a very real animosity directed against me by non-whites.
In fact, as we go through our lives, we encounter difficult obstacles but often make the mistake of thinking that no one else is going through the same thing. The individual might be inclined to think that “nobody else could understand me,” or that “everybody else is happy, why does it seem like I’m the only one who isn’t?” Now, does it matter if someone else is dealing with the same problem that you’re going through? It does. It means that we individuals often have a common foe. What surprises me so much, despite living in the so-called “information age,” is how rarely we come together as a group to tackle common problems we individuals suffer from and how often we would rather deal with our problems on our own. As an example: many people struggle with social problems. Why haven’t people come together as a group and analyzed the social and sexual needs of all individuals within the population to create a system that serves to improve the social situation of at least most of the population, if not all its members?
This brings me to the media. By media, I mean all of its forms in our culture. The media is not just an agency with bias that serves to fulfill a political agenda, as some wiser people would believe, but in fact, it is a giant roadblock in the way of collective human progress. The media facilitates the role of a roadblock not necessarily by publishing a biased article, but instead by choosing not to say certain things, certain things that need to be said, certain things that need to be heard by the population in a given situation.
What is the best societal system and what is the best structure of power in which all people’s wants and needs are satisfied to mathematically maximum and optimum levels? To this question, I do not know the answer. From a hypothetical mathematical perspective, undoubtedly our nation leaves room for functional improvement in satisfying all areas: commerce, trade, culture, space exploration, wealth distribution, individual happiness, sexual satisfaction, individual and collective achievement and technological advancement. Looking back to history for answers such as looking at medieval times, we recognize the aristocrats, kings and nobles who ruled over the impoverished peasants in feudal authority. Surely, this feudalism can neither be the most mathematically optimum way we should collectively live. I suppose the question of an ideal nation raises another question: if we have failed to create a hypothetically and mathematically ideal society in the past, is humankind even capable of sustaining such a perfect system now? Does our failure in creating a utopia in the past mean the system in which we currently live is the best we can do?
Many on the far right have raised the alarm bell that Europeans in the world face a crisis: the threat that large numbers of non-white immigrants will eventually cause an extinction of ethnic Europeans on this planet through miscegenation. Some examples of these people include author David Duke and activist Harold Covington. Now, while the birth rates of white people, the percentage of Christians and the percentage of people who speak a European language are declining in historically European countries are valid facts, one must ask: what does the future hold for the white man?
Who gets to decide whether someone’s DNA is propagated or discontinued from the evolutionary cycle? Who decides the ultimate fate of the survival of a society? Women. Women are the deciders of who will exist in the future. As we know, women will only choose the fittest males with whom to breed and only with males whom they believe will produce viable offspring who have the best chances of survival.
So in the future, when mother nature brings her trials upon the Earth: be it an ice age, famine, disease or something not yet known, the question remains: will white women of the future completely stop breeding with white men? Now, I can’t envision a scenario where this will be true for all cases. I suppose that question raises another question: will all males of the future who possess European characteristics lose their evolutionary fitness and their ability to survive thus losing their desirability to white women?
I believe that European racial characteristics will provide an advantage to those individuals who possess them over individuals who do not possess them in northern colder parts of the world because, historically, natural selection has favored those individuals. The white men of the Earth are a very tenacious group of people capable of survival. I believe that some significant percentage of surviving humans of the future must possess the characteristics that are exclusive to Europeans.
That being said, we should absolutely favor a more restrictive immigration policy as a means to preserve European identity in all countries of European origin. This is by no means a call to relax and lay down your arms in the fight for racial survival. I mean to assure people that the fate of European mankind is not dependent on the wealthy class nor those who exercise political power.
Is Earth the only planet in the universe capable of sustaining life or is Earth the very origin point from which life will expand to conquer the universe?