Gandalf Stormcrow

A bringer of news. A wielder of truth. If you wish to remain in the shadow of ignorance or delusion, this is not the place for you. Go back to the shadow! Those thoughts will not avail you here! YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

Archive for the category “Society”

“We Will Conquer Europe & America; The West Will Convert to Islam” (A Video)

I have told you before. They are not coming here for a better life and a piece of the “American dream.” They have another agenda; and they aren’t really all that shy about stating it publicly in many cases, because they believe with all their hearts that allah has willed it and that there is nothing we can (or rather, nothing we will) do to stop them. In the name of “multiculturalism” and “tolerance” the West will naively welcome these people in until sufficient numbers are here to effect the changes that they desire for our nations. They are coming. They are coming, and I believe that the cowards in our governments will acquiesce to every demand they make — for fear of “offending” or being called a name. Are you getting this? For fear of being called a name, they will give away our country without a fight — just like England is doing even now!

——————————————–

Peace…

I am here to challenge your comfortable and familiar perceptions and paradigms — to help awaken you — to make you think.” — AAJG

Advertisements

Equality vs. Being “Special”

Click to enlarge. Please feel free to share this image.

Click to enlarge. Please feel free to share this image.

Peace…

I am here to challenge your comfortable and familiar perceptions and paradigms — to help awaken you — to make you think.” — AAJG

The Importance of Skin “Color”

Oh, did you think there was one? Importance? Er… No. None, whatsoever. A person’s skin “color” should have nothing to do with anything, yet in our society it still seems to “matter” to far too many people. Unfortunately, there are still people who seem to judge others based on the pigmentation in their skin. A person’s skin “color” is wholly irrelevant to who they are as a human being. It should not make one more loved, or more hated — more accepted, or more rejected. It should not determine one’s fitness for a friendship or a love relationship — or to be your neighbor. It should not determine whether one is, or is not, qualified for a job, or a promotion, or an internship, or a scholarship. One’s “skin color” (I literally hate even using the term.) has no bearing on the quality or character of a human being, whatsoever. None. It does not determine who a human being is, or what they stand for, or what they can contribute to society and achieve personally. It does not determine “goodness” or “badness.” It does not make one better than, or worse than, any other human being on earth. It does not give one greater or lesser beauty, or intellect, or courage, or talent. It does not make one more or less compassionate toward others, or more or less generous, or kind, or hateful, or gentle, or violent — or honest, or dishonest. It does not determine whether or not one is dependable, or honorable, or anything else. One’s skin “color” is a completely benign — inert — superficial — unremarkable — unimportant physical characteristic. It has no effect on one’s character, or personality, or psychology, any more than eye color does. None. Skin “color” is simply a physical, visual representation of the density of certain substances (such as the pigment melanin) in skin cells. Skin pigmentation does not determine or affect one’s behavior or character — at all. It is simply our bodies’ evolutionary adaptation to varied climates and levels of UV exposure. According to Wikipedia, it “evolved to primarily regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.”

So a person’s skin “color” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter in any way to any us. It’s a nonexistent “problem” that society created and turned into an actual problem by grouping and labeling humanity according to only one of the trillions of attributes and characteristics that comprise each unique, individual human being — and oddly, it’s not even an important characteristic. Can you imagine if they had decided to group us together according to our eye color, or our thumb circumference, or our shoe size instead? Grouping humanity according to skin tone is no less asinine. It serves no purpose — except to governments, politicians, and industries, because it makes us easier to divide and manipulate for various (rather obvious and nefarious) purposes. Such grouping by skin tone has never served humanity’s, or the individual person’s, best interests, however.

Besides, no two so-called “white” people are the same “color,” no two so-called “brown” people are the same “color,” and no two so-called “black” people are the same “color” either.  No one can say where the “white” category ends and the “brown” category begins.  No one.  Neither can anyone determine where the “brown” category ends and the “black” category begins — and to be truthful, I have never actually seen a truly “white” or “black” human being. The truth is, that we are allpeople of color.” All of us. We are all some shade of brown. Some lighter, some darker.  Collectively, we human beings are all varying shades of the same smoothly gradient brown color palette or spectrum. We are all brown.  Humanity’s ridiculous, senseless (almost childish) habit of grouping, categorizing, and then labeling people (regardless of the intent/motive) can sometimes be extremely problematic — and irritating. And it is usually very divisive, in the end.

309988_324369044341577_489461144_n

Again, one’s skin “color,” or tone, or shade (however one chooses to term it) says nothing about who a person is — what they are made of — what they are capable of. People (of all races, ethnicities, cultures, and nationalities) who are fixated on “skin color” as a determiner of character, or as a basis for judging others, need to enlighten themselves. They need to evolve beyond the lunacy of placing importance on unimportant physical characteristics like a person’s skin tone, and just start treating their fellow human beings as they themselves would like to be treated — “according to the content of [that person’s] character” (in the words of my personal hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).  That alone, would solve a great number of our society’s problems.

When I served in the U.S. military, we literally never referred to one another’s skin color. To erase that potential mental divider from our minds, we said that we are all “green” (referring to the color of our camouflaged utilities, our t-shirts, our socks, our camo paint, and so many other items of our equipment back then). We referred to one another as “light green” and “dark green” Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines. It became an endearing and very unifying thing for us. I believe it helped everyone to see past our completely unimportant physical differences (that civilian society had taught us were somehow important), and view one other as equals — as brothers — as family. It was very unifying. We were all green. In that same spirit, maybe the rest of us can just be brown — “light brown” and “dark brown.” Maybe we civilians, too, can learn to overlook our unimportant differences and come to view one another as equals — as brothers and sisters — as family — as neighbors — as friends. It’s just a thought.

Finally, I  offer the following for your further consideration:

Click to enlarge. Screen capture from the Microsoft Paint application, showing the predefined, standard colors. The left and center (and rather shaky-looking) arrows point to "Brown" as they have defined it on the standard color palette. Hovering over the space indicated by the center arrow, brings up a tool-tip that says, "Brown."

Click image to enlarge. Screen capture from the Microsoft Paint application, showing the predefined, standard colors. The left and center (and rather shaky-looking) arrows point to “Brown” as they have defined it on the standard color palette. Hovering over the space indicated by the center arrow, brings up a tool-tip that says, “Brown.”

Click to enlarge. Clicking the "Edit Colors" button (as indicated by the far right arrow in the first image above), opens this dialog. Note along the right edge, there is a vertical indicator of the infinite variations (or "shades") included in the color brown—from the very light, to the very dark. Clicking and holding the small arrow pointer and sliding it up and down the smoothly gradient brown color spectrum, allows one to select which "shade" of brown to use. ALL are shades of brown, though.

Click image to enlarge. Clicking the “Edit Colors” button (as indicated by the far right arrow in the first image above), opens this dialog. Note along the right edge, there is a vertical indicator of the seemingly infinite variations (or “shades”) included in the color brown — from the very light, to the very dark. Clicking and holding the small arrow pointer and sliding it up and down the smoothly gradient brown color spectrum, allows one to select which “shade” of brown to use. ALL are shades of brown, though.

Be kind to one another.

Peace…

I am here to challenge your comfortable and familiar perceptions and paradigms — to help awaken you — to make you think.” — AAJG

Banning guns WOULD help, but it’s NOT the real solution.

In the wake of the most recent school shooting, some are calling for tighter gun control laws, which seems to make some sense (at least on an emotional level)—though I believe it would do little or nothing to actually prevent another mass killing.  And surprisingly, many are actually calling for the banning of ALL guns.  On a purely emotional basis, that may seem like a valid and logical “solution,” but it’s not, in my opinion.

Granted, if there were no guns, there would be no more shootings (mass or otherwise); but remember Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun.  I’m not pro or con gun.  I could care less, because I choose not to own one.  But I am pro-solutions, and to actually solve a problem, one must understand the problem—and then cure it at its root.  The use of guns in these types of attacks is merely a “symptom” of the real problem, in my opinion.  The actual problem exists largely in the psychology of certain individuals, and in the changing psychology and evolving values-systems within our society.  It’s primarily a combination social, values-system, and mental health issue rather than a weapons issue, I think.  Don’t forget that:

  • Just a few hours before the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, a man stabbed 23 children in a Chinese elementary school—with a KNIFE.
  • In March 2010, eight children were murdered in China, by a 41-year-old KNIFE-wielding man.
  • The attacker from the March 2010 murders was executed one month later—just hours before a 33-year-old man injured 16 students and a teacher at a primary school in China—with a KNIFE.
  • On April 29, 2010, 28 school children (mostly four-year-olds) were stabbed alongside two teachers and a security guard in China—with a KNIFE.
  • The next day, a man committed suicide after using a HAMMER to attack preschool children in China.

There are probably many other similar incidents around the world, too.  My point is that the guns are not the real problem—it’s the people; and if guns aren’t the real problem, then how can banning them be the real solution?.  Sure, taking away guns would definitely stop mass shootings.  There is no questioning that, but the problems I see with that “solution” are that:

  1. The second amendment to our constitution would have to be amended or repealed first (to allow it)—technically possible, but very hard.  As a people, we would have to be much more united to make that happen, and our politicians make their living dividing us and pitting us against one another.  We would have to unite in spite of them—which is also hard, because many are slaves to a political party or a predefined, cookie-cutter ideology and they don’t like to think for themselves.
  2. The availability of guns is not really the problem, as evidenced by the fact that guns have always been widely available in our country, but this mass-shooting thing is really pretty new.  Something has changed in the people—in our collective psychology—and thus, the psychopaths have begun to reveal themselves in new and horrifying ways (most frequently with the guns that were already available).
  3. Even if guns were completely removed from the equation, then the angry, predatory psychopaths would probably turn to knives or hammers (as they apparently have in China), or explosives (as Timothy McVeigh did in OKC), or chainsaws (as depicted in several movies), or something else, and still we would have the exact same problem on our hands—because we didn’t choose to actually solve it at its root.

So I believe we need to address and solve the actual problem(s)—at the root(s).  But, in typical fashion, our “brilliant” politicians will likely spend lots of our money, make a boat-load of self-aggrandizing speeches about the obvious and about so-called “sweeping changes” and “solutions,” and then do all the wrong things so that the problem is still not solved.

And while the politicians are busy making speeches for the television cameras; and taking polls, and doing demographic research, and rallying their bases; and banning “pistol grips” with great resolve, somewhere out there, the next killer is watching and waiting and planning

How horrifying will the next one be?

——————————————–

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, for each one who is striking at the root.” — Henry David Thoreau

Post Navigation