Impaled - Mondo Medicale

Today, I bring you one of my all-time favorite metal albums, "Mondo Medicale" by Impaled.
1. The Hippocritic Oath
2. Dead Inside
3. Raise the Stakes
4. Operating Theatre
5. Choke On It
6. We Belong Dead
7. The Worms Crawl In
8. To Die For
9. Rest In Fæces
10. Carpe Mortem

[DOWNLOAD ME]

Naer Mataron - River At Dash Scalding

Naer Mataron is a black metal band from Greece, and I bring you their album "River At Dash Scalding", which I really like. I like it so much, I'm going to share it with you.

1. As The Clouds Of War Gather
2. The Continuity Of Land And Blood
3. The Great Meridian Tide
4. Revolt Against The Modern World
5. The Life And Death of Europa Part I. Cosmogonia (Life) Part II. Kalki The Avenger-Lightning And The Sun (Death)
6. The Triumph Of Will
7. Ancestor-Worship
8. Salvatores Dei
9. The Plunderer (Ved Buens Ende cover)
10. Steppe

[Download me]

Merry Christmas

To celebrate, here's !T.O.O.H.!'s "Pod Vladou Bice" for free.


1. Cistka
2. Slapeto
3. My Zreli v Cire Kontemplaci
4. Bezcenne Se Rodi a Cenne Mizi
5. Aura & Ziata
6. Homokaz Aneb Blativa je Massa
7. Pod Vladou Bice
8. Svatorecim
9. Vocut - Pocut
10. Ja Je Proto Proti

[Download me]

Victor Suffragium, Praesieo Barack Obama

For the first time in eight years, I am proud to be an American, for Barack Obama is now the president elect. I can now tell people from other countries that I come from America without them getting a disgusted look on their face. The fact that there is now a smart guy in office gives me a new sense of patriotism that shall go undiminished.

Sic semper tyrannis, Bush has been dethroned. May the world see us in a positive light once again.

Pointing out stupidity #2

It's been a while, has it not?

OK, so there's this guy, his name is Orson Scott Card, and he's a blathering idiot. Long ago, he was shouting nonsense about how evolution is wrong. Now he's back to complain about gay marriage. Below is his article along with my commentary on certain parts. The sauce of the article can be found here.

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

Strange, I thought it was ignorant, tyrannical, dogmatic bigots like you who are killing democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

The judges across the union strike down many bills that are passed by the majority because those bills violate the constitution. The judges are in place to prevent the tyranny of the many.

The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

Since the dawn of humankind, there have been numerous instances where two men would willingly fuck eachother. Such practice was commonplace in the cultures of ancient Greece, Persia, and Rome. Then your religion came along and declared the act an abomination in the eyes of your imaginary friend. After more than a millennium of being under the foot of dogma, we are finally returning to the secularism of the distant past, and with it, we are becoming even more secular than those cultures.

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

Oh noes!1! Gays can marry now! Run to teh hills!!11!

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

If we educated the young people about safe sex and made contraception easier to attain, we wouldn't have so many abortions, now would we?

Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.

That's because you're blocking my path, you dumbass.

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

Diktat? What? *gets dictionary* I don't see it in my dictionary, so it must be an imaginary word.

Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory -- and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

Tolerance toward gay couples shows we are becoming more tolerant and secular and that we are growing as a species, and it's idiots like you who are stunting that growth.

And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.

That's because they don't want a new generation of bigots who want to bring humanity back into the dark ages.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.

That's because you are. Homophobe.

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

This word is also used to identify the idiots among us, like you.

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

I also wish for the belief in an imaginary friend to be classified as a mental disorder.

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

They wanted the same rights as heterosexuals because people like you were oppressing them, just like you oppressed them for over one thousand years.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.

It also took me that long to take a shit.

And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against "gay marriage" being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups -- RICO laws, for instance.

Right now, because I am pointing out how much of an idiot you are.

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

Strange, about ten thousand years ago it was the permanent or semipermanent bond between one man and many women. Back then, half of the children born would not make it past their first year of life, so the chieftain, being the strongest of the tribe, had sex with as many women as possible to create as many children as possible to keep humans from going extinct. Nowadays, marriage is the way of saying "yes, I do want to be miserable and have sex with the same partner every day for the rest of my life". Just as Groucho Marx stated, "marriage is the main cause of divorce".

The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.

Laws are dynamic. About five hundred years ago, you couldn't get a divorce without the catholic church's permission. Henry VIII didn't like that, as he wanted to divorce his wife because she did not give birth to a boy. To get around this, he broke away and formed the Anglican church so he could get a divorce without the catholic clergy saying he could not.

If the government passed a law declaring that grey was now green, and asphalt was specifically designated as a botanical organism, would that make all our streets into "greenery" and all our parking lots into "parks"?

You did what now? Oh wait, I'm sorry. My equipment is screwing up due to the presence of a loony logical fallacy.

If a court declared that from now on, "blind" and "sighted" would be synonyms, would that mean that it would be safe for blind people to drive cars?

Could you please stop screwing up my equipment? I keep getting a syntax error whenever there's a logical fallacy in the vicinity.

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

Again, the laws are dynamic and change depending on the political atmosphere. As we become more secular, so do our laws.

This is a permanent fact of nature.

Nature also tells you that you must expel your semen on a regular basis to prevent the development of prostate cancer, but your imaginary friend tells you that playing with yourself is a no-no.

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

A gay man can donate sperm to a sperm bank. A lesbian can use the sperm to create a child. Problem solved.

Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.

Ever heard of homosexual animals?

That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.

Yeah, I know you were a tragic genetic mix-up.

That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.

A gay man can donate sperm to a sperm bank. A lesbian can use the sperm to create a child. Problem solved.

Married people are doing something that is very, very hard -- to combine the lives of a male and female, with all their physical and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.

Last time I checked, the average human has around 8 different partners in their life time. Who are you to decide that a man and a woman must stay together forever?

When they are able to create children together, married people then provide the role models for those children to learn how to become a man or a woman, and what to expect of their spouse when they themselves marry.

You forgot about the children who don't want to marry and just want to have sex, like me.

When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.

That is until they divorce, with the odds of such an event happening being very high.

When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.

Who said you need both a mother and a father to be a happy child?

Some marriages are better than others; some fail utterly because of the malfeasance of one or both of the partners.

You mean like married Evangelical Christians who are proven more likely to divorce than regular Christians?

That only makes it all the more vital that the whole society combine to help husbands and wives succeed at marriage.

Except they don't. Welcome to the real world.

We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.

We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others -- even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.

If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible -- or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.

Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.

Who the fuck decided that? You?

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death.

Back then, they also stoned to death disobedient children. Are you trying to bring that back too

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization -- including the custom of marriage.

In your case, you also want each new generation to kill people in the name of God.

Seen in this context, we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.

You are also a fool outright.

A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.

Maybe that's because marriage never lasts forever. Have you ever thought of that?

In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for marriage.

That's because they hate you and people like you.

Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children -- while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.

That's marriage for you.

Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

Seems like you're the kind of backwards guy who wants adulterers stoned to death.

With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.

Oh well. Life goes on.

Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.

What about people who don't want to marry? Have you ever thought of them for once?

Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

That sounds like a sentence fragment to me.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

Are you trying to incite a revolt. I cry treason!

Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how "fair" and "compassionate" we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.

Society also doesn't get better when dim-witted bigots like you open their big mouths.

Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.

Name one.

It's about grandchildren. That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn -- your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.

There's more to life than just grandchildren. For me, I want to lose my virginity before I die.

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

The government is doing what now?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

You tell me. I'm just a guy who masturbates to pictures of anime girls being violated by tentacles.

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

This paragraph is bollocks. Next.

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

Oh lawd, dictator-judges.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

tl;dr: BAWWWWWWWWW

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

Ooi am a goad woawiya! Also, like I said at the start, it's dogmatic bigots like you that are destroying the constitution, not us.

And that concludes our post. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to wash off the massive amounts of stupid with which my hands came into contact.

Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

lol wut

Source

BETHLEHEM, Pa. - The Dalai Lama said Sunday that "it's totally wrong, unfair" to call Islam a violent religion.

The Tibetan spiritual leader, appearing at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, offered a defense of Islam in response to a question about the rise of violent religious fundamentalism. He added that he has made a point of reaching out to Muslims since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Calling Islam a religion of peace is like calling North Korea "The People's Democratic Republic of Korea".

Americans are fucking stupid

How stupid? Here's what a former Clinton supporter says of Obama:

The poll responses also show Obama has more work to do to quell fears among voters like Kirstie Hartle of Rome, N.Y., a registered Democrat who has never supported a Republican presidential candidate. With Clinton out of the race, Hartle said, "I'm Republican all the way now."...

"It sounds to me like a Middle Eastern type of name and whether or not he's born here in the United States, he doesn't seem like, to me, somebody who is trustworthy," Hartle said in a telephone interview. "You can't trust anybody these days, so who's to say he's not a terrorist and we just don't realize it yet?"

The stupid, it burns.

Here's the opinion of another like-minded simpleton:

When asked an open-ended question about the first words that come to mind about Obama, some former Clinton supporters used words like Muslim or terrorist. Those misconceptions have been fueled by Internet rumors that point out his name is Barack Hussein Obama but otherwise lie about his background.

"I refuse to vote for an Arab to be in my White House," said retired salesman Dean Johnson of Lanett, Ala. "That is the only factor. Otherwise, you couldn't break both my legs and make me vote for a Republican."

What's really scary is that not only do these people vote, they reproduce, creating another generation of idiots that will likely plunge us into another Dark Ages. It's shit like this that makes me ashamed to be an American.