I'm a sexy woman, so stop objectifying me!

Why is it deemed perfectly okay for women to objectify David Beckham,
while men who waggle their eyebrows at pretty young women are considered
pigs?



Watch and subscribe. Brilliant channel.

On Disability

All
these pro-disability people are a fucking joke. They're right about one
thing, it's not a good thing to mock disabled people, but they're wrong
about everything else.

Why shouldn't we look for a cure for
blindness or deafness or crippleness? Why should we celebrate disibility
like it were a real accomplishment? It is wrong for the exact same
reason as chastising disibility. In trying to combat
hate or disaproval or "discrimination" or whatever they want to call
it, the pro-disability crowd goes off the deep end in the other
direction, becoming just as fanatical about celebrating what, in
reality, is nothing to celebrate.

That's one of the biggest
gripes I have, that it only makes sense to celebrate or take pride in
accoplishments, not accidents. Why should I be proud of my height, or
race, or the number of fingers and toes I have? I had NOTHING to do with
any of that. It took ZERO effort on my part to achieve any of that. In
what sense, then, should I be proud of what ammounts to chance and
circumstance? If I had nothing to do with it, if I had no choice, didn't
set out to do something and then did it, what does it have to do with
my greatness (or lack thereof)? Nothing.

Everyone is all on the
pride bandwagon. No accomplishments? Didn't succeed at anything in your
entire life? Can't win worth a damn? No problem. You too can be a
champion! Just pick some random aspect of your person, it doesn't really
matter, and claim in a confident voice "I won the genetic lottery!"
It's the ultimate self-esteem booster for losers and lazy people, like
"Everyone Gets A Trophy Day".

There's accomidating disability
(which is what humans do really well, as evient from all those seriously
injured cro magnon skeletons that indicated they lived long lives being
cared for by others), then there's treating it like it's better than
ability, which it's not. Being blind does not make one better than a
sighted person. People with proper hearing shouldn't ALL learn sign
language, doctors should look for a cure for deafness and blindness.
There's a reason we don't have "Polio Pride" or "National Measles Day,"
because people recognise that fatal diseases are nothing to celebrate.
Unfortunately, in this hyper-sensitive society we live in, people DO
celebrate non-fatal diseases*.

I think, but am not certain, the
problem is a faulty association in the pro-disability people the
proposition that |in society it is accepted that the word "disease" =
"moral failure of the individual," or, otherwise, that the word
"disease" is associated with "moral failure of the individual.| I have pointed out before, many times, that being diseased is not a moral
failure. One does not need to feel ashamed to admit one is diseased. One
is not immoral because one is diseased. That is true. However, I think
the pro-disability people are as guilty of perpetuating this faulty
association as the anti-disability people. A scab indicates that a wound
is healing. If you pick the scab it will never heal. It's the same
problem with race baiters, who sabotage healthy race relations just as
much, if not worse, than extreme outspoken racists.

I'm never
going to run a four minute mile, I'll never be able to box like Mike
Tyson, or write music like Mozart, or see properly without mechanical
aid. That doesn't make me immoral, that doesn't make me bad, but I'm not
going to celebrate being slow, or frail, or musically disinclined, or
having poor eyesight. Those are not accomplishments, and I refuse to be
proud of them.

*Disease
noun
A disordered or
incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body
resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection,
poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable
environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

If a body part, or mental function, or whatever, isn't working properly it is diseased.

Eternal Day

A lovely short program (22 minutes) on the Super Specialty Hospitals founded by Sai Baba. This is in celebration of the 22nd anniversay of the hospitals, which opened in 1991. Tragically, Swami cannot be here in person to witness this event, but he is ever present, even if we cannot see his body.


The lovely ideal of selfless service (seva) is exemplified in this pair of free hospitals which have thus far helped 2.3 million patients.







This is the ideal. This is totally different from universal healthcare/ socialised medicine/ single payer. When people give of themselves of their own will selflessly that is the highest virtue. When a government steals money from people and redistributes it as it sees fit that is worse than thievery. A government cannot mandate morality, or else the value is totally removed. One cannot be moral or virtuous if one is compelled to act in such a way. It is only through one's own will that one may be virtuous.

Funeral Fiasco!

Millions (I guess) attended the funeral of South Africa's most famous native son Nelson Mandela. It was meant to be a solemn occasion, admiring how a radical communist terrorist turned his life around while in prison and adopted love instead of revenge. Instead it was a circus of horrors.



The sign language guy at the
funeral had a schizophrenic episode and made meaningless hand gestures
instead of real sign language. He also has a history of violence and
they let him get within three feet of the President Oblahblah. Guess the
Secret Service was drunk that day - very drunk.



Speaking of Oblahblah, he took a selfie next to Mandela's dead body. He then gave a speech in which he talked entirely
about himself, not mentioning Mandela once. In total he used the words
"I," "Me," "My," and other first person pronouns 5,724 times. His wife
was disgusted. The photographer who took the picture of Oblahblah's wife
being disgusted at Oblahblah's behaviour apologised and then committed
suicide for shaming his one true god. Oh, yeah, Oblahblah also Frenched some blonde.

Nuclear News You DIDN'T Hear

Have you heard the one about the deal between
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan regarding nuclear weapons? No? Maybe the news
was too busy focusing on what inanimate object Miley Cyrus was having
sex with this week.



Stolen Cobalt-60



A truck delivering 40 grams of cobalt-60 pellets, material used in radiotherapy, was hijacked last week in central Mexico. The truck and the cargo was recovered near Hueypoxtla, and the hijackers are believed to have received a fatal dose of radiation.



This was another narrow miss. There is an increasing number of nuclear incidents in the world today. Cobalt-60 is particularly deadly and persistent isotope that was proposed in use for area denial weapons. An area exposed to the fallout of a cobalt bomb would be uninhabitable for 100 years due to lethal levels of radiation. Had this stolen material been placed in a truck bomb like the kind that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it could contaminate an area of four square miles[1]. If set off at Wall Street the plume of radioactive debris would probably reach the Empire State Building.



Iranian Nukes



"Saudi King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were
not won over by President Barack Obama's pledges in personal phone calls
to the two Middle East leaders last week not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Their skepticism only grew."



He probably said something along the lines of "if you like your nuclear program, you can keep it*"



*"Program" does not include "programs Oblahblah does not like," or "programs that do not include abortion on demand until three years after birth." "Like" is a subjective term, subject to verification by Oblahblah and his bureaucrats.



This is exactly what the mullahs wanted. Oblahblah is eating out of their hands. After stalling for time "negotiating," they managed to get Oblahblah to back down and give them everything they wanted and more. Experts estimate that Iran  has enough material to make four nukes already.



Leaders in Saudi Arabia have made clear that if Iran gets a nuke then they will be forced to get one as well, since they may well be the primary target of attack, before Israel even, due to the fierce hatred between rival Muslim factions. Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program, and if push comes to shove they claim to have an agreement whereby Pakistan will deliver weapons to them as compensation.



Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ticking time bombs in the region. Both are ruled by horrible, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, prehistoric, amoral, psychopathic monsters. The war in Syria is, in part, a proxy war between these two repressive regimes that threatens to suck the entire world in with it. If either one gets their hands on a nuke it would be a disaster for every freedom loving, moral human being on the planet.



Iran will not negotiate at all with Israel, and probably won't negotiate with Saudi Arabia either. In the world of inter-tribal warfare the aim is always extermination, and both proto-nuclear nations most definitely are run by tribal strongmen.







Notes

1. "Here the lethal combination of glass and a bomb projected shards at high
speed causing 5 per cent of the deaths and 69 per cent of the injuries
outside the buildings for a radius of over 10 blocks from the blast
centre."



10 blocks, as seen on a map, is about one mile. A circle with a radius of 1 mile has an area of exactly pi square miles. I rounded up to 4 to be safe.

What Idiots Actually Believe About George Zimmerman

THIS IS WHAT IDIOTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

ADHD As A Difference In Cognition, Not A Disorder

Goes well with the Sufficiently Alien Hypothesis.

Dreams of Foreign Suns

Walking around yesterday I thought about my second great love (my first being freedom), and one of the three original goals I set for my life: space travel. I got to thinking about all those books I loved reading and how the future is almost certainly not going to be like that. The future will not be like The Stars My Destination, Harvest the Fire, Starship Troopers, or The Zero Stone. The future will not be like Star Trek (except maybe Deep Space 9 which was boring and grim and I never watched more than a few episodes) or Firefly.



It has to do with a phenomenon called Dunbar's Number, and a disturbing trend seen with the rapid advancement in technology and the social order.



John Stringfellow in 1848 built a steam-powered flying machine that was the absolute apogee of steam technology. While it did fly it was not powerful enough to carry a person. On 17 December 1903 the Wright brothers made what is recognised as the first piloted powered flight in a heavier-than-air vehicle.



NASA became operational 1 October 1958. 20 February 1962, a little over three years later, John Glenn got into orbit. 12 September 1966, eight years later, Gemini 11 completed the farthest ever orbit of the earth, never to be exceeded, and successfully created artificial gravity with the Agena Target Vehicle. 20 July 1969, ten and a half years later, Apollo 11 lands on the Moon for the first time. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin finally demonstrated that that light in the sky is a real place, and people can go there. 11 December 1972, Apollo 17 spent the most time on the Moon. Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt spent three days there, and when they left they became the last men ever to land on another celestial body, and the last to leave low Earth orbit.



The past 41 years have been spent doing high school science experiments at 200 km above sea level (and the Russians tried to see if they could kill people by keeping Valeri Polyakov in space for over 400 days. I think he was crippled for about a year after he returned).



Also in 1969 plans were drawn up for Big Gemini, which was superior to the Space Shuttle in every way, but they were scrapped. In 1972 Pioneer 10 was launched. Along with Pioneer 11, and later Voyager 1 and 2 - launched in 1977 - they demonstrated the possibility of sending unmanned spacecraft outside the solar system (as of August 2012 Voyager 1 became the first, and so far only, manmade object to leave the solar system).



NASA had plans for a Mars mission set for 1986 with a colossal football field sized NERVA nuclear rocket, that was successfully tested on the ground (they were buried underground with just the tail spouting highly radioactive jets into the air. At least two men died and had to be buried in salt mines in multi-tonne lead coffins.). The mars mission was scrapped when Congress decided killing Vietnamese people was a better allocation of the $10 billion necessary to build and launch the full size NERVA rocket. There were plans to send manned missions to the moons of Jupiter by the 1990s and Proxima Centauri by the early 2000s using nuclear rockets that were built and successfully tested in the 1960s and 70s. These too were scrapped.



The technology to go to the stars existed 40 years ago and has never been used for political reasons. Yesterday I had the feeling that, like freedom, once the initiative for space travel is lost it can never be gotten back. We will probably never land escape Earth orbit again. (Although the Chinese have plans for a colony on the Moon, let's face it, China is over. The Chinese economy is a house of cards built in mid-air waiting for a stiff breeze and some common sense to knock it over. Without the hundreds of billions in government spending, building ghost cities in the middle of nowhere, the Chinese economy will collapse and then the hundred million surplus men will become the largest demonstration of pure anarchy in history, as, like the man who castrated himself this past week, they have nothing else to live for. It is impossible to build a civilisation on population control and sex-selective abortion that produces 9 males for every 1 female. Sure, the military may crack some skulls and force its way to the Moon, like pretty much everything the Soviets ever did, but the Chinese dreams of empire and space travel are made of gossamer and the dreams of children.)



But there's something bigger than that. A new direction society has taken that threatens the very idea of space travel. As I said earlier:



There is the interesting side question of modern Western society, indeed any extremely affluent society, as to whether it does, in fact, represent a diseased PBC and not merely an alien one. All extremely affluent societies throughout history have been plagued by extreme narcissism and apathy, which is displayed in declining fertility rate. Some societies, such as Japan, are so affluent that they are literally on the fast track to extinction because they simply stop breeding. A PBC that cannot[3] produce children above replacement rate (2.1 births/woman) has no survival value and would, by the above criterion, represent a disease. After the inevitable collapse whatever society that arises to fill the void would be made of individuals who possess viable PBCs. As I mentioned in "Affluence and Apathy", there is a healthy form of affluence, though it has never seemed common enough to prevent an entire affluent society from collapsing. It would be possible for healthy affluent to form a viable society, and so I would classify healthy affluent as alien, though it has never happened before and probably never will.



The United States is the most affluent society ever. One third of the population is obese, including poor people. And along with affluence comes extreme narcissism and apathy, but there is something more. Something that was engineered by the power elite during the Apollo program. The creation of the welfare state coincided with a fundamental shift in the perception of sex in society. Both happened together because the government was setting itself up to become the new parent. No-fault divorce, ever expanding welfare programs, and the shift away from sex for procreation to sex for fun changed the way people viewed their place in society (to be sure, people had sex for fun since the beginning, but men always wanted sons as a matter of pride and women always wanted men around to provide for their children, and in the 1970s there was a shift away from that to "we'll hold off having kids until we're 40, if ever, and just enjoy our permanent adolescence now!"). Now, with the redefinition of marriage away from providing for children to some vague conception of love/lust, the coup d'état is now complete.



The US Department of Education was created in 1979. Before that all schools were run locally, with education tailored to the needs of individual students. Since there has been a shift in a one-size-fits-all education policy, with "no child left behind." The DoE is a gigantic indoctrination program, and they're not even covert about it. Common Core is demonstrably indoctrination. School officials in Memphis provide breakfast, lunch, snack, and dinner to kids, and admit that if they had rooms for beds the kids would sleep there permanently. The government sees the only role of parents to be breeding. Once the children are born, they belong to the state.



How did this all begin? Urbanisation. Cities are a statist's best friend. It has to do with a fundamental limitation of the human brain. The human brain seems to be able to hold detailed interpersonal information on at most 150-200 people. There appears to be a correlation between the size of the neocortex of primates and the maximum number of individuals a primate can keep track of and maintain social relationships with. This is Dunbar's number. This is what kept population size limited during almost all of prehistory. (If humans have been around at least 200,000 years, and writing was invented only 5,000 years before present, then prehistory makes up 97.5% of humanity's entire time on the Earth. The earliest cities appear 12,000 years before present, 7,000 years before the start of written history, so cities make up 3.59% of the duration of prehistory. 94% of the time humans have been here was before the first city was built.)







When people live in small communities people care about one another because people can keep track of everyone living in the community. In a city of hundreds of thousands or millions of people this is impossible. People stop caring about the other denizens of the city, and the social structures that keeps a community together never form. The vacuum left over by the lack of a stable community is filled by the government. Private charity gives way to the welfare state, and education becomes indoctrination.



Technology isn't helping either. In 1980 the average person had 3 close friends. In 2011 the average person had 0 close friends. The advent of smart phones, social media, and people taking pictures of their sandwiches and posting them online has served to destroy human interpersonal communication faster than urbanisation ever could. People, for the most part, and especially the Millennials (the first generation to grow up totally under government indoctrination),  are not connected to anyone anymore except the government.



Human sociality is necessary for space travel. Big giant space projects like the colonisation of planets require thousands of people working together, billions of dollars, and the support of entire societies. People stopped caring about space travel, and space programs died in the 1970s. Without all three elements of properly sociable, funded, and motivated people, then landing on Mars or going to the stars is impossible. We appear to have topped out: humans have developed to a certain point, but there is a definite limit to that development, and we're right about there.



Humans appear doomed to low Earth orbit. The future in space I dreamed of as a child seems like it may have evapourated along with the sex and welfare revolutions.

Book: What Happens When We Die?

Psychic Medium, Spiritual Healer, and Bestselling Author Echo Bodine
talks about her new book WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DIE: A Psychic's Exploration of Death, Heaven, and the Soul's Journey After Death. A lovely ten minute interview.

Brains, Genes, and Free Choice

Another video about the Sufficiently Alien Hypothesis

Part One
I talk about the "Lord of the Flies Test" to determine if a PBC (Personality, Beliefs, Cognitive Structures) is viable or non-viable.

Part Two
I talk about people being offended about everything and how dignity can only come from free choice not circumstance.

Men With Standards

Why are women expected to have standards but when men have standards they're "shallow"? Absolutely genius video.

On Gratitude

A much more personal subject than most.



Yes, my life has problems, but for the vast majority of people on the planet those problems would be blessings. I had a back injury that nearly killed me and an eye disease that may or may not end up destroying my left eye, but I have been blessed with so much: my time spent with family and friends, the help I have gotten with being out of work for several months, and the incredible joy I get from my writing. I also have the many regular blessings that come from modern Western life. I have luxuries that are unknown to billions of people, including the great kings and emperors of antiquity. I live in greater luxury than Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, Akbar, or Louis XIV. They may have had more money and power but I have sanitation, hot and cold running water, flush toilets, air conditioning and heating, gas stoves, telephones, the Internet, the automobile, ice any time I want it, fresh fruit all year round, antibiotics, electricity, moulded plastic, the printing press, and any of a number of things they could never have imagined.

A lot of people just don't care. A lot of people's egos get in the way of their caring for other people. They want to complain about their petty shit and when some enlightened soul tells them about the plethora of genuinely unfortunate people in the world they scowl "I don't care about other people, what about me!" I want to strangle these people and shout "what makes you so much better than them?" You, whose curses would be their blessings and the host of fictitious post 1950s Western diseases. I, who have so much laid before me, what right do I have to complain when there are people really suffering, going days without eating, dying of diseases like cancer and malaria, born blind or limbless, having to bury half their kids before the age of five, endless warfare, and vast festering slums and refugee camps that stretch for miles in all directions? Who am I to complain when I am given so much?

I am thankful, immensely thankful, for all I have been given. I thank God every night, even for the bad things I have to face. My hardships have really shaped me, like the great pressure needed to make a diamond. Greatness is never easy; if it were it wouldn't be worth it. Problem of evil? What problem? What would be the point of life if we were handed everything on a silver platter?

The Saudi Connection in Syrian Chemical Attack

Interviews with people from Ghouta, the suburb of Damascus that was attacked last Wednesday, reveal that many people believe it was the rebels, not Assad or his minions, who is responsible for the deaths.

Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons
via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were
responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the
weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim,
the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed
inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant,
known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father
described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others
were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Like with the missing pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, the Saudi connection in Syria has not received widespread attention.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”



“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.



A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

Prince Bandar has close ties with both the rebels and many within the Washington establishment. Elements within the US government may be deliberately hiding his involvement so they can use the incident last week as pretext for getting rid of Assad. He is trying to spread Saudi Arabia's influence within the region. Getting rid of Assad and Hizbulla would mean pro-Saudi thugs will run Syria, not pro-Iranian thugs. In the great war between Sunni and Shia some things never change. This Saudi prince is trying to entangle the US into a millennial struggle for control of the Islamic world.

Bandar has tried making secret deals with the Russians before. He promised safety for the Olympic games to be held in Russia, and would turn a blind eye to Russian bases located in Syria if the Russian military helps to topple Assad. However, if they do not, Bandar threatens Chechen terrorists will attack the games.

This is a war that cannot end well for America. It cannot end well for Israel, it cannot end well for Jordan, or Syria, or the security of the entire world. We must seek a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war. Killing more people with cruise missiles is the last thing we should be doing to make things better, especially launching cruise missiles without the approval of Congress and without a single ally fighting by our side. This is a debacle that will make Iraq look like going on a road trip and forgetting to buy gas.

The Humanity of Chemical Warfare

John Kerry said in regard to last
week's chemical attack in Syria "this is about the large scale,
indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilised world long ago
decided must never be used at all."

Is he right? Absolutely not. Well, not
the way he means it. Here's the modern history of chemical weapons.

The Nineteenth Century saw the rise of
chemical weapons in warfare, but nothing substantial. Members of the
Napoleonic school of warfare, where men march lock step into
artillery and machine guns, hated the idea of using deadly gas to
turn the tide in battle. Why, poison gas takes the nobility out of
the gentlemanly sport that is warfare! When white men fight against
savages in foreign lands they can use whatever dirty tricks necessary
to bring those subhuman animals under the proper yoke, but when good,
civilised white European men fight they must wear their best dress
blouses and shake hands first before taking their proper sides of the
field and marching lock step to certain death like a bloody good
match of polo or association football. The good white European nation
states got together and signed a treaty vowing to never use poison
gas as a means of ending the unnecessary suffering men would face on
the battlefield by getting shot to death.

The United States disagreed. The
upstart, boorish, backwater that had bested the British twice said it
would not hold back its own technological progress because a bunch of
stuffed shirts thought it ungentlemanly. But what did a bunch of damn
Yanks know?

Scottish
chemist Lyon Playfair sided with the Americans. He wanted to launch
cyanide shells on the Russians to end the Crimean War. He couldn't
understand the reaction of the good civilised white Europeans:

There was no sense in this
objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill
shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced
the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would
kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare
is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it
can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that
barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time
chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and
even of criminals condemned to death.

But he's a Scot! They're almost as bad
as Americans, so you can't trust him.

Well, the good civilised white
Europeans broke their own "rules of war" in 1915 when the
stalemate of the trenches had already condemned a million men to
death. The French used it first, but the Germans were the ones who
figured out how poison gas was supposed to be used.

On the afternoon of 22 April the
Germans released 150 tons of chlorine gas into a stiff wind that took
it over a four mile stretch of the front occupied by French colonial
troops. Heavier than air, the chlorine sank into the trenches and
filled the eyes and lungs of the men, turning into acid and eating
away at the insides of their bodies. Thousands of men died within
minutes and thousands more turned and fled in blind panic. No one had
ever imagined a weapon this effective could exist, not even the
Germans themselves! Stunned by their own success at breaking the
French line the Germans failed to take advantage of the attack and
made only insignificant gains.

Courage only goes so far. When a man
sees his end at the hands of an unfeeling cloud inexorably rolling
across the landscape there is not a thing in this world that can make
him stand his ground. Self-preservation takes over. Deep down inside
every man is the brain of a lizard, responsible for the basic
functions of survival. Whenever the organism is threatened the lizard
brain overpowers the rational mind of man and the inner animal is
unleashed to fight or flee. And there is no way to fight a cloud of
death, so the man takes to his feet and hauls ass in the opposite
direction.

A man whose lungs are destroyed by
chlorine cannot be saved. Doctors cannot alleviate his suffering. He
fights for hours to pull life giving breath from the air to no avail
until he finally succumbs to the inevitable. It's not a good death,
but then again neither is bleeding to death from shrapnel. And
chlorine does one thing shrapnel cannot: it breaks trenches. Chlorine
could have won the war in 1915 if the Germans capitalised on their
initial success. They could have saved the lives of tens of millions
of men and reshaped the destiny of the continent. It's possible the
Holocaust could have been avoided had poison gas been used to its
fullest for a swift German victory, but there is no way to know for
sure.

The point of war is not to kill your
enemy, it is to get your enemy to surrender with the least amount of
force expended and the fewest friendly casualties. A war that can be
won without killing a single man is the most successful war of all.
The Mongol horde utilised terror to force cities to surrender before
their horses even got within earshot of the city walls. Poison gas
can do the same. Men will run away from gas by the thousands,
territory can be occupied without having to kill anyone, and wars can
be won by terror alone. As horrible a death asphyxiation is, it is a
lot better for a few thousand men to die by poison gas than millions
to die from attrition in the trenches.

And that is what happened. The Germans
held back, the Entente developed countermeasures, and the gases got
more deadly. A chemical arms race began that would eventually lead to
the production of enough lethal nerve gas to kill everyone on the
planet several times over at the height of the Cold War.

Once the First World War had ended a
new treaty was signed, and once again the good civilised white
Europeans agreed never to use poison gas. If a war can be won without
attrition, without millions dying from bullets and shells, without
protracted land battles, why that isn't fair! That's not the
gentleman's war, is it? Why should the smartest country, the country
that invests the most in science, the country most invested in the
preservation of land and human lives win the war instead of the
country willing to make the most human sacrifices? Surely chemical
warfare is evil because it spares millions from being interred
beneath soil contaminated with millions more tons of lead fragments.
Chemical warfare does not produce lost villages, so badly
contaminated that they can never be inhabited again. A cloud of gas
rolls over an enemy line and vanquishes it, it does not persist until
the last private has bled out in a shell hole somewhere in the mud.

No, chemical weapons, when used
correctly, are the most humane weapons of all. It is only backward
thinking, the inertia within the minds of politicians and military
planners, that draw a line in the sand and seek to prevent quick wars
that do not throw men and treasure into the fires of destruction. It
is their thinking that is a moral outrage, not the weapons they
revile so fervently.

The Eve of World War Three in Syria

Last Wednesday a chemical attack outside Damascus resulted in the death of over 1000 people. The UN was quick to come in and blame Syrian president Assad without evidence. US Secretary of State John Kerry said this was a moral outrage and requires US intervention (war, or "kinetic action" as the Zero regime likes to call it). Sources claim that attack is immanent, maybe even happening sometime today (Thursday 29 August), if not within a week.



None of this makes any sense. Think about it. Assad has killed fifty times as many people using conventional means. He has the upper hand in the war and the backing of Russia, China, and Iran. The quickest way to destroy his own success and alienate himself from his powerful allies would be to use chemical weapons. There is no sane or logical reason why Assad would have ordered that attack. Assad is an evil man, but he's not stupid. He is focused entirely on holding power, which is something he cannot do if he were to use chemical weapons and have the world turn against him.



BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner shares my suspicion: "the timing is odd, bordering on suspicious. Why would the Assad
government, which has recently been retaking ground from the rebels,
carry out a chemical attack while UN weapons inspectors are in the
country?" He does, however, believe a chemical attack did occur.



UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus agrees: "It would be very peculiar if it was the government
to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into
the country....at the least, it wouldn't be very clever."







Regarding the attack a US intelligence official commented "We don't know exactly why it happened. We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."



Why would Assad call in UN weapons inspectors then launch a chemical attack in close proximity to where the inspectors would be? That does not make any sense.



And yet we are rushing headlong into another poorly planned war with no exit strategy in mind and no thought as to the consequences of our actions.



Noah Shachtman writing for Foreign Policy states "However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation."



We are rushing into a foolish war that will only end badly with less evidence than there was for WMDs in Iraq a decade earlier! There were years of UN inspector reports and other intelligence that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein had a thriving chemical and biological warfare infrastructure in place and after the invasion nothing was found. With Syria we have precious little evidence that a chemical attack happened at all.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the US intercepted panicked phone calls between defense officials in Damascus and the commander of a chemical weapons unit demanding details about the strike, Foreign Policy reported early Wednesday.

The report comes just days after a report in a major German publication claiming that an IDF intelligence unit had listened in on similar conversations between senior Syrian officials discussing the chemical attack.

US intelligence says that these panicked phone calls prove that Assad or someone in his government was behind the attacks. Now I'm no intelligence expert, but I was right about Egypt and Libya, and I did predict the Benghazi attack two full years before it happened, but these guys know what they're talking about, right? I mean, when the Syrian Minister of Defense demands answers regarding who the hell ordered the attack that proves that the Syrian government was behind it, right? When they start panicking about a move that would mean suicide in the world of geopolitical realpolitik, a move that is "pretty fucking stupid," and then immediately begin working on damage control that means they must be responsible, right?



I mean, it's not like we have members of the Free Syrian Army (the Islamist rebels who ate a man's heart and posted it to YouTube - note, this is a mirror, not the original) on video talking about how they intend to use chemical weapons







Oops! Just ignore that. Didn't happen.



There are only two possible alternatives as to who launched that attack: either it was the rebels themselves or it was operatives from the US or some other country looking for a "responsibility to protect," a casus fœderis, for which to intervene.



Russia and China have warned the United States not to intervene, as has Assad himself. Intervention in Syria will spread the conflict to neighboring countries. A relatively contained problem will grow into a full scale war between, basically, the United States versus Russia and China. China holds the lion's share of US debt. They have the power to economically destroy the country immediately if they so choose. Israel and Iran will be drawn in. There may be a nuclear exchange, or at least the use of a nuclear bunker buster to take out Iran's own nuclear program. Of course, the problems with nukes is when one country uses them it sparks other countries to use them too, resulting in the mutually assured destruction that the world has tried to prevent for six decades.



At the very least a million Syrians will die and the US will be out another trillion dollars.



We cannot go to war in Syria. We cannot help the rebels. If the US gets involved this will be WWIII and it won't end until millions are dead.

Untitled Rush Limbaugh Rant #2

Didn't I just write about Rush Limbaugh? Well he's been ragging on the same exact topic the whole week and it feels like time wasted. He's talking about "Millennials," also known as the "ME ME ME!!!" generation or the worst generation ever, whom TIME calls "lazy, entitled narcissists."



Limbaugh brings up how they should not lose faith in the country but instead lose faith in the Democrat Party, seemingly ignoring the fact that politicians don't elect themselves, instead it is the people who put them in power (theoretically). The Democrat Party would not have any power if the people stood up to them.



And just what is a country? That is a difficult question to answer. While there is no ambiguity as to what the term "sovereign state" refers, and relatively little ambiguity as to what the term "nation" refers, a "country" is a bit of a head scratcher that occupies the grey area between the two. The United States is the state and "We the people" are the nation (discounting racist supremacist groups like La Raza and the Nation of Islam, as well as legitimate "sovereign" nations such as the Navajo, Blackfeet, and others), but as to what entity is the country is dependent upon who is speaking. Just for the sake of this article I will give a nod to the Greek idea of a polis and show preference for "country" and "nation" being largely synonymous.



If the country is the people of the United States then absolutely the country (in all its laziness or selfishness or whatever reason) is to blame for putting the people in power who have led to the destruction of the US economy and way of life. People get what they vote for, or don't vote for in the case of the millions who decided to stay home, permitting Zero from taking office a second time. America was not conquered by an outside force, it was taken over from within.



But that's not what I wanted to write about.



"I have it hear, folks, right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.  This is an article from NPR.  And I would think a lot of Millennials listen to NPR."



Interesting side note: I first heard of NPR during my time behind enemy lines, getting expensive wallpaper at university. I was in an African history class (very disappointing, it was pretty much a sub-Saharan African colonial history class and didn't focus on the thousands of years of history that took place before the arrival of Europeans in the southern two thirds of the continent), and the professor mentioned how he was listening to NPR in his car on the way to class. Having never heard that word before I looked it up on the Internet later that day and discovered it was an unsuccessful radio news agency.



Rush continues "In fact, when I was in my twenties, nobody was even willing to take you seriously until you were 40.  You hadn't lived long enough to know enough to be trusted with enough when I grew up."



He spends maybe 15 minutes every day this week glorifying that disgustingly backward practice because it is familiar to him and therefor comfortable. For most of history societies were set up so people were ready for adulthood when they actually became adults, somewhere around age 15. Every social institution prepared people for the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood at the age when nature dictated, and people were expected to act like adults when nature dropped the bomb and said "you're an adult now, deal with it."



Then around the time when the Romantics came along and ruined absolutely everything, this thing called "adolescence" was invented where people who are adults are treated like children and made to endure many years of mandatory, mostly useless schooling (indoctrination). Now, I'm not suggesting the Romantics are directly responsible, but I've never let them off the hook for anything so I will implicate them in this fiasco as well (since it is familiar to me and therefor comfortable). Since then the age at which one becomes an adult in the eyes of society has run away from the age at which biology dictates, until now when someone age 26 is considered a "child" and can be covered under one's parent's health care.



I contend – and this is so important I think it warrants its own paragraph – that the invention of adolescence is responsible for the problems of the modern world. The longer you tell people they are children, the longer you treat people like children, the longer their minds will remain immature, hence the lazy, entitled narcissism of today's adults.



Remember, Alexander the Great conquered Persia at age 25 and became Lord of Asia before age 30, Jesus completed his entire ministry and was crucified before he was 40, and Ben Franklin retired at age 41 having made the equivalent of $3 billion in today's money. Steve Jobs started Apple at age 21, left fantastically wealthy in 1985 at age 30, before returning in 1996. Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft at about the same age Jobs started Apple and both were fantastically wealthy before Rush's magic age of 40.



And by this point I am approaching 1000 words and I have not even gotten to my main point (or out of the first paragraph of the story linked at the top of this page). If you have stuck with me this far, my valued couple of readers, you have my thanks.



Rush continues "My generation, we were inspired. We were pushed.... I couldn't wait to get out of home. I wanted my own apartment. I wanted my own car. I wanted all that."



"You know, when I was growing up, all the things I was told about
America and about myself, hard work, prosperity, success, whatever that
meant to people.  For some people it means material things.  Other
people it means being the best at what they do.  You know, everybody
defines happiness a different way.  But whatever it was, it was a given
that it was possible.  It was up to you to get there.  Today, they're
not being told that it's possible.  They're being taught that it isn't."



That's very good, having inspiration, drive, and a society which encourages (and expects) it. And I agree that the current generation is not being inspired by the power elite. Academia, the media, the whole establishment, are telling young people to keep their heads down, that success is bad, that achievement is impossible, that America will never be great again. This is all true.



I also want to point out here that Rush is saying that different people can define success in different ways, and that as long as they work toward achieving their own standards of success that it is all good. This is important because in a minute Rush will go in the opposite direction and say that success is all about how much stuff you can accumulate before you die (conspicuous consumption).



Rush begins to read from the NPR article (which I will write about in my next piece). He weaves a yarn about a 27 year old man named Zach Brown who lives in LA:

"Brown is friends with Rosenthal," somebody mentioned earlier in the piece, "who finds herself spending her spare cash less on things and more on experiences. 'I love going to the movies and I like going to concerts a lot,' she says, 'and I like listening to music. I use Spotify and I listen to Pandora and things like that, but as far as purchasing those things I don't typically do it.'" Because that's been stigmatized, 'cause it's material, it's right out of the communist manifesto. It's stigmatized. It's filthy. It's selfish. It's destroying the earth to own things.  If I buy a car I have to buy gasoline. It means I'm a polluter.  These people are being told they are virtuous living lives of literal averageness and no remarkability about them, no risk-taking, no fun.  There's virtue in all this.  It's just 180 degrees out of phase.

Now, here's the final line in the piece at NPR.  "The simple pleasures
and the bare necessities. Perhaps Millennials are on to something."

"Living lives of no fun." Yes, "I love going to movies and concerts" really sounds like the words of someone who is not having one tiny iota of fun. No risk taking, no remarkability? It is impossible to draw those conclusions from that quote, or from the article for that matter. I won't go into too much detail because it will be the subject of the next post and I don't want this one to get too long and confusing, jumping all over the place, what the article actually says (versus Rush's straw man version) is that, instead of accepting the cultural stories that are "a given" as Rush says, Millennials actually think "what do I want for me instead of what society tells me I should want?" Consumption is no longer a knee-jerk reaction, Millennials are actually thinking whether they need something to be happy before shelling out their hard to come by money to fill their homes (or parents' homes) with useless crap.



Well, I'm sorry, folks, that's how they live. Those kinds of low expectations are why around the world so many people are trying to get here.... They're being told that there's virtue in not distinguishing themselves. There's virtue in not accomplishing anything. There's no stigma attached to that.  Achievement, success, those things are not fair because not everybody is.  In LA a grown man doesn't want to have a car.  Do you think that has any roots in traditional America?  A grown man.  In New York, it's another thing.  A grown man, 27 years old, in LA, an actor, what's he gonna pick up on his bicycle?  A makeup artist? 



What's wrong with an actor picking up a makeup artist? "This guy ain't gonna pick up chicks with a bike!" Says the man who rushed into three marriages that failed because he was more interested in spending his spare time after work staying home tinkering with ham radios and watching football on TV than spending time with his wives going out to shows or hiking or other activities that involved the outdoors and other people. Not the kind of guy to get dating tips from.



A grown man, not only does he not want a car, he thinks there's virtue in not wanting one and not having one.  "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, that's the way we all should be thinking now.  This is how we will save the planet from global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."  And this is how these New Castrati little sissies think.  Well, I don't know, folks.  All I know is that this kind of stuff is not what built a great country.  A 27-year-old kid who doesn't want a car, we're not talking about John Wayne there.  We're not talking Hercules.  Who are we talking about?



"A grown man who not only does not want a car but thinks it is a virtue not wanting a car." Nowhere in the article does it say Zach Brown does not want a car, and nowhere does it say he thinks people who want cars are reprobates. Rush is just making shit up here. If you read the article, instead of imagining naked ladies, you'll see it talks about being optimistic even if the economy has been destroyed and you can't find a job that pays enough to buy a fleet of black Maybachs, or a giant mansion that you only use four rooms of, or an acre of mahogany wood paneling in your library, or a private jet with your brand logo on the tail. Millennials don't think owning stuff is evil, they think, according to the article, that times are tough but we'll get through it and we should look toward the positive aspects of life instead of dwelling on the negative.



He goes on to imply that a grown man who does not want a car (nowhere does it say in the article that Zach doesn't want a car) is a homosexual and a weakling. I don't think I've been this turned off by listening to Rush Limbaugh since he praised the AIG executives for running the company into the ground and taking their golden parachutes.



What happened to "everybody
defines happiness a different way"? All of a sudden everyone who uses a different definition from Rush Limbaugh is a deviant, a dirtbag, a loser. Everyone who does not want to buy things they cannot afford is crazy. You know what is 180 degrees out of phase? It's not Millennials not wanting to buy cars, it's Rush Limbaugh saying one thing and then five minutes later saying the exact opposite thing all the while blowing over a strawman argument and acting like anyone who is different from an insecure introverted techie radio show host is a fruitcake failure.



My mother, who's getting up there in years, told me "what matters in life isn't a bunch of stuff on a shelf collecting dust, it's people." She's absolutely right, and I take the time to remind myself that every day. If Zach is focusing on enjoying the little time he has on this Earth with his friends instead of buying a car and driving around thinking about being Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate banging some chick and her mother, then Zach definitely has his head on straighter than the average person and his heart is certainly pointing in the right direction.



Toward the end of his monologue Rush makes a cursory promise "I'm not gonna keep on with this Millennial stuff." I sure hope so, because it's annoying the hell out of me.

The American Himmler

The infamous Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaiois at it again. This is that guy who likes to put on asinine
spectacles to get attention like everyone else who has ever lived who
has put on asinine spectacles. It's about ego stroking (maybe
stroking something else too).

I am convinced he is violating
the human and Constitutional rights of his inmates through his
practices, putting people awaiting trial in tents where temperatures
soar high enough to cause permanent brain damage and death, feeding
them inadequate or unhealthy food, keeping them in unhealthy crowded
conditions (everyone awaiting trial is innocent until proven guilty,
so he's basically trying to kill innocent people, and even if they
were guilty that doesn't make his treatment of these people any less
disgusting. People have died in his shithole prisons and the county
has paid millions to their families and still this motherfucker stays
in power.). He embezzles money left and right, he uses his power to
silence critics and obstruct justice, and is a worse monster than the
people he is incarcerating.

Well, the American Himmler is at
it again. His deputies, dressed in non-regulation camouflage, left
Maricopa County to illegally police the border when they came across
three militia men who were armed. There was an armed standoff between
the deputies and the men, who thought they were drug smugglers,
ending with one of the men being arrested. The militia men were not
in violation of any law, walking around unclaimed wilderness with
guns. When the deputies identified themselves as law enforcement,
albeit law enforcement outside its jurisdiction, they complied with
orders and put up no resistance.

The militia men were out
protecting their homes from the Mexican cartels who have taken over
the border. Self defense is something every creature has an innate
right to, but the power hungry piece of shit Arpaio, who has
conducted illegal operations on the border, outside his jurisdiction
multiple times, wants a monopoly of force and threw his massive gut,
I mean weight, I mean he's fat around.

“I have to commend
my deputy for not killing this person, which easily could have
happened,” Arpaio said. “He’s lucky he didn’t see 30 rounds
fired into him.” Yeah, I bet he gets a real hard on at the thought
of his personal army going out and killing people. 

30 rounds for one guy, seriously? That's excessive force, which is also illegal. It's also just plain stupid. There were three militia men there. Arpaio's deputy would unload his magazine into one man and then what would happen? If they were real Mexican cartel smugglers or just plain pissed off people he would get killed by the two other armed men while he is trying to reload. Arpaio is posturing, trying to use frighten law abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional right to walk around the desert with a gun.

I no longer wonder what country I live in. It isn't America, and beyond that I don't care to know which totalitarian state it is.

Why Can't We Be Friends?

From the LA Times (Why do I bother with publications that have "Times" in the title?).



Madeline Janis, some leftist broad, a writer for the Times and the national policy director of a group called the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (yeah, that name is transparent), writes a very disgusting piece about her late father.



Her father - name withheld - was 87 years old and very sick. He was a veteran and, she describes "highly educated — a psychiatrist with multiple advanced degrees in science and medicine. He was Jewish and deeply religious, donating regularly to charities helping those who struggled with life's challenges." This man is at the upper echelon of human achievement. He's very smart, well grounded, and very generous. This is not the kind of man you would expect to be treated as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, mouth-breathing, kunckle-walking, talks with a Southern drawl, gun owning, Bible thumping, bitter clinging, brow ridged troglodyte, especially by his own daughter. Not with an introduction like that anyway.



"But he hated President Obama and thought that government was at the root of all evil."

Shame!

We do not speak ill, NO, we do not think ill of dear leader! Dear leader is your new god. Bow down and worship him.



His other sin? He not only listened to, as if that was bad enough, but liked Rush Limbaugh! AAAHHH!!!!1 The horror! I...I can't. I have to go sit down and cry for a few minutes, this is too horrible.



He also had a few Rush Limbaugh caps, which he enjoyed wearing. The humanity!



I'm sorry. I shouldn't subject you to torture like that. I'll write it in small print.



Anyway, as I said earlier, her father was old and sick and in 'Murica when a parent can no longer live alone the child throws the parent in the trash. Yep. They put a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your mouth for, what, fifteen years, and you can't return the favor when they get old. They changed your diapers when you were a baby and you can't do the same when they're an invalid. You disgust me.



So this broad was going to put her father, who she claims to love, in a home. In case you didn't know it, a home is not as good as it sounds. A home is a place where old people go to be abused, neglected, have their social security money stolen, and their prescriptions sold to teenagers who are looking for drugs. And this broad was not only going to put her father in a home, where she would not have to lift a finger to care for him, or ever have to see him again, but she whined "why can't we throw these Limbaugh caps away, which bring you so much joy in your final days? Limbaugh is a big, fat, smelly meanie. He is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, and I know if he ever met me he would hate me! WAAA! WAA!"



He wouldn't hear it.



A few days later (I'm guessing; this article is written so poorly, jumping back and forth like a leprachaun who has had a few too many and has energy to burn), she goes back and her father tells her "sweetheart, I want to tell you something."



"Nope! I don't want to talk about it!" She pouted.



He continued anyway, "I've come to the conclusion that although I really like Rush Limbaugh, I love you more. So I'm going to give up the caps."



Maybe he really loved her that much. Maybe he was dying and didn't want to argue anymore. I think it's a little of both. The point is, this man decided to be the bigger man and give up his own happiness to make his spoiled brat daughter happy by throwing out his most prized possession which she hated. Then he died.



The worst is yet to come, folks. Yes, worse than what I've already told you. She writes an article in the LA Times about the incident with her deceased father. Wait, it gets worse! She says this "our love for each other and our family helped my father and me transcend the enormous ideological divide between us. It makes me wonder if there isn't something in these experiences that might help us, as Americans, transcend our political differences."



Did I miss something? She use her father's death as an opportunity to write about her selfish, arrogant, narrow-minded political ideology and claim that Rush and all people who listen to him are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes, and she has the conceit to say at the end "why can't we all just get along?" She whined until she got her way from her dying father. Yep, she beat a dying man in an argument and then writes an article about it in a major newspaper. And she claims the moral high ground!



This broad then closes with "that could be a start, at least, at reaching across the gulf of ideology to work cooperatively and respectfully to solve the challenges facing the nation."



What a bitch.



You know why we can't be friends? You know why we can't get along? Let me tell you why we can't get along. YOU ARE THE REASON WE CAN'T ALL JUST GET ALONG!



Why is it that only conservatives are expected to compromise? Why must conservatives be the only ones who "cross the aisle"? The left is absolutely perfect and doesn't need to change, but the right is racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and has to transform into their very opposite to stop being meat eating, mouth breathing, truck driving, gun owning troglodytes.



You, madam, are the problem. You are the intolerant one. You are the one who needs to compromise. You complained and whined and didn't yield, while your father kept giving in, and you were never happy. You threw your father away like garbage when he needed you most. If you were to die tomorrow and rot in Hell I would throw a party celebrating the fact that the world got just a little bit better without you being in it. You never listened to Rush Limbaugh and yet you judged him and condemned him. You never listened to your father's point of view and you judged him too and berrated him in his dying days for liking a man whom you despise for purely blind ideological reasons. You are what is wrong with this country, nay, this world. People like you are the reason we can't get along.



By the way, I saved the original article just in case the LA Times takes it down so that a permanent record exists.

Idiots, Normals, Smarties, and Genii

 An article from Yahoo claims that "more intelligent" people tend to be atheists.



Who are these "more intelligent" people who are less likely to believe in God? Isaac Newton, probably the most influential scientist of all time, spent thousands of hours more studying Biblical prophecy than he did physics. All his scientific endeavors were conducted as an act of worship. James Clerk Maxwell, the second most influential scientist of all time, was also very religious, going so far as to become an elder of the Church of Scotland. Louis Pasteur, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Nikola Tesla, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, Galileo Galilei*, Gottfried Leibniz, Johannes Kepler, John Eccles, Werner Heisenberg, William Thomson Kelvin, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes all believed in God. Even Charles Darwin believed in God until much later in his life, and so did Alfred Russel Wallace, whom Darwin stole his evolutionary theory from. I'm left to wonder, are these "more intelligent" atheists "more intelligent" than the people I just listed? If they are not then why the fudge should I give a flying feather what they think?



The article says that these "more intelligent" people are really people with higher IQs, and they show a picture of Richard Dawkins holding up a picture of himself as an example, I guess, when the smartest thing Dawkins ever did was buy that really nice suit he's wearing in the picture (his selfish gene idea is intriguing, but I don't think it holds much water, he did create the word "meme", unfortunately, so that'll cost him some points, and everything he did after that is pure garbage). According to the article there was "a life-long analysis of the beliefs of a group of 1,500 gifted children - those with IQs over 135." Well, there's your first problem. Okay, your second problem. It is almost impossible to accurately assess the IQs of children, to say nothing of the fact that IQ doesn't really mean anything anyway.



What do I think? I think it has to do with know-it-all-ism. "More intelligent" people tend not to fit in as well with normal people and social isolation + greater capacity for X = ego boost. "I don't fit in because I'm better than everyone else." Someone with know-it-all-ism is more likely to believe that one knows it all, and is less likely to appreciate just how much one does not know. Someone with know-it-all-ism is also less likely to go with the crowd just because it's something to do, being different for the sake of being different, or because "I'm better than everyone else."



On the contrary, a true genius has risen above the show all together and realises "I may know more than everyone, but in the grand scheme of things I really know shit." A genius is thus more likely to appreciate the mysteries necessary for spiritual beliefs. That is why the vast majority of the world-changing geniuses believe in God or some higher order of the universe while the merely "smart" people are more likely to be atheists.









*Who was imprisoned because he wrote a satire about the Pope, who was also the leading temporal authority of the time, making Galileo's writing an act of treason, NOT because he wrote about a heliocentric solar system. There was no official Church position on cosomology at the time. The ammended geocentric model of Ptolemy made better predictions than the heliocentric model created by Copernicus because he got the orbits of the planets wrong, and it was this greater accuracy with predictability that made most people accept the geocentric model at the time. The idea that Galileo was arrested because the Church is anti-science is a load of horseshit propaganda.

The Litmus Test: "Will You Shoot Americans?"

The Department of Homeland Insecurity, an unconstitutional quasi-military government organisation established under Capital Bush and strengthened and expanded under Zero for the sole purpose of taking over the United States from within. Returning veterans are at the very top of the watch list for potential terrorists, followed by constitutionalists, small government enthusiasts, libertarians, and gun owners. Eliminating veterans are important. They are the one group of people who have the training, experience, and organisational skills necessary to decapitate this naked power grab before it is complete and save the country. The NWO must eliminate them at all costs, either through suicide by forcing them on more tours of duty than the human mind can take and deadly psychotropic drugs, or outright killing them like all those "coincidental" helicopter crashes, like the one in Afghanistan in 2011 that killed 38 people, including 15 members of the famous SEAL Team Six.

Americans respond to every power grab by buying more guns and ammunition, so DHS responds by purchasing enough ammunition to kill every American 70 times over and preparing the military and the newly militarised police to use that ammo to kill Americans.

Trayvon Unmasked

At 7 PM on the night of 26 February 2012 in Sanford Florida, two men had an altercation in the rain that left one of them dead.

The people involved were 17 year old Trayvon Martin, black, and 29 year old George Zimmerman, Hispanic. They are the only two who know exactly what happened that night, and, unfortunately, Mr. Martin is dead so we can never have the complete story. What we do know is that someone started a fight that Mr. Zimmerman ended with a single gunshot.

The event ballooned into a media circus that lasted a year and a half until, 13 July 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder after what was very nearly a hung jury. Threats of violence, and some actual violence, erupted following the verdict. Protests were staged around the country. The President made two comments, one good, one bad. This is pretty much the most objective account of what has happened.

Now here's the part sprinkled with my analysis.

First, Sanford is a lower-middle class community with a crime problem. 18.5% of the population is below the poverty line. In 2011 the people of Sanford formed a neighborhood watch program to deal with the crime, with Zimmerman being appointed as the coordinator. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's father's fiancee (where he was living at the time) were renting homes in the town.

Trayvon Martin was not a kid, as many portray him. Neither was he innocent. He was not the ten year old seen in the pictures. He was a grown man, he portrayed himself as a thug on the Internet, and he was a petty criminal, having been suspended from school many times for painting graffiti and stealing jewelry. His parents were divorced. His mother sent him to live with his father because he was too much trouble for her. The night of the shooting he goes out in the rain to a 7-Eleven and call his friend Rachel Jeantel (who lacks all common sense and tact). After 18 minutes on the phone the call abruptly ends for unknown reasons. Martin was not most likely not buying candy at the 7-Eleven, he was buying ingredients for a drug popular in the hip hop gangster culture that he talked about frequently on the Internet. The drug, known as "purple drank," "lean," or "syrup" is made with cough syrup containing codeine or dextromethorphan (such as in Robitussin DM, which Martin was talking about with some friends on Facebook). He most likely was planning on mixing the Skittles and Arizona watermellon drink that he had purchased with the Robitussin to create "some fire ass lean," as one friend called it. Extended use of the cough syrup based drug is linked to liver damage and psychotic episodes.*

Next, George Zimmerman is often portrayed as "lily white", a "white-Hispanic", or as "mixed-race" by people trying to spin the case. Unsurprisingly, NONE of these same people call the President "mixed-race", "white-black", or "white" when both he and Zimmerman have one white parent. The President is 100% black and Zimmerman is white above any other races, if not entirely white. This is not because of his complexion or features. Zimmerman has dark skin and his eyes and other facial features clearly belong to someone who is not white.

According to the other wiki, "during the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times. On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher." Zimmerman takes his job very seriously. I would argue too seriously. He was driving around with a gun, safety off, looking for suspicious men. 26 February he finds his sixth suspicious looking man, and this time it does not end well.

Zimmerman calls the police from his truck saying he has found yet another suspicious looking man. After four minutes he gets out of his truck to follow Martin because, as the tape indicates, Martin started running at this point. The dispatcher advises Zimmerman not to pursue Martin but he doesn't listen. Martin calls Rachel Jeantel back but his call gets disconnected again, for unknown reasosn.

Someone started the fight. When it was over Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, Martin was shot in the chest and lie dead in the grass with bloody knuckles.

There were eight witnesses, of whom only two saw part of the altercation. They reported (from wiki):

A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help." The witness said that the black male was throwing punches "MMA [mixed martial arts] style." After hearing a "pop," he saw the black male "laid out on the grass." When the witness was subsequently interviewed weeks later by a different agency, the witness said he thought that the black male was either punching or pinning the lighter skinned male underneath him. He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark. He was still certain that the black male had been on top of the lighter-skinned male.

The eighth witness, Jeantel, heard part of the altercation from the phone: "She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?"" The phone then went silent.

What happened after that we can only speculate. Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing out at night, then someone started the fight. Trayvon Martin was either the instigator or else he got the upper hand and had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was whaling on him, or as Jeantel calls it "whoop ass." An audience member's mouth falls open at the revelation that Jeantel basically admitted it was Trayvon who started the fight. Foreign national Piers Morgan tried to pull her fat out of the fire by asking "if Trayvon was being attacked, would he have 'whooped ass' as you call it?" She immediately corrects him, saying that "whoop ass" cannot be conjugated to form "whooped ass". He nudged her a second time and she finally gave the answer he wanted, that yes, Trayvon was defending himself, because Android phones can't be turned off if you're the one on top in a fight.



There is a difference between beating someone to death and "whoop ass". "Whoop ass" is all fun and games, even if it leads to concussion and paralysis or death. It's the intent behind "whoop ass" that counts, and the intent is, well I don't know. Jeantel is about as clear as mud. I've understood dogs and cats better than I understand her. I don't know what the difference between "whoop ass" and a savage beating is, and according to Jeantel that misunderstanding is why Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, listening to 9-1-1 recordings, testified that the person crying for help was not his son, although he later changed his story after the case. Sybrina, Trayvon's mother, testified that it was her son. A neighbor testified that it was Zimmerman. The FBI analysed the recordings and said the quality was too poor to determine whose voice it was.

As the autopsy reveals, Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he got shot. It also revealed that Martin had extensive liver damage well beyond what would be expected in a 17-year-old, further evidence that he was on a drug run the night he got shot. (*I'm not condemning recreational drug use, I'm merely illustrating that Trayvon Martin was not an innocent little boy who got shot because he was a black kid out buying candy. Also, if this drug - and potentially others - had caused this much damage to his liver it probably also caused damage to his brain, and he was likely not thinking clearly the night he went out and started a fight when he could have easily outrun Zimmerman home and called the police if he was really worried. Yet in spite of what all rational people would know is a bad idea, Martin likely started a fight with a man in the middle of the night and ended up dead.)

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Zimmerman has black relatives, he has worked with the black community in Sanford to get them more active in the neighborhood watch program, and he was "one of the few to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by the son of a Sanford police officer."

What do I think happened? George Zimmerman went out looking for trouble. Trayvon Martin went out possibly looking for something to burgle, if his past is any indication, and no doubt open to the possibility of a fight. Rachel Jeantel goaded Martin into starting a fight with an armed man in the middle of the night. It was Jeantel who sewed the seeds of fear or rage or whatever in Martin while they talked on the phone. "Some creepy ass cracker is following me." "He can't do that! You better whoop ass so he gets the message!" The gang culture Martin and Jeantel idolise combined with confusion and testosterone took over rational judgment and Martin and when Zimmerman asked "what are you doing here?" Martin started beating him. Zimmerman greatly underestimated Martin and, fearing for his life, took his gun and shot Martin, happening to hit him fatally.

In President Obama's first address regarding the verdict, he acted like a leader and said basically "it's a tragedy that a family lost their son but the justice system is based on evidence and, let's face it, there's no evidence to convict Zimmerman, so we should accept the verdict of 'not guilty' as a victory for our justice system, as it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in prison. Now, in respect for the family let's all put this behind us."

In his second address he said (exact quote) "you know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away." He then went on to say "there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off."

Yes, I know what it's like to get nervous looks out of people as I walk by. I know what it's like for people to turn their porch lights on as I walk past their houses at night. Trayvon Martin probably couldn't have been me. I don't live in a high crime area, but I do like to go for walks at crazy hours of the night and I do often make people uncomfortable by my looks and mannerisms. No one where I live will probably shoot me, and I doubt anyone would have shot Obama either during his carefree childhood in Hawaii, or his time spent in Indonesia with his step father who owned a lot of exotic animals. I'm not saying he's lying, but he is definitely not telling the truth either when he says "Trayvon could have been me 35 years ago." Maybe during his time in Chicago, that cesspool of crime and human suffering, but not when he was 17. Obama did not move to the mainland until he was 18.

From the wiki page on Obama: "Of his early childhood, Obama recalled, 'That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind.'

He started to think about black nationalism and anger toward whites in spite of the colourblindness of his peers. Fellow student Mark Hebing recalls "we didn't think about his blackness." From the same LA Times article, we have more accounts of Obama's time in Hawaii:

"His reflections about the race issue surprised all of us," said Kellie Furushima, who knew him well. "He gave no indication of feeling uncomfortable in school, and I never witnessed or heard anyone being unkind to him.

"Being in Hawaii, we had a lot of different races," classmate Vernette Ferreira Shaffer said. "People would tell ethnic jokes, but it was more about making fun of stereotypes than trying to do a cool thing."

Hanging out and working with many black people, I know they make just as many jokes (maybe more) about black stereotypes as any other group. Comedian Chris Rock in Bring the Pain even jokes about the difference between "black people" and "niggers," whom normal black people hate more than white people.

Inside all of this is the anger Obama alludes to. Black people are angry about the way they were treated during the time of slavery and Jim Crow. He says "that doesn't go away." I ask why? Yes, it's true that the slave trade was one of the worst acts of inhumanity in history, but let us not forget it was started in Africa by black people selling other black people to at first Muslims and then to white people. There is still racial tension in Africa between Negroes and Pygmies, two distinct black groups who view the other as nonhuman and have fought wars to wipe the other out. It was also whites who eventually ended slavery, beginning with groups such as the Quakers and taking off when the Methodists got behind the abolition movement, finally culminating in the deaths of over 600,000 men to put a stop to the barbarism once and for all. Immediately after the Civil War many of the Southern states, with majority black populations, elected blacks to federal office. It was not until Reconstruction ended and the white Democrats took power once again that blacks were rendered slaves in all but name until the 1950s. President Eisenhower, Republican, wanted to solve the problem by passing a host of civil rights laws, and he did go very far but was checked by Senate leader Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, who was one of the biggest racists of the time. It was only after Johnson lost face for killing kids in Vietnam that he finished what Eisenhower started, and wrongly took credit for being a civil rights leader when he wanted nothing more than to reinstitute slavery. 50 years of indoctrination in public schools have led millions to believe that the Republicans, who fought and died by the thousands for the rights of black people, are evil while the Democrats, who fought and died to keep blacks enslaved and started the KKK, are good. Truly a cosmic irony.

Why does the racial hurt never go away? When my ancestors came to America a century ago we weren't even second-class citizens and we certainly weren't white (although I'd probably be considered white today I do not self-identify as white). We had hardships, we were mistreated, and we really still aren't viewed in that good a light, and still I have no racial anger toward anyone. I don't think to myself "my ancestors were treated like shit so I'm gonna hate white people forever!" It makes no sense to hold on to anger, to give that kind of power to other people who did nothing to me, and ruin my own life in the process by destroying my own mental health. Anger causes far more harm than good, especially to one's self.

Yes, blacks suffered more than probably any other group in history except the Jews, but just about more effort was put into fixing the injustices done to blacks than to any other group. Wars were not fought and  countries were not destroyed to fix other race relations or bring other people out of bondage. I would appreciate one tenth the effort done for my people.

Why does racial hurt never go away? I argue because it is useful. The power elite keep blacks as victims through soft racism such as affirmative action and race baiters such as Al Sharpton. Blacks are not good enough to compete on their own, they argue, so big daddy government must give them a hand up and take care of them just as big daddy massa did. "Massa don't want to hear that slave shit, sing him something different!"



If you take a look at just about every problem society faces today you can trace it back to people with power wanting more power, disenfranchising one group to play off another, keeping us all separated so we can't unite and defeat them. Racism has always existed and probably will always exist, but the idea of permanent racial victims exists only as a device by the elite to divide people.

Now, here's where I'm gonna get really racist, as one person has insinuated, by citing statistics. According to the FBI, 2,720 black people were murdered in 2010, 2,459 of them at the hands of another black person. Another study, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, discovered that 94% of all black murder victims were killed by other black people.

One black violent thug was shot by an Hispanic idiot wannabe hero who's painted as "lily white" by race baiters and all of a sudden there's a huge outcry and the beginnings of race riots. The nearly 3,000 other black people killed by other black people every year - not a peep. If Zimmerman was black it has been demonstrably proven over the past three decades that the event wouldn't make the news. About 13,000 people are murdered in total every  year. How many of them do we ever hear about on the news? How many of them get a "Justice for Jane Doe" campaign, or two televised speeches by the President, or mass demonstrations in the streets of major cities? How many millions of black babies are killed in abortion mills every year (Planned Parenthood was founded with the specific intent of exterminating black people)? How much harm is the government and racist leaders like Al Sharpton doing to the black community? How much harm is the black community doing to itself? And in spite of all of this we barely hear anything. Whites who speak out are labeled racist and blacks who speak out are labeled Uncle Tom.

Somehow is it more real when an Hispanic (or even a white) man kills a black man than when a black man kills another black man? Is that because the power elite in the media told you so? I don't think so. I don't think it's more real when OJ got off on the death of his wife because there was reasonable doubt because OJ was a black man killing a white woman. I don't think black people should consider it more real that George Zimmerman got off on the death of Trayvon Martin because there was reasonable doubt because Zimmerman was whatever the hell race you want to call him killing a black man. Can we not look past the colour of peoples' skins and see into the content of their characters as a great man once said before he himself was murdered by a racist? Must we divide ourselves among races, playing into the elite's hands, weakening our own power, enslaving ourselves? How does any of that make sense?

It is a tragedy when anyone has to die, but it is an even bigger tragedy when we let those deaths needlessly divide us further. Al Sharpton doesn't care about Trayvon Martin, neither does President Obama, and neither do any of the people on TV who are making money by hyping the incident. Obama will never have to bury his children because of a fight with an armed man, thankfully he has Secret Service to protect them. However, he is stuck seeing things through the lens of race as the elite of his day indoctrinated him, and now that he has all the power in the world he is using it to indoctrinate others. In his ignorance he is part of the problem, a problem that uses race to divide the one human race as evil always does to secure power for itself.

I might be veering off into even more alien ground here, but here is how I see the endgame play out. Evil has no power of its own. All power comes from God, even the power that evil misuses. Just as a solar powered machine cannot be used to destroy the sun, there is nothing evil can do to to defeat God.

All the super evil people in history have eventually outstretched their limits and were murdered by their own people. Stalin, Timur, Attila, Mao, all the tyrants, however powerful, however many millions they terrorised or killed, they were eventually killed by a guard or someone who saw the opportunity to strike and put an end to someone whom everyone hated. Evil loses because it isolates itself. In alienating all possible allies and ruling entirely through fear, evil leaves itself open to that one person who inevitably arises who has nothing to lose and the perfect opening to get at the tyrant one on one. Once they are free, the people, who have been living in secret, watching every step they take against the seemingly omnipotent authorities, immediately resume their lives where they last left off as best they can.

Although the New World Order has a lot of power on the Earth, all the power they have comes from God. No matter how powerful they get they can never win. They will lose; the only question is how much damage will they cause before they are taken down? How long will it take for the world to recover? It took India a century to recover from Timur's destruction, but it recovered. Stalin did his best to destroy the Russian church, but it sprang back once it was free to do so. The unconquerable spirit of free people will be restored as soon as the peoples' burden is lifted. How badly will they destroy the world? I don't know. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because they cannot destroy our freedom, only we can surrender it. They can never destroy love. As A Course in Miracles says:

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

That is why no matter how powerful they get, they can never be more powerful than you are. They have already lost. All else is just spectacle.

We should use this tragedy as a chance to unite against the evils of racism, not to add more fuel to the fire. With that I close my analysis of the Trayvon Martin case.