Well worth the read;
http://www.zcommunications.org/political-myths-we-live-by-by-peter-lach-newinsky
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Women and the Vote
Originally posted on The Register user forums in response to a question wondering when the UK started turning into a police state.
"When the hell did people stop having any balls and started caring so little about their freedom and their soul?"
I could tell you the answer succinctly but it is pretty high on the politically incorrect scale.
Suffice to say that when you have a particular demographic group who has a natural predilection to seek out safety over all other concerns attaining political superiority within society combined with the opposite demographic who have a natural predilection to offer (the appearance) of safety to the safety seeking demographic while at the same time wanting to incapacitate or destroy all the non alpha members of their own demographic group then you end up with a situation such as this.
The alpha members of the protecting group end up doing whatever it takes to engender fear in the protection seeking group in order to attain power over the non alpha portions (majority) of their own group.
Eventually it is their arrogance that leads to their downfall. Ultimately they will go far enough down that road that they begin to believe they have subdued the non-alphas to the point that they are no longer a credible threat and they have the enforcement structures sufficiently in place to contain whatever resistance they do manage to mount.
At this point they decide that they no longer need to actively manipulate political support from the safety seekers at which point the safety seekers who enabled the entire totalitarian mess in the first place finally get a taste of what they have wrought.
Time passes until ultimately the whole thing collapses, usually due to economic failure.
Rinse lather repeat. The human race seems incapable of learning.
"When the hell did people stop having any balls and started caring so little about their freedom and their soul?"
I could tell you the answer succinctly but it is pretty high on the politically incorrect scale.
Suffice to say that when you have a particular demographic group who has a natural predilection to seek out safety over all other concerns attaining political superiority within society combined with the opposite demographic who have a natural predilection to offer (the appearance) of safety to the safety seeking demographic while at the same time wanting to incapacitate or destroy all the non alpha members of their own demographic group then you end up with a situation such as this.
The alpha members of the protecting group end up doing whatever it takes to engender fear in the protection seeking group in order to attain power over the non alpha portions (majority) of their own group.
Eventually it is their arrogance that leads to their downfall. Ultimately they will go far enough down that road that they begin to believe they have subdued the non-alphas to the point that they are no longer a credible threat and they have the enforcement structures sufficiently in place to contain whatever resistance they do manage to mount.
At this point they decide that they no longer need to actively manipulate political support from the safety seekers at which point the safety seekers who enabled the entire totalitarian mess in the first place finally get a taste of what they have wrought.
Time passes until ultimately the whole thing collapses, usually due to economic failure.
Rinse lather repeat. The human race seems incapable of learning.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Ministry of Truth
I loved this post by MinionZero over on The Register forum. I am reproducing it here;
The post was part of a discussion of the new NSA's "Perfect Citizen" monitoring network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call it something that it isn't is therefore proof of their intention to deceive and manipulate. Therefore they cannot be trusted. Therefore anyone who does say they can be trusted is either ignorant of the deceitful nature of these people, or they are themselves deceitful people seeking to fool people into failing to see through other deceitful people. (After all deceitful people do not want a world where deceitful people can be seen through because in such a world they would fail to be so successful. Which is exactly the way to fight back against what is happening. Everyone needs to learn to see through these people).
"Machiavellianism is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct"" ... and the concept of Machiavellianism has existed for almost exactly 500 years (since 1513).
They also show their intention to continue to abuse ever more Orwellian technology for ever more control no matter what anyone says to them. After all the people in power want to be the people in power so they don't want to listen to other people. They want to be the people who choose (and therefore dictate) how others must live. Worse still we cannot even oppose their ideas without them thinking us as the enemy.
Therefore this Perpetual War on terror is looking ever more like a war on freedom. But then terrorists seek to dictate their will over everyone, so that means political leaders see terrorists as direct competitors for their position of power over people. The terrorists want to be in power. They are ironically the same kind of arrogant people who seek to dictate how others must live. Therefore the political leaders goal of seeking to stop terrorists is really a means to seek to stop opposition to their position of power. So they are seeking to identify all opponents and then judge who are the most extreme opponents. The danger as always is as history shows, the people in power will always feature creep their power over people to add more ways to make lesser punishments for lesser opponents. Also the law is what they say is the law. Plus they often don't use direct punishments for opposition. They instead create ever more options for using more ways to punish people such as fines and other punishments to force compliance with their wishes. So even if they do not have direct laws to punish direct opponents they will instead use and create other laws to punish opponents simply to make their lives more difficult so they are distracted from being opponents. After all these people in power prove their deceitful manipulative nature which combined with their need to dictate how others must live, shows just what a nightmare we are heading into. We are not heading towards freedom and fairness, we are heading towards a world ruled by dictators.
... Which brings us back to ... there has always been very good reasons why throughout history, people all around the world have tried very hard to protect their privacy, liberty and freedom from state interference. Fail to learn from history and we walk right back into the same problems again, only this time, with the power of ever better (yet ever more abused) technology, the state is becoming more powerful than at any time in history and yet the people in power have shown countless times how their kind cannot just be trusted with ever increasing power. Their actions have to be policed or they become part of the problem. Yet they are amassing more power than at any point in history.
We are moving into a world of endless spying and micro management over us all which is then backed up with endless fines, punishments, rules, regulations and law changes. The future is looking like a very grim endless misery of their relentless control over us all and yet we cannot speak out against it all without being labelled as wrong and then quietly punished back into silence. :(
The post was part of a discussion of the new NSA's "Perfect Citizen" monitoring network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call it something that it isn't is therefore proof of their intention to deceive and manipulate. Therefore they cannot be trusted. Therefore anyone who does say they can be trusted is either ignorant of the deceitful nature of these people, or they are themselves deceitful people seeking to fool people into failing to see through other deceitful people. (After all deceitful people do not want a world where deceitful people can be seen through because in such a world they would fail to be so successful. Which is exactly the way to fight back against what is happening. Everyone needs to learn to see through these people).
"Machiavellianism is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct"" ... and the concept of Machiavellianism has existed for almost exactly 500 years (since 1513).
They also show their intention to continue to abuse ever more Orwellian technology for ever more control no matter what anyone says to them. After all the people in power want to be the people in power so they don't want to listen to other people. They want to be the people who choose (and therefore dictate) how others must live. Worse still we cannot even oppose their ideas without them thinking us as the enemy.
Therefore this Perpetual War on terror is looking ever more like a war on freedom. But then terrorists seek to dictate their will over everyone, so that means political leaders see terrorists as direct competitors for their position of power over people. The terrorists want to be in power. They are ironically the same kind of arrogant people who seek to dictate how others must live. Therefore the political leaders goal of seeking to stop terrorists is really a means to seek to stop opposition to their position of power. So they are seeking to identify all opponents and then judge who are the most extreme opponents. The danger as always is as history shows, the people in power will always feature creep their power over people to add more ways to make lesser punishments for lesser opponents. Also the law is what they say is the law. Plus they often don't use direct punishments for opposition. They instead create ever more options for using more ways to punish people such as fines and other punishments to force compliance with their wishes. So even if they do not have direct laws to punish direct opponents they will instead use and create other laws to punish opponents simply to make their lives more difficult so they are distracted from being opponents. After all these people in power prove their deceitful manipulative nature which combined with their need to dictate how others must live, shows just what a nightmare we are heading into. We are not heading towards freedom and fairness, we are heading towards a world ruled by dictators.
... Which brings us back to ... there has always been very good reasons why throughout history, people all around the world have tried very hard to protect their privacy, liberty and freedom from state interference. Fail to learn from history and we walk right back into the same problems again, only this time, with the power of ever better (yet ever more abused) technology, the state is becoming more powerful than at any time in history and yet the people in power have shown countless times how their kind cannot just be trusted with ever increasing power. Their actions have to be policed or they become part of the problem. Yet they are amassing more power than at any point in history.
We are moving into a world of endless spying and micro management over us all which is then backed up with endless fines, punishments, rules, regulations and law changes. The future is looking like a very grim endless misery of their relentless control over us all and yet we cannot speak out against it all without being labelled as wrong and then quietly punished back into silence. :(
Monday, July 5, 2010
Rise Of The Machines
Am I the only one who is becoming increasingly disturbed by the way the US military is putting a lot of effort into dehumanizing the whole killing process?
It is by no accident I assure you. People who can't see the human face of the targets they are destroying tend to feel a lot less guilt and remorse afterwards.
The biggest enemy that the US military has is the American public. When the American public sees bodies in bags (on either side) they start to get upset and start asking whether the Pentagons war de jour is really worth it after all.
The ability to have some soccer mom who can spend 9 to 5 piloting death and destruction via remote control and then go home to cook her family meal afterwards is a great way of winning the PR battle against the population.
The more killing comes to look like a video game the easier the Pentagons PR job will be.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/02/kq_x_announcement/
It is by no accident I assure you. People who can't see the human face of the targets they are destroying tend to feel a lot less guilt and remorse afterwards.
The biggest enemy that the US military has is the American public. When the American public sees bodies in bags (on either side) they start to get upset and start asking whether the Pentagons war de jour is really worth it after all.
The ability to have some soccer mom who can spend 9 to 5 piloting death and destruction via remote control and then go home to cook her family meal afterwards is a great way of winning the PR battle against the population.
The more killing comes to look like a video game the easier the Pentagons PR job will be.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/02/kq_x_announcement/
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Another Day
Another nail in the AGW coffin!
Also, I heard some idiot (CEO of the CSIRO no less!) on the ABC this morning, carrying on about how Climate change is "definitely real", but conveniently avoiding adding the "Man Made" prefix during the majority of the interview, despite being introduced like this;
"The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark has come out in defence of climate scientists and says there's absolutely no doubt there's a link between humans and climate change."
She went on to claim that one hundred years of measurements is enough to determine a climatic trend that is normally measured in geological terms. ie millenia. Of course she should already know this is untrue, because she is apparently a "Doctor of Philosophy in Economic Geology", whatever that is (unless of course the "philosophy" part of that title is actually a euphamisim for "doesn't know any real science")
It wasn't until she was specifically asked about the "Man Made Warming" (btw, why isn't the non gender specific term "Person Made" used by these PC idiots, hmmm?) that she was forced to dance around the issue, and come up with some totally unconvincing garbage along the lines of "well it does seem to be hotter since the Industrial Revolution began" only to then go on to accuse the sceptics of using vague anecdotes when they point out the snow storms in the USA this year.
"We know two things. We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly. We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years. We also know that that rapid increase that we've been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected."
Ummm, why is it "very likely to be connected" exactly? Is that a scientific conclusion based on evidence or some sort of religious faith? I would say that the actual evidence says that by the start of the Industrial Revolution it was already warmer than it had been for the previous three hundred years because the planet was still emerging from the "Little Ice Age". The warming we are facing is a continuation from that.
That was then followed by;
"But at the same time, plucking out a snow storm in the US or a flood in Queensland or a cold day somewhere and trying to use that to explain away some of these long-term trends, of course, we know is not the right way to do it."
Hello? Didn't you do just that? and besides, 100 years of measurement does not equal a "long term trend" in regards to climate. Moron.
In fact, there are some signs emerging that we may be heading towards the next little ice age, but you won't see the econazi's mentioning that one.
Also, I heard some idiot (CEO of the CSIRO no less!) on the ABC this morning, carrying on about how Climate change is "definitely real", but conveniently avoiding adding the "Man Made" prefix during the majority of the interview, despite being introduced like this;
"The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark has come out in defence of climate scientists and says there's absolutely no doubt there's a link between humans and climate change."
She went on to claim that one hundred years of measurements is enough to determine a climatic trend that is normally measured in geological terms. ie millenia. Of course she should already know this is untrue, because she is apparently a "Doctor of Philosophy in Economic Geology", whatever that is (unless of course the "philosophy" part of that title is actually a euphamisim for "doesn't know any real science")
It wasn't until she was specifically asked about the "Man Made Warming" (btw, why isn't the non gender specific term "Person Made" used by these PC idiots, hmmm?) that she was forced to dance around the issue, and come up with some totally unconvincing garbage along the lines of "well it does seem to be hotter since the Industrial Revolution began" only to then go on to accuse the sceptics of using vague anecdotes when they point out the snow storms in the USA this year.
"We know two things. We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly. We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years. We also know that that rapid increase that we've been measuring was at the same time that we saw the industrial revolution so it is very likely that these two are connected."
Ummm, why is it "very likely to be connected" exactly? Is that a scientific conclusion based on evidence or some sort of religious faith? I would say that the actual evidence says that by the start of the Industrial Revolution it was already warmer than it had been for the previous three hundred years because the planet was still emerging from the "Little Ice Age". The warming we are facing is a continuation from that.
That was then followed by;
"But at the same time, plucking out a snow storm in the US or a flood in Queensland or a cold day somewhere and trying to use that to explain away some of these long-term trends, of course, we know is not the right way to do it."
Hello? Didn't you do just that? and besides, 100 years of measurement does not equal a "long term trend" in regards to climate. Moron.
In fact, there are some signs emerging that we may be heading towards the next little ice age, but you won't see the econazi's mentioning that one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)