Ever get a sense that more and more people are in denial these days, and in much greater degrees?
What do I mean? I mean people are more pigheaded, more prone to lying, and more close-minded than at anytime I have seen, read, or heard about in the past…
What is denial?
I have not checked the exact definition in a while. What I think: self-dishonesty.
Rather that is what it means to be “in denial.”
What are its characteristics?
I do not know for sure; I’m just going to rip through a bunch of thoughts I have on this…
Denying something through rationalizations what one knows—or merely senses—to be true.
Being in denial is more than that, though, I think.
It is denying your part in something; not taking responsibility—blaming others or something else instead.
At its core is a certain self-deception, sure, as well as the act of stubbornly clinging to a falsehood. Have you ever gotten into an argument with someone over something and you knew you were right and what you were saying was the truth, but the other person didn’t believe you, no matter how much sense you made, no matter how many sources you listed—and even after you had to look it up for the person, they still didn’t believe it?
I’ve had this happen a few times—some people have an utterly fanatical urge to be right about absolutely everything. But others, well…
It is also making up reasonable-sounding excuses for what you’ve done to avoid any negative consequences or merely to appear better than you really are. This is on the edge of the camp of denial, too.
It’s not practicing what you preach.
And it’s simply the general inability to become aware of a truth or truths, through conscious effort—read: willful ignorance.
You read about how video games are addictive, scoff at it, and then go play a game.
Buying a lot of crap at the mall doesn’t bother you because you figure that as long as you recycle your wrappers, cans and plastic, there will be no ill consequences.
You see six police officers beating an unarmed and restrained man unconscious, and say he deserved it because he called them “pigs.”
You sneer at smokers for polluting the air and then hop in your car and drive home.
Someone tells you the sky is blue, and your retort is that it’s actually white and blue because the clouds are present. Going out of your way to nitpick something to either make the other person look bad or to make yourself look better—or both.
How is this last one about being in denial?
Well, what do you call the pathological urge to be right 100% of the time? I think such a person is in denial about something…
How does it work?
Memes, I think, are part of it.
What are memes? Ideas that spread from one mind to another, and colonize the new mind, much like a virus. They wedge themselves into areas of the mind and prevent other ideas from getting in. Furthermore, you get a chemical reward (you get a buzz) spreading them around. And you also get a buzz when you receive one.
Yet more than that, I think, is this concept of double-think, which I view as the most extreme form of denial.
What is doublethink?
Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory notions in your head at the same time without realizing it—without being conscious—and accepting both of them.
It means that you basically cannot distinguish fact from fiction, a lie from the truth.
I dunno. I’m just gonna take a wild stab at a couple that I find contradictory…
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
That’s the official name for North Korea, the most ruthless socialist oligarchy in modern history. It has a figurehead monarchy—a single party state in which the figurehead line is hereditary—but it is ruled by elites (oligarchs) in a collectivist (socialist) totalitarian system.
Absolutely nothing democratic about this place or its government.
Demo = people; cracy = power.
When have—in the entire course of history—all the people had complete power over their lives? In other words, freedom?
Never. The closest we ever came (and I mean from about 6000 BC, including only agricultural civilizations) was in the United States of America from 1783 to the very early 1800s. This was short-lived as the “Indians” were set-up for assimilation or annihilation as the State advanced westward. I said “close” because slaves were still around—during and after the Revolution—all men were not created equal, it seemed.
Anyway, back to denial. Double-think…it’s like believing an oxymoron, seeing only one thing, even though there are two things.
What can we do about this?
Yeah. Here’s the onion…
The more we point shit out to people, the more defensive they get, the more obstinate. The deeper they go into denial.
Occasionally, someone will admit they were wrong; occasionally, someone will agree and see your point. Rarely, though, will someone take responsibility for what they’ve done.
However, it’s slight, fleeting, and sporadic.
Yet never will we stop lying…
Why, for fuck sakes? How long can this go on? Aren’t you sick of the fucking lies?
Why do we populate the world with so much negative shit?
This is our world, right? We are people, right? Seven goddamned billion of us? We’re not bad people—we weren’t born this way, right? What the fuck happened?
Why the fuck are we getting worse?—why, if not for an agenda forced upon us by others who want us this way?
And why the fuck does no one care?
Okay, okay—a few do. I’ll be fair here.
But even smart, decent people are prone to this—it’s an illness. A sickness. And I think it’s deliberate. This never happened before in history—I mean, from the dawn of bipedal man to the first civilization in the Middle East.
Why doesn’t anyone look into this?
Because we’re all in denial about it—about our denial…
The other day I was sitting outside with a friend (who hates the Vancouver Canuck team and its goalie, Roberto Luongo, especially), and somehow we got onto the subject (once again) of Luongo’s brutal death. Yes, my friend wishes him a painful death. He has also expressed what great joy he would feel if the team’s airplane crashed somewhere, killing the entire franchise.
This time he wanted (if I recollect) the goaltender skinned alive (or was it a beheading?—I can’t remember; that might have been a different scenario a different time), and video-taped, so he could watch it over and over at his “leisure.”
And a short time later I began to hear the annoying sound of pigeons (in a nearby yard), and I commenced a slight rant about how I didn’t care for those birds.
And my friend got on my case, saying that wasn’t cool, saying that a bad attitude like that will come back to me—some sort of karma reference.
At that point he started up the stairs, and I, blinking, stunned, and finishing my cigarette, just recalled what he just wished (a horrible death) for a human man. And then it was like a slap in the face, recalling what else he had said before.
I smiled and followed him up, saying, “All this from a guy who wants 50 grown men to die horribly in a plane crash because you don’t like them?”
What just happened here?
I see this shit everywhere, from just about every fucking person I know and have known—and yes, me included. But I’m trying really hard to not be this way. I see very few other people trying at all.
A few summers ago, here, I was hanging out with a guy trying to get off crack—and we were drinking some beers near a duck pond. I started talking about something, and I swore a few times.
“That’s negative,” he said.
I said, No, it was honest expression and I was entitled to say what I wanted.
I said nothing further, but then it occurred to me what this guy had said to not ten minutes earlier—while staring at the filthy, stinking duck-filth pond water, he said, “Yanno, I could just take a syringe and stick it that water, suck it all up, and inject it right into my arm…”
And that isn’t negative?
I could sit here for days and days and write out similar experiences like this—I used to to do it too. And here and there I catch myself still doing it. But I always catch myself. I never have to have someone point this shit out to me—I see it, I know it, and I try harder.
I’m not the only one—I’m not saying I’m better than anyone—I see this, but why do so few other people see it as well? I just can’t understand why…
Not that I blame people—it’s just frustrating that they cannot fucking see it. It’s not their fault, I know.
Why the fucking fuck can’t they see it?
Ego? Immaturity? TV? School? Brain damage caused by food additives and nasty chemicals and GMO corn? The devil? Santa Claus? The giggling Pumpkin People from Sirius?
Or maybe they just don’t care—is apathy the cause?
Perhaps our societies have been engineered to no longer value the truth?
Ugh. I don’t know…
Okay, enough of this…
I know I can’t change anyone, and shouldn’t try…so I just try to point it out (is it not helping someone doing this?—I’m not sure anymore), but, Jesus, it’s so draining…
I do not know the cure for this syndrome. This mental infection that seems to be growing and spreading…
Nobody likes trees more than I do; nobody likes forests more than I do. And we’d be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoys the natural world more than I do. To be able to live in a forest has consumed my thoughts since I was 11 or 12 years old. To be able to live in a rainforest, with old growth trees being my front yard and back yard, would be the coolest fucking thing ever.
The forest has always felt like home to me. I have not noticed this attitude, this level of respect and reverence, in many people. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who wants to actually LIVE in a wild forest. I’ve spent time in the wilderness with people who liked camping, people who worked in the outdoors, and people who enjoy a stroll through a park with trees (hardly a wild forest, but whichever, it’s something, I guess). I’ve never met someone who likes forests as much as I do.
One might think that would make me an automatic “environmentalist,” but it doesn’t. Environmentalists do not live in forests. They may live in the country and have trees here and there, but this is not a wild landscape with trees as far as the eye can see, a landscape devoid of roads and powerlines and full of wildlife.
Frankly, Environmentalists have always seemed rather weird and scary to me. On the surface I seemed to have a lot in common with them—we both are against deforestion, pollution, and to some extent civilized development. I can certainly agree with any Greenpeace initiative that challenges large corporations hell-bent on stripping nature, obliterating it, and turning a profit from it.
Talk to some of them and they seem nearly religious about it all. I think that if you take a Nazi and a Hippy and fused them somehow, you’d get an Environmentalist. I’m sure most of them have good intentions, but some of them still seem a wee bit creepy…in the way a zealot, a follower of a cult, with strange rituals, might seem creepy.
Anyway, there is an important difference between the Environmentalist and someone like me:
My vision of an ideal human situation has us essentially back in the Stone Age, with some Iron Age trimming. Nomads, in teepees, following herds and hunting, fishing, and gathering.
Yeah. Obviously, that’s not going to happen—not unless some cataclysm utterly devastates the world and every civilized place is fucking demolished and wiped out, leaving semi-traditional Native peoples hanging on. And they decide to go back to the old ways.
Is this the world Environmentalists want? Is this what “sustainability” is all about? Is this how Environmentalists want to live?
What they want is closer to what is depicted in the movie, Logan’s Run. An utterly organized, ordered, and control-freak civilization in a bubble, with sissified populations unable to leave and brainwashed into a system in which you can only live to age thirty. That’s your life span. When you hit 30 you go into a circus and get killed, while people cheer.
I want to live in Nature; the Environmentalist lives in a city or town and wants to control or manage Nature, and control all those who enter it or do not enter it. I don’t really want to control anyone. The Environmentalist calls the wild (or the entire planet, for some reason) “Mother Nature,” or “Mother Earth.”
I call the earth “the earth.” Sometimes I call the wilds, “Father Nature,” but that’s only a futile effort to bring balance back, to show that Nature has masculine and feminine parts (and quite frankly there is a lot more masculine about a forest than feminine. Tribes in the Amazon call the oldest, biggest trees “Grandfather” trees. Nature was considered masculine up until the Europeans (the Greeks, mainly) started reversing and switching everything around and upside down. Now everything is called “she”—boats, cars, cities, towns, countries, the planet, the plants and animals on the planet, mountains, storms, the moon, the oceans, the weather. Why? There seems to be an underlying consciousness determined to have everything regarded as female…why? I never understood the obsessive control-freak urge to slice and divide everything into genders; however, I do understand the source of this fanatical effort to feminize everything.
Seems like in fifty years or so, men will be called “she” also. And there will be no such thing as “masculine” or “gender;” everything and everyone will simply be regarded as feminine.
I hope I’m dead by then. Because I do not want to live in such a world.
And it seems that people really don’t think or care about this whatsoever. They just regurgitate what they’re told without giving it a second’s thought.
Anyway, more on that shit another time.)
THE CONTROL OF NATURE
I see the Environmentalist and its apparent opposite—the greedy, exploiting, soulless fuck in a business suit drooling over a new discovery of resources to plunder and grow richer from—as essentially the same. They both want to control wild regions—they may despise each other, but they’re both control freaks.
Conservation is about control, management, order. Environmentalism and “sustainability” are just another Marxist-based Collectivist system in disguise. The same old pig, grunting the same old grunts, wearing a different hat.
“Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution. For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly.
At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems on which they depend in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of sustainability. The exact nature of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic of greenwashing. Environmentalism is opposed by anti-environmentalism, which takes a skeptical stance against many environmentalist perspectives.”
See, I don’t agree with any of that. Nature doesn’t need us fucking with it, it doesn’t need to be preserved or managed—it just needs to be left alone.
A “leave it be” mentality is not a meme common in anyone who considers him-or-her-self a _______ist.
The Environmentalist and the Anti-Environmentalist basically have the same goals—the exploitation of natural resources for human usage, with all other considerations secondary. The difference is that one wants to rip it all to shreds and sell it as quickly as possible, while the other wants to do this more slowly and “responsibly.” They both seem to want a centralized “government” in charge of the rules and regulations regarding it all. (I use the word “government” quite loosely.)
One wants everything right now, damn the consequences, fuck the side-effects (pollution, destruction of ecosystems, mass-extinctions), the other wants everything in a more gradual, cleaner, more organized manner. A slower, more smile-filled, prettier, more gradual decline and death.
If one group got their way, or if the other group got their way…I’d still see fences, parks full of regulations and rules, towns and cities and economies. But I think if the Environmentalists got their way, everything and every living thing would be tagged, every bee and bug, every bird and critter, every tree and blade of grass, all electronically monitored and tracked and watched on a massive control grid. The only “wild” ground would be fenced (or walled) in, with barbed wire and cameras and armed guards, and you’d have to pay a hefty fee to enter these Nature Concentration Camps.
Now, most Environmentalists no doubt would argue rabidly with my vision of their future, claiming I got it all wrong, that I really misunderstood them, saying I’m deluded or whatever. But the Environmentalist Movement is a separate entity from its followers, the same way Christianity is separate from Chirstians. Those at the upper levels of the religion (The Church) typically have wildly differing beliefs (and agendas) than the zealots who follow.
I’m saying that people in powerful positions have different beliefs than those masses who go along with policy, procedures, and rules.
Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.
We have not, as a species, come to grips with the explosive events that have changed our relationship with the planet. For most of human existence, we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers whose impact on nature could be absorbed by the resilience of the biosphere. Even after the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, farming continued to dominate our lives. We cared for nature. People who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which documented the terrible, unanticipated consequences of what had, until then, been considered one of science’s great inventions, DDT. Paul Mueller, who demonstrated the effects of the pesticide, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. In the economic boom after the Second World War, technology held out the promise of unending innovation, progress, and prosperity. Rachel Carson pointed out that technology has costs.
Carson’s book appeared when no government had an environment department or ministry. Millions around the world were soon swept up in what we now recognize as the environmental movement. Within 10 years, the United Nations Environment Programme was created and the first global environmental conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden.
With increasing catastrophes like oil and chemical spills and nuclear accidents, as well as issues such as species extinction, ozone depletion, deforestation, acid rain, and global warming, environmentalists pressed for laws to protect air, water, farmland, and endangered species. Millions of hectares of land were protected as parks and reserves around the world.
Thirty years later, in 1992, the largest gathering of heads of state in history met at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event was meant to signal that economic activity could not proceed without considering ecological consequences. But, aided by recessions, popped financial bubbles, and tens of millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy neoconservatives to support a cacophony of denial from rightwing pundits and think tanks, environmental protection came to be portrayed as an impediment to economic expansion.
This emphasis of economy over environment, and indeed, the separation of the two, comes as humanity is undergoing dramatic changes. During the 20th century, our numbers increased fourfold to six billion (now up to seven billion), we moved from rural areas to cities, developed virtually all of the technology we take for granted today, and our consumptive appetite, fed by a global economy, exploded. We have become a new force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale.
In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere — air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die. This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere “Mother Earth” as the source of all that matters in life.
When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited “resources” provided for our use, we act accordingly. This “anthropocentric” view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them.
It’s almost a cliché to refer to a “paradigm shift”, but that is what we need to meet the challenge of the environmental crises our species has created. That means adopting a “biocentric” view that recognizes we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable for a demanding animal like us.
What I’m seeing there is the result of people who want things both ways—there is no marriage between “economic growth” and “the natural world.” It’s oil and water. Both cannot exist in the same space. They can’t live in harmony. It’s not possible. The “economy” fucking comes from, is based on and dependent upon, “the natural world.”
Without Nature, there would be no more “economy.”
The “economy” and its inherent business model is based on infinity—infinite growth—and this planet is not infinite. Show me an economic theory in practice somewhere which is not based on growth—which in fact has an end, a point in which the folks and business types can say, “Well, that’s enough. Let’s stop.”
Who says that? Who says, “We have enough wood. Let’s stop logging—let’s never do it again. No more trees will be cut down. Shut it all down, boys”—?
Who the fuck would say: “Well, we have enough money. Let’s stop.”
Who says, “We have enough plastic, we have enough oil. Let’s cease drilling, polluting, stop it all and let’s all make we have last”—?
I’ve never heard such a thing before. I’ve never heard anyone write, speak, or even hint at the words “We Have Enough. Stop Now.”
Economics does not stop. Nations do not stop. Progress does not stop. Power is fueled by greed, and greed never sleeps. It is all based upon more, more, and more, and fucking MORE.
And this doesn’t bode well for the forest. All that “more” has a price. All that “more” has to come from somewhere. Like a cancer, “more” slowly eats away at green, living places.
Anyroad, like the Bible points out clearly (and what almost all Christians—and most other religious and non-religious folk—completely ignore, don’t understand, or don’t give a fuck about) and correctly: “You cannot serve two masters.”
You cannot serve both God and Mammon, a Higher Power and Money. You cannot serve both good and evil. You cannot serve both the environment and industry. You cannot serve both Nature and Economics. You cannot serve both the wild and the tame. You cannot serve both the Spirtual and the Material.
No, I’m sorry, kids. You can only pick one. We all serve something in life, and it can only be one thing—not two opposites.
MYTHS, LIES, & DIFFERENCES
I was a tool. In the 90s I noticed climate change in a few regions, so I was kinda sucked into to the “global warming” hysteria. But the more I looked into it and thought about it, the more I realized that climates are constantly changing on this planet.
Now I don’t care. So what? It’s warm, the seas swell, there are floods, then it’s cool, then colder, sea levels drop, ice caps grow—and it happens all over again. It’s been going on since way before humans were around. It’s normal.
Yes, abnormal is normal.
The question is: are we causing this particular change in climate?
And I have not seen much evidence to support that we are. The ice on Mars has shrunk along with the ice on Earth. How can what we’re doing here have an impact on a planet so far away? There’s no doubt that climates change, but humans are not to blame for it. There is a lot for which modern, civilized humans are to blame, yet climate change is not among them. There’s no real evidence for this.
“What about greenhouse gases omfg?!?!?”
Yeah, well, there have been such gases (going by ice core samples that have been studied) around for as long as there’s been life on this planet, and these levels rise and fall in different eras, periods, according to what the life on the planet is doing, what the sun is doing, et cetera. There is in fact evidence that carbon levels in the atmosphere follow climate change and do not precede it.
In the 1970s, the frantic hype was about Global Cooling, if you can fucking believe that. From the 1940s through the 1970s the earth was in fact getting colder, and there were doomtards writing about it and begging for government and public funding for this or that. And then through the 1980s, the cool period ended. By the late 1980s, early 1990s, the global average temperature was definitely up. And this produced the current collection of freaks frothing at the mouth and shrieking at us from every available sounding board—that the fucking sky is falling and we have to do something about it now! Oh my fucking god now! Now give us money!
Well, guess what, assholes? Over the last fifteen years, the global average temperature of the earth has not sky-rocketed, as we were all told it would. In fact, it’s basically leveled off. So, if you’re like me and are sick and fucking tired of alarmist spastics ranting and raving and spitting in your face about “Global Warming,” you can officially tell them to “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” and have evidence to back it up and challenge their parroting of their party line. Their religious dogma.
Global Climate Shifts are facts, they happen all the time and have happened for eons, and will continue to happen long after our bones are fucking dust. “Global Warming” is a myth.
Many people won’t accept this—lending evidence to the notion that Environmentalism is indeed just another religion—and I think many will deny the facts simply to continue to oppose those suited, greedy cunts whose only desire in life is to fuck everyone and acquire wealth at the expense of nature and poor people and life itself. Because these suited cunts are howling hysterically now that “they” have been proven correct in their claims that “global wamring is a myth!” But their interest in this subject was only in regards to profit, not truth. I doubt most of them ever saw any evidence, or cared to; they lied, too.
It seems that they’re all dirty, stinking, greedy, hypocritical fucking liars…
This former co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) now says the ‘logging will save the world?’
I saw the article in the magazine, “Building The Coast.”
BTC: “Do you feel there’s a promising future for nuclear [power]?”
PM: “Absolutely, because it’s the only non-fossil alternative that’s almost unlimited in its ability and has proven to be one of the safest technologies. We tend to think of hydro-electric as being safe but 126,000 died in one hydro-electric accident in China in 1975. And the biggest loss of life from a man-made accident in the US was a dam bursting in the late eighteenth century in Pennsylvania where over 2000 people died.”
Ah, I see. So this is about trying not to break any records on losses in human life. What a worthy goal.
This corporate sell-out has also been quoted: “The best image that came out of that Occupy movement was this guy who had his jacket off and was wearing a tie, standing there with a sign that said, ‘Occupy a Desk.'”
I guess if you’re religious, and a fanatic, it’s easy to convert to another religion—from the environmentalist cult to the corporate cult. A hippy to a yuppy. Pagan to Catholic. Catholic to Protestant. Protestant to Jew. Jew to Hindu. Hindu to Muslim. Muslim to Atheist. Atheist to Satanist, which is just a new age Pagan.
Most environmentalists are in no doubt. The new technology of fracking to extract shale gas from the rocks beneath our homes is both a nasty neighbour and a sure recipe for climate Armageddon. Not only that, fracking was pioneered in the US, the gas-guzzling land of climate sceptics.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, uses high-pressure water to shatter shale rocks and release natural gas lurking within. The gas is then piped to the surface. Shale rocks are widespread. But fracking requires lots of water; the toxic sludges brought back to the surface can cause pollution; and the extraction has even triggered minor earthquakes.
However, I can’t bring myself to condemn it. These drawbacks mean there are plenty of places where fracking would not be a good idea, especially in crowded Britain. But that is different from the blanket ban that most environment groups demand.
Frightening. I doubt that the maker of this documentary—Gasland:
—and all the people suffering the horrible fucking side-effects of fracking would feel the same way.
Saying that Fracking is good for the future of energy is like saying what Monsanto’s doing to food is good for the future of food. Hey, fucklehead, a lesser evil is still fucking evil.
And I’m not even sure that it would be a lesser of two evils…
(By the way, watch that goddamned documentary. You can find “Gasland” on torrents, apparently.)
Sigh. This is the break from reality—the separation of action and consequence, sure, but it’s more a rift between words/thoughts and action—that I always talk about people having.
“I dropped a dollar into the can in the store—I’m supporting the fight against breast cancer.”
Why isn’t anyone looking at why cancer rates keep climbing, in spite of the modern techno-wonderland in which we live? Why is everything geared towards Treament, and even a Cure, when nothing’s being done about where it’s coming from in the first place? Fuck the cure—what’s causing it?
“I care about the environment: I recycle.”
How the fuck is that a solution? Why not use less, stop buying so much fucking shit to begin with? We shouldn’t be producing so much crap—recycling doesn’t teach people to be “content with less.” It’s horrible because it teaches people that they can buy whatever they want, consume as much as they want, do whatever they want…all as long as they recycle their cans and plastic. That makes them good responsible citizens. That clears their conscience, more like…
Is this slowing down the manufacturing of plastic? No. Of anything at all? No. Is this slowing the deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, or stopping any logging operations whatsoever? Not at all. Are less cans being produced? Are you fucking kidding me?
Is there less packaging to begin with compared to ten years ago? Are you serious?
The “green” movement is a fucking joke. A cop-out. A gimmick suckering in people for murky reasons. I sense it has a murky agenda. Control always stinks. I can always smell it.
Aside from that, it’s solving nothing. It just slows down the inevitable…a little bit. Benefitting nothing but our egos and the corporations who have jumped onboard this shit wagon to sell us junk. It’s harmful to make people feel so proud about their piggish excess, their decadence and rampant consumption. It’s a terrible lesson for kids:
“Be pigs!—just makie sure to recycle your pig shit.”
Yeah, shutting off our lights for an hour will do a lot. Show our “support” for the environment—like putting a stupid coloured ribbon sticker on the ass end of your gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing, wars-for-oil-causing metal dinosaurs on wheels. People do not have any notion what *support* fucking means.
Piss on your fucking Earth Hour. I’m going to turn more lights on just to protest you annoying, pushy, hypocritical, evangelical, deluded fucking cunts.
I’m going to live in an environment—“caring” about it isn’t a choice. It’s my home. I won’t shit in my bed. I won’t piss in my water supply. The forest is my home. I don’t need to recycle because I won’t be rushing off to a mall in my fucking SUV to stuff the monstrous thing with slave-labour-made crap at fucking Walmart that I’ll haul back to my massive press-board Ikea castle, unpack everything and fill up three garbage bags with paper and carboard and plastic and foam.
I don’t drive or use gas or oil—that’s my way of “supporting” the fucking environment. If a third of the people on this planet thought and behaved like I did, do, and will, then we’d be using a third less steel, concrete, plastic, oil, wood, tin, alluminium, gravel, glass; there’d be a third less pollution, a third less homes being developed and a third less natural ground being annihilated to make way for such development; a third less landfill waste, a third less cars farting smog, a third less factories coughing out toxic plumes because they’d be a third less demand for all this fucking crap we don’t need.
I resuse everything I have anyway—I don’t need some smiling suited cunt to convince me of its economic benefits or that it’s fucking “saving the world.” I need only look at pre-history and how Natives lived, and the respect and reverence they had for the environment in which they lived.
And that’s the point right there: if you don’t live in a forest, why would you give a fuck about it?
You know nothing about it, see no value in it—and must be taught (read: emotionally manipulated into caring) that it must be “preserved” for future generations to enjoy.
Really? Is that why it must be “preserved”—for the offspring of our own species? Not for its own sake? Not for any other ideal or reason? It should be spared utter destruction just for our kids to be able one day to load up their Jeep with camping shit to go off driving down a wilderness road, to laugh and yell with music blasting as they spew exhaust and send every living creature running away in a panic, all so these spoiled brats can drink beer and fuck their girlfriends in a tent later, hopefully not leaving their beer cans and used condoms lying around after they do the forest a favour and fuck off outta there back to the loving golden arms of Mater?
And what does “preserve” mean exactly?
Control. Manage. Organize.
More bureaucracy. Parks. Fenced off, their borders visible on a map. Cameras. Specific roads for use with specific vehicles at specific times of the year. Rules and people in uniforms enforcing these rules. You need permits, licenses, papers, permissions—for every fucking thing you do.
You may hunt, but you must have the correct weapon, the corresponding documents, background checks, valid ID and other information, approval from a psychiatrist, and you can only hunt this specific creature at this time of year, and you may only hunt this many of them. And all this costs money, of course. No money? Fuck off back the city slums, maggot. Nature is for rich kids, don’t you know. We’re warning you. Keep out.
Or else we’ll put you in a cage and poke you with a stick. Right in the ass.
You want to live in the forest and live off the land? In a Federal Park? In a Provincial Park? In a United Nations Approved Conservation Area? Are you insane?
No. No, my silly friend. No. Nature is a business, and a playground for urban dwellers, and you are only free to live in a city or town and use these natural facilities, provided you have the necessary documents and permits, and follow the regulations.
You are free to live where we say, how we say. You are free to do what we tell you. Or else.
“You want to cook the food you have, eh? Did you get permission to make that fire? Do you have a permit for moving those stones into a circle and digging that pit? You have no papers whatsoever? Any ID? Credit Card or Debit Card? No? I’m sorry, son, you’re breaking several laws here. Put that fire out, put your hands behind your back; you’re under arrest for Vagrancy, Endangering a Conservation Area, Starting A Fire Without License, Upsetting The Earth Without Permission, and Failure to Produce Proper Documentation and Permits Within A State Park.”
That’s all it’s about. It’s all it’s ever about. And it will only get worse. Environmentalism, when you really start looking at it, is fucking ugly and twisted at its core. It’s a hideous, lying control freak.
Here’s another example:
This is part of Agenda 21 regarding the redistribution of wealth and property in the United States. See all that red? That’s for Nature: you are not allowed in these areas. Only authorized personnel. How are we going to know precisely what they’re doing with that “Nature?” How are we to know if it’s going to be natural areas at all?
Not that we’ll have a say in anything, because personal freedoms will be sacrificed in the name of saving the world.
See the yellow areas? These are “highly regulated” areas. You’ll need pretty detailed papers, indentification, and permissions to be in these areas. Want to go camping? No. That is a non-sustainable activity. No more camping, fishing, hunting, skiing, waterskiing, canoe trips, backpacking adventures. You can only play in a city park, under supervision. I am not kidding. It’s in the works, coming to a country, county, and town or city near you.
Speaking of which, guess where humans get to live? I can’t even see the areas on there—probably because they’re too small. Tiny black specks—massive cities in which we will be herded.
Remember the movie Nineteen-Eighty-Four? The scene in which Winston and his lady friend want to go do the unthinkable in the woods? Well, they have to sneak off—sneak away from the city into a forbidden area—where there is green grass and trees.
Here is a short list of human activity that will no longer be allowed due to its new classification as “not sustainable”—in other words, these things will be illegal:
1. ALL private property rights (ownership of private property)
2. ALL forms of irrigation, pesticides & commercial fertilizer
3. Livestock production and most meat consumption
4. Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
5. Use of fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
6. Single family homes
7. Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
8. Human population (it must be reduced to fewer than 1 billion people–from the present population of over 6 billion people).
Yes, you saw that right—number six means families are not sustainable and thus will be illegal. No more moms and dads. The New Order will raise your kids. The New World Order will decide what’s best for you, at all levels, and decide what’s best for the world, at all levels.
This is control never imagined before on this planet.
I am pro-freedom, and thus must be against control. I am pro-independence and pro-self-sufficiency, and thus must be anti-corporation and anti-government.
I am pro-Nature, pro-Truth and pro-Freedom, and thus must be against Environmentalism and against Anti-Environmentalism.
Here’s a good place to start seeing the underlying sketchy nature of the entire movement—it is called Agenda 21:
Talk about murky agendas…check this out:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Alexander King, Co-Founder, Club of Rome.
What is the Club of Rome? Go look it up, do a little research and see. Check out the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Sierra Club. They’re all connected to the United Nations. Don’t believe me, do your own research…
Okay, I’ll lay off Environmentalism and its zealots for a minute, and move onto Anti-Environmentalism and its zealots…because they are almost as bad, just a bit different.
A representative for an evangelical group that doesn’t believe in man-made climate change has suggested that the modern environmental movement is harming civilization.
Speaking on the Janet Mefferd Show on March 18, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance laid out four reasons why environmentalism is “the greatest threat to Western civilization.”
Environmentalism is insidious, Beisnser explained, and it dangerously “speaks to the inherent spiritual yearnings of human souls and it provides plausible answers to dogged questions.” It also incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.”
I can’t argue with most of that, yet I really don’t care about civilization. The disgusting sick mass-structure people inhabit doesn’t interest me—people do; animals do; plants do. Living things do. Civilization can burn in fucking hell, Mr. Beisner, for all I care.
—incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.” Lastly, “environmentalism encompasses all the vague spiritualities that have frankly overwhelmed secular humanism in the West and now threaten the Christian faith.”
I’m always skeptical regarding motives and the agenda behind religious types—who pretty much collectively view “nature” as an evil entity which must be tamed, conquered, or even destroyed entirely.
Why? Because the Bible was written by farmers. Native peoples and nomadic peoples, hunters, et cetera, were always viewed biblically as barbarians, evil pagans, sinners who must be civilized and shown the True Way (farming and kneeling before our god(s) and goddess(s)).
And most of the Bible was written by (edited by), and employed by, the rulers of States (see: the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church in Europe) in order to demonize a wild group of people so that they could be assimilated (turned into tax-paying farmers; serfs) and so the State could absorb them and their resources. The Bible was a tool used ruthlessly to conquer people and steal their land.
And so that mentality still stinks in the breath of its followers, even if they do not support such actions today.
In November, he told the hosts of the American Family Association “Today’s Issues” program that humans could not possibly be causing the “catastrophic consequences for the climate” warned by global warming scientists.
“That doesn’t fit well with the biblical teaching that the earth is the result of the omniscient design, the omnipotent creation and the faithful sustaining of the God of the Bible. So it really is an insult to God,” Beisner said.
The professor, who has a doctorate in Scottish history, was also featured in Bill Moyers’ 2006 documentary “Is God Green?”
During interviews for the special, Beisner said that Genesis dictates humans should “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” This disproves the opinion of the “anti-population growth” activists, according to Beisner, who adds that pollution is a natural byproduct of reality.
While modern humans are not causing climate change, we are (fucking obviously) causing a lot of other kinds of “changes.” One could deny this easily (and defend it okay) fifty years ago, but since satellite images are available to the general public, we can see.
Yeah, you fucking greedy shit-faced lairs, I see you. I see what you’re doing. I’ve scanned most of the world and have seen the devastation, the dead zones of human development, the vast atrocious chunks hacked out of the planet, swathes of destruction, where great grey deserts replace green places.
Naw, there’s no real deforestation—especially in the Amazon, as seen above. Keep moving, nothing to see here…
Fucking liars. I see you.
—pollution is a natural byproduct of reality?
No, wait, let’s think about that. Odd that a Christian would cling to something “natural” to prove a point—but, hell, what’s that expression? “Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose?”
I think we are naturally slobs. Think about it. Look at a monkey in a tree, eating fruit and nuts—it tosses everything down to the forest floor. Look at any animal in the wild, it’s a slob. It’s messy and careless. Shit gets thrown everywhere—what we call “littering” and “pollution” today.
What’s the difference?
Natural materials get broken down on the forest floor and become soil. There’s no need to be tidy and concern yourself with recycling because what you’re using came from an ecosystem in which everything gets automatically recycled, unconsciously, naturally.
The difference is this and the fact we are aware of ourselves, and are now using artificial materials that don’t get broken down and have terrible fucking side-effects when dumped and poured into a living and growing natural region.
The difference is that we are (and what we’re doing is) not natural, asshat.
I can put this in terms a seven-year-old should be able to understand, but I don’t know how to put this into terms a two-year-old can comprehend.
“Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”
This is and has always been where I drawn a line in the fucking sand. This fucking pisses me off.
I can agree with Christians, surprisingly, on all sorts of things, but not here. The average Christian who supports this, blindly obeys without questioning, has no fucking clue what it was like back then, no clue whatsoever where the Bible came from, who really wrote it, how many different versions existed and how far they go back in time—I know: I spent years researching this—and why it was pieced together from so many other sources. And it had nothing to do with its content.
The average Christian can never admit to any fact of that time, and before it, due to the probable total breakdown in the Creationist time-line and nature of the persona called “God” in the Bible (his—or should I say her—origins), and, as a result, the complete collapse of the most of the early parts of the Bible—a domino effect that would cause him to question his entire faith.
So very few Christians will be brave enough to look deeper into any of it, and so here we are. And I have no energy for a multi-page rant getting into all this crap again. Fuck it. It would be pointless. Moving on…
First of all, that was at a time when human populations in the Middle East were not great, and life spans were short, and disease was fairly persistant and nasty—no one back then had any idea how big the world really was, or that it even had a limit in regards to space and resources.
Second of all, it was the process of States to produce massive amounts of people—the more people, the more gold from taxes, the larger workforce, the bigger group of worshippers (customers for the temples), and the larger the armies could be…which could be used to expand and steal from neighbouring tribes and villages, towns, and later cities and city-states.
Who cared how many people they had? There was so much land ready for plunder, and besides, any excess in population could be offered up as sacrifices and hacked to death in seasonal wars. The spring was the best time for such slaughter of men. Mars. March. April—Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, Astarte, all the same goddess. Look it up. Look up the origin of “Easter,” just for starters. I fucking dare you.
Third, “subduing it,” well, this is clearly what a ruler wants—not a group of people respectful of natural ways and living things and each other, not a peaceful people living in harmony with their environment. No, only a king or queen who wants more wealth.
But Christians don’t care about what parts of the Bible were added by the rulers of the day to serve their desires, not the needs of the people, not the needs of the ecosystem. However, I’m sure many Christians have doubts about this, or have even given it more than two minutes of thought…it doesn’t matter, though: most Christians live more like the Romans in the Bible than any other group of people or type of individual (least of all Jesus) and anything that supports their greedy, ego-driven, willful lifestyle will be framed and put on their wall.
I love it how many Christians will snub their nose at the Old Testament, or parts of it, where it might conflict with what Jesus said…but when other things come into conflict with their decadent, diversion-filled, material-obsessed shitheap they call a lifestyle, they’ll get wide-eyed and grab some part of the Old Testament to stuff into someone’s face to support their life and the status quo, and what Jesus said or did be damned.
Control it. Enslave it and milk it and say it’s “God’s Fucking Will.”
Conquer, mutilate and murder and call it “Progress.”
Just like good Romans. May Jesus come back and spit in your faces…
What did he say?
New International Version: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”
KJV: “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”
GOD’S WORD Translation: “Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest, or gather the harvest into barns. Yet, your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they?
He’s talking about agriculture. Farming. Work. Labour. The backbone of the Roman Empire and every empire-state-nation before and since. Jesus, a wandering ascetic fisherman, is talking about the very essence of “subduing” the fucking earth, asshole. He’s talking about your fucked-up way of life today. You, Mr. Beisner, and anyone who lives like you.
How’s it feel, asshole? To become the very thing that Jesus warned everyone about? A fucking Roman living a corrupt, diseased, material lifestyle? How’s it feel to know that a fucking non-religious loser like me lives closer to how Jesus lived than you have or ever will? How’s it feel to be a fucking cunt?
He’s talking about something deeper, too. He’s talking about a greater issue—the spiritual versus the material. But whatever. They’ll never listen.
Like I say, it’s easier to believe bullshit.
Whether you’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, New Ager, Environmentalist, Anti-Environmentalist, Pagan, Satanist, Feminist, Marxist, Fascist, Creationist, Anarchist, Flat-Earther, Capitalist, Evolutionist, or Racist…it’s just easier to eat shit, isn’t it?
Why all these fuckers hate each other is because they’re so much alike. They all lie, don’t practice what they peach, trying to serve two masters, and they’re all utter hypocrites.
Fuck all you phonies.
Well, seeing how I just offended most of the civilized population of the planet, I conclude that here’s a good place to end for now. I said all I wanted to say on this creepy subject, anyway.
I’ve never left off with any quotes from the Bible, but what the fuck…there’s a first time for everything, and it fits. So, here’s some good stuff from my man, Jesus. Christians could learn so much from this guy—I guess we all could. Enjoy.
19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.
23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
25“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
27“And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
28“And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,
29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.30“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
31“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’
32“For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
33“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
—-Matthew 6:19-34, International, top, and King James Version, below
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
—-Matthew 7:1-7:6, International and King James Version
On September 11th, 2001, I watched, on the TV, some planes hit a couple buildings in the US—and I laughed. Sure, I was in a vicious anti-american state of mind back then, so I wasn’t just laughing at an aggressive, arrogant, war-mongering nation getting some payback (finally!)…I was laughing at its overall absurdity. Like giggling at the Three Stooges when you’re stoned—it’s so odd and makes no sense, but somehow you sense something which gets its wires crossed with something else, and wham: hilarious.
Yeah, I laughed. People dying—even arrogant Americans who support their government doing this kinda shit to poor people in other countries, and grossly enjoying the benefits of other people’s death and horror and loss and suffering…even people who might have it coming, well, even these people dying—isn’t funny. I don’t laugh at death unless it’s a TV show or movie that’s so corny or fake that I can’t help it…
Your mind can see things before you can consciously register it—your mind, my mind, everyone’s mind. It’s perception. I think I perceived a lot on that day, and the days that followed, which told me the whole works was a crock of shit. Of course, I’ve never trusted governments, politicians, corporations, religions…so my head doesn’t have to wade through the muck they spew—I automatically dismiss everything they say, everything they claim, and so I start thinking about the real reasons—the truth—without having to go through the process that most people seem to go through (fighting through that double-think, breaking free of that innocent babe-in-the-woods mentality: Would the government lie to me?—Is the State engaged in things they keep secret from the public?—Could they really do that, omg!?—et cetera).
Frankly, with the amount of history I’ve read, and with the depth of insight I’ve gained into the minds of those who rule (and have always ruled—in a fundamentally identical manner, regardless of any “type” of government), there is generally no claim to which I’d have a knee-jerk reaction of “No, they wouldn’t do that!”
Yes, Sir!—they would do that. They are capable of anything. Any fucking thing. The biggest serial killer, mass killer, in the history of planet earth is the Government, the State, the Empire. No other being or entity or person or group or effect, disease or disaster has killed more humans on this planet than governments. They have been the biggest weapon of mass destruction in history—from 6000 BC to present. Purely brutal, calculating, remorseless, demented butchers.
When we’re conditioned to blindly follow rules, we’re conditioned to blindly trust those who invent these rules—and blindly obey those who enforce those rules. A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y.
The Almighty Authority. The Right Honourable. Your Grace. Your Excellency. Your Majesty. My Lord. My Lady. Master & Mistriss. Mr & Mrs. Sire. Madam.
The most conditioned among us live constantly in denial and are incredibly, painfully naive—like a child living in a colourful room full of toys and stuffed animals; outside, the world may be grey and in tatters, with disease and gangs of starving, ruthless thugs roving about, and pets that have gone feral, amid general destruction and filth and decay…but inside, that child-like person sings happy songs and plays games and giggles and will not look out the window—or the window has been painted over with bunnies and rainbows…harmless, non-threatening things…’happy things,’ childish things. That child thinks the whole world is just like the contents of that room. That child can’t be told any different.
The infantilized person will never “wake up” from this kiddie reality. This type of person, obviously, will never believe that everything is not yummy-sunny-happy everywhere, except for a few “bad people” who are bad because whatever reason the State has said they are bad. A State-approved Doctor will give us the reason, and of course a pill will fix it up nicely.
Thank you, ma’am.
Anyway, I mention that because I won’t try to reach out to those types of people. Never. It’s pointless. Their brains are clogged with immature memes—that pig-headedly resist competing memes—it’s like telling someone who just free-based smack that heroin is a terrible drug.
“What? Dude, fuck off—you’re killing my buzz!”
So, I won’t try to ruin anyone’s fun, of course. I just might be accused and charged with the crime of “being too serious.”
So those types can sit and wallow in their smiling, seeping, sickly sweet comfort zones. No problem. I’m not here to try to convince you guys of anything. In fact, if one of you is reading this…just go away. Go watch TV, read a celebrity magazine, or go shopping at the mall; this topic is not for you.
Now that 90 percent (9 out of 10) of the readers have gone, I’ll continue…
Back to my point: I never bought 9/11. It smelled like shit from day one, and I don’t eat shit, even if I’m told it’s tasty chocolate. I told someone after it happened that “they”—the US government—probably did it to themselves (not that they provoked an attack from an area and a people they’d been fucking with for decades—no: they planned and carried out an attack against their own country…for some reason). As time went on (wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; war on “terror”), it made a bit more sense why they did it—the fact that they did it was never in question. The only question was why. All the whys. The reasons.
A few years later, I tried to find out more what those reasons were. I found out a little, then watched “Fahrenheit 9/11.” And I later started a thread on the subject in the old GF Melee forum. Honestly, I was astounded by those who could not open their minds to any other (non-State-approved) point of view.
Here was when I was confronted with the following notion: “conspiracy theory.”
I didn’t really understand that, and I still don’t. It seems that anything that challenges government-corporate-sanctioned big-media dogma gets this “conspiracy theory” label. I just don’t get it. As I stated back then, a conspiracy is when two or more people enter into an agreement to do something. Hey, Joe, wanna go get a coffee? “Sure,” he says. And that’s it. They just conspired to do something. That’s all it means.
But it’s become something loaded with all sorts of connotations—extremely negative connotations which imply various things, all designed to cause people to instantly dismiss it. Without thinking about it for a single fucking second—just dismiss it. It’s a manipulative control tactic employed to silence alternative opinions and to pre-empt things called “questions.” It sways opinion by steering something into the extreme and absurb. Example: someone mentioning “The New World Order” can be silenced by the following: “Yeah, right! I guess you believe David Icke, too? Well, go put your tinfoil hat on!”
What’s happening here is that something (for which evidence can be found) is being ridiculed and dismissed by linking, associating it with something else (for which no evidence can be found). See how that works? I forget the name for this ploy, but it doesn’t matter. You can discredit something by having it touch something crazy. And thus have it become contaminated by craziness atoms.
In in my example, two separate ploys were used:
1. The NWO reference was associated with David Icke, who speaks about the NWO, for which evidence can be found, but who also speaks about reptilian shape-shifters, aliens, and other flaked-out crap for which no evidence can be found.
(Again, I’m not saying aliens don’t exist. I’ve been into that before—yeah, I was into alien shit (knee-deep) for years—but it goes around in circles. There’s never anything new, once you’ve covered the basics, and there’s never any proof. All these people over all these years seeing things and being yanked away from the earth up into some ship or whatever, and no one has ever grabbed an alien something-or-other off an alien table (an instrument, a thingamajig, a sample of something, anything whatsoever) to show others later? No one has, in thousands of cases—there’s been no physical evidence?
“But but but the government goes after those people and steals the proof!!!!!!!!!!!1112″
Bullshit. No one’s ever had alien DNA under his or her fingernails? Jesus, you can’t even commit a crime today without leaving some particle, some trace of yourself, behind, as evidence that you were there.
“What about all the tens of thousands of UFO sightings OMFG !!?!?!?”
Firstly, seeing something weird in the sky is not proof of anything but something weird that defies description—it is not a physical object which can be held in your hand, tested, shown to others, et cetera. An image, a photograph, does not prove something is of alien design. Secondly, a UFO is an unidentified flying object—it’s something unknown. It doesn’t mean it’s automatically alien in origin.
No, there is something going on, obviously—but I feel it’s just a mass distraction. Nothing else makes sense.)
2. The NWO reference is stuffed into the subject matter of those who believe they’ve been abducted by either government agencies or alien entities and have had tiny mechanical implants embedded in their heads—these devices give and receive signals, apparently, and the use of tinfoil applied to the head, evidently, blocks these signals.
(Not that I think this is far-fetched; I think it’s possible, but why? You can control people through all sorts of means without having to go through such an expensive and elaborate drama to attach some gadget to someone’s head. There are cheaper, more effective ways to control people. Like the movie, “They Live.” The premise is silly. Subliminal (text) messages aren’t needed to get people to do what you want. Symbols do it just fine. Psychological manipulation—it’s a science. School, TV (and now computers and the internet), social pressure on an obsessively material, shallow, product-acquiring lifestyle beginning at a young age, combined with shame and ridicule…are more than enough to get people to do what you want.
Besides, no one’s ever had one of these devices removed and taken to a lab or something? Not even photographed, witnessed by as many people as possible?
“But how else can they keep track of you!!!!???”
It’s a device called a “cell phone”—people carry these voluntarily, you know. With the iPhone and its counterparts, there’s really no need to tag and track people the way they do with animals.
Plus, there are cameras everywhere, and every time you use your debit or credit card they know exactly where you are.
Then again, I’m not saying they will never do this to us (install chips or other surveilliance devices—“spychips”). In some areas people actually want to have an RFID chip implanted in them, so who knows. Hell, some people will even pay to be tagged…)
Now the person who brought up the NWO is on the defensive, trying to explain or prove that he’s not crazy, like those who are engaged in those two other subjects. And those other subjects are of course “conspiracy theories.”
Well, I suppose there all sorts of labels society uses to belittle, ridicule, mock, shame, and ultimately dismiss and ignore anyone who proposes anything contrary to the official story, the party line, the safe and conventional crap we’re trained to swallow.
By the way, here’s a good link on the immense bureaucracy that’s grown out of 9/11 and the War on Terror:
I guess all that’s a “conspiracy theory,” too. I guess just call anything unpopular or that which might make you think, “conspiracy theory.” Call it whatever makes it easier to get back to those really important things consuming your valuable time. I won’t mind.
A little over a year ago, I did some research on ancient (pagan) religions (which are still practiced today—mostly in secret), and I came to a link to a film called “Dark Secrets: Bohemian Grove,” by Alex Jones. Here:
I was impressed by the film; I thought Jones did an excellent job helping to expose something rather disturbing (that no mainstream reporters have touched). I’d never heard of Alex Jones prior to this. I had never heard of Bohemian Grove. I had heard of “freemasonry” and the “Illuminati”—but had dismissed it, as most people do, as crazy shit I didn’t want to hear about—but I hadn’t heard of the Bilderberg Group before (or the CFR—Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission, or the Federal Reserve). Frankly, I didn’t want to hear about this kinda shit. I figured governments and corporations were twisted fucks in bed together and that they were ruling the world, yet who precisely was pulling the strings of these puppets didn’t interest me.
I guess it only interests me a little bit today—honestly, it doesn’t really matter which group does what or how old and secretive they are or who’s a member of what, or if they’re part of an ancient oligarchy whose lines, beliefs, and religion can be traced back to Babylon and Sumer. Doesn’t matter to me. The result is the same no matter what one believes. The “who” stuff (no pun intended—owl reference) seems to be just another distraction, another thing to fixate on. Whoever they are, they are untouchable right now, and cannot be “fought” or defeated. They—those rulers, those sick ultra-rich control freaks pulling strings all over the world—can only be resisted. I don’t mean peacefully. (Sorry, Hippies and flower people; your tactics won’t work this time around.)
Since then I’ve watched a lot of films and stuff, read tons of material on these subjects, by various people—most notably Alex Jones. There’s stuff put out by Gerald Celente, James O’Keefe, David Icke (if you can take some of his unprovable, whacky ideas with a really big grain of salt…or bottle of salt), perhaps Mark Dice, and the guys at the drudgereport.com have some interesting stuff sometimes. There are many more—KRS One, Immortal Technique, Public Enemy, Dave Mustaine (Megadeth), et cetera—who are on the right track. Hell, even Jesse Ventura gets my respect.
I’ve begun to question some things I thought were true, as well as investigate things of which I was not aware. One staggering example was/is my views on feminism, and how I see now that it was never an independent institution doing what it did (being an information industry, a propaganda agency, receiving billions in funding and creating an aristocracy of women and demonizing men with an end goal of degrading—and probably trying to annihilate—the entire gender, utterly) for its own reasons. No. It’s simply another tool. Another puppet. A few years ago I learned how the CIA employed Gloria Steinem (since the late 1950s) to use the Women’s Libbers Movement to hi-jack the Hippy Movement (hey, go look it up; she’s admitted it). The ultimate goal of this seems to have been to break up the family, using “class war” dogma from Marxism, communism, and converting it for a feminist “gender war” plan. Why? To get Dad out of the house, put Mom to work, with the State as her new husband, and have the Government-Corporate aparatus (with crucial help from TV and the media to) raise the kids. (The site “ManWomanMyth” illustrated this years ago, perfectly.)
(And there are probably other goals, but these are enough for now. Even though I knew all this, I did not investigate much further into it. Anyway, it’s one example of how I was short-sighted.)
Is all that a conspiracy theory?
Most things are a conspiracy (two or more people entering into an agreement to do something), so what does that matter? I do not engage in things that cannot be proven or that do not contain any evidence. A “conspiracy theory” to me would be…some people claiming that the moon landing was faked. Or that the earth is really flat. These imply a vast conspiracy involving many people for some sinister goal…but there is no proof. Hence it is a theory.
I seek the truth, always, even if the truth can sometimes be bitter, ugly, horrible, or seems just plain loony. So, call it what you will. Or, use your mind and actually look into stuff like this. And think for yourself.
At any rate, the “bigger picture” just keeps getting bigger—and more disturbing. I can’t blame people who (while they are not exactly infantile and want to live in a comfee-cozy kiddie fantasy world, they do, however) choose to remain intentionally ignorant. They may sense a lot of things going on, but they quickly distract themselves, afraid of what it could mean to get thinking about it. True enough, it can overwhelm you, the more you get into it, the deeper you seek. It can be chilling and smash to pieces most of what you thought life—and reality—was all about, since your childhood days…which never really ended, of course.
Making a choice to not deny without investigation, to not dismiss without thinking and researching, to not belittle and judge and ridicule and label and ignore without opening your mind just a little bit and engaging in a wee speck of free-thought…well, it can be dangerous. You may find out that most of what you believed was a stinking lie. And that can be unsettling. You may find out that you’re a part of something terribly wrong, and you have to struggle with your conscience over your role in it all. To act on your conscience will require you to dramatically change the way you think, react to and view things, and perhaps to radically change your entire life in order to live according to a set of principles.
You may have to risk losing your career, alienating or losing your friends and family, or even shaking your whole existence to its foundation. At least, you may have give up the child-like dream of status and stuff and security—that you can live your life pursuing all the things you were taught to pursue while the loving Nanny State takes care of you and everything else around you.
This could all be absolutely frightening, and pretty stressful. At most, you may feel compelled to act—yunno, to actually do something to help promote freedom in the world, or just in your community.
Whichever the case, it could be far easier, much simplier, to ignore it all and keep pretending—call it bullshit and “go back to sleep,” as they say.
And, like I said, I can’t blame people for doing this. The more you think you have to lose, the harder the choice will be, I reckon.
Here and there I come across people who know a lot of this shit but feel they can’t do anything about it, so they just try to get along in this shit as best they can. It clearly bothers and frustrates them, but they seem to feel powerless to do anything about it.
I can’t blame them for that either—what can be done, really, even if you know what’s going on? I certainly have no answers (other than: head for the fucking hills and get away from it).
THE TRUTH MOVEMENT
Anyway, about all those people who are trying to share what they’ve learned and discovered about all this, I’ve discovered that all these folks collectively make up “The Truth Movement.” And like all “movements” there are those people who infiltrate and hi-jack it in order to destroy it.
Take Glenn Beck—fucking please.
He is what is known as a “shill.” He’s an establishment mouthpiece who’s in place to debunk others and others’ ideas that do not correspond with what the system wants us to know and believe. He attacks only one side of things; he’s a liar and he has an agenda—he’s a muppet. He’s not seeking the truth, and he’s not presenting the truth—or, he’s presenting half-truths, mixed with lies or distractions.
What Glenn Beck does to subjects that most people ought to know about is a little different than what David Icke does to similar subjects. And this demonization process works, in either way. Don’t believe me? Here’s a comment from an “Illuminati” video on YouTube:
“I agree. David Icke is a complete and proven fraud. When I see him associated with anything I know that I can throw out that information as false.”
Because Icke a bleeding loon, everything he talks about can be viewed with mistrust and even instant dismissal, even though he talks about some sane things which actually can be backed up with evidence. Thus, other people talking about (provable) things (or least things that are backed up with some evidence) can be dismissed equally because Icke talked about the exact same thing. In essence, Icke sabotages and discredits the “Truth Movement” with his crazy crap.
What Beck does is more sinister. He pretends and lies; he’ll make a half-hearted attack on one thing, a minor thing, and then totally ignore twenty other way more important subjects. This is so we think he’s actually a journalist who’s investigating and asking questions and trying to get at the truth. But he’s not.
Plus, he’s just not funny. He really thinks he is, but he’s just not.
Michael Moore is another shill—just a different type. A different species. I never really liked this guy—there was something about him, and the way he did things, which made me uneasy. He’s manipulative, sketchy, like a lawyer. I watched “Bowling For Columbine.” I didn’t get it, and the way he behaved in the film was disgusting—rolling a kid in a wheelchair around to emotionally manipulate people, using a tragedy to support an agenda—his agenda, which is more relevant today given the utter assault going on right now on guns—which is an agenda of tyranny wrapped up with pretty pink ribbons. But it made no sense to me—a kid shot other kids in a school…so…going after guns and bullets will make this better because kids will have a harder time getting guns and bullets…? Is this about the size of it?
What the fuck? What is behind this?Why did this kid shot other kids? What does it matter which weapon of choice he used? If he could not get a gun, he would have used something else. If he ran through the crowded halls of his school with a big butcher knife, stabbing students, would Moore go after stores to take knives off their shelves?
“Oh but you can kill more people with a gun, more easily, than with a knife!!!”
Really? A gunshot is loud. I could run through a crowded room and stab a whole lot of people without the BANG BANG BANG! alerting people to run or hit the dirt or call the police. I could sit on the back of a crowded bus and silently slit the throat of probably half the passengers on that bus before someone with balls tackled me—if the people are spaced a certain way, I might be able to quietly kill them all, right up to the bus driver, without anyone knowing what I was doing. Or I could walk into a packed movie theater with a bag full of molotov cocktails and set the whole place on fire.
Desperate people, crazy people—people who want to hurt others—do not obey gun laws. So why take away guns from law-abiding people so that criminals, who obtain guns illegally, will be the only citizens to have them? And how will this stop incidents such as Columbine and Sandy Hook and others?
We’re wrapping gauze on a gaping wound, and we just keep wrapping. We’re too fucking stupid, obviously, to realize that there is a cause for all this bleeding and it should be fixed. Or maybe we’re just too fucking lazy to bother or care about “Conspiracy Theories” about wounds and what they’re all about. Right, go grab another roll of gauze. Idiot…
People in New York City (and North Carolina) use their cars to kill others; people in Japan still use swords to kill others; in Pakistan and in the UK they throw acid in your face; and in France they throw fire bombs. Do you realize how many heads could get cracked open if a madman ran into a grade one playground with a baseball bat?
Why is twenty kids getting shot so much worse than ten kids getting stabbed? Do numbers mean so much? At Sandy Hook, if only one teacher had a gun no fucking kids would have been killed!
There’s some fuckin numbers for ya…
Nevermind the fact that crimes with guns have been on the decline over the last 20 or more years, and nevermind the evidence that in areas in which law-abiding carry guns, crime is very low.
No, it’s an agenda—a disgusting, manipulative agenda that uses dead or maimed kids to control people emotionally and cause angry reactions to gain support for an assault on a living being’s god-given or natural fucking right to carry a weapon to defend oneself and one’s family. Fucking period.
I have no fucking respect for Michael Moore or any slimy piece of shit establishment waterboy like him. This pig, this 400-pound heaving, whining cunt walks around with armed bodyguards, owns fucking weapons, is worth millions of dollars, and is telling you that you cannot own a gun (he’s been quoted as saying that if you’re concerned about your safety, “get a dog”).
Wow. Fucking shill. The next time you have your armed goon squad clear an entire resturant out and bribe the owners so you can sit your monstrous sweaty ass down to devour a tableful of food, Mr. Moore, I hope you fucking choke and die.
(I know. I’m a big meanie.)
The thing with Moore is that in “Fahrenheit 9/11″ it wasn’t what he exposed; it was that he did not expose a lot of stuff, concentrating only on what would demonize the Republicans and the George W. Bush Administration. It was a Democrat attacking the Republican Whitehouse; it was not true journalism—it was not objective; it was biased, omissive, and politically motivated.
Then again, I think the Obama Administration was set up decades ago—or at least two decades ago. (No, I do not believe voting does anything; the leaders are chosen in secret long before they are ever declared candidates by the media.) I think the Bush Administration was set up as well—and I think George W. Bush was not a dumb evil prick: sure he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think he was designed to be an evil dumbass religious tard. It was so absurb, so over the top. He was engineered to be that awful, that stupid, that insipid and dangerous…so that Obama would seem like a heavenly saviour…a messiah…and the nation would rush into his warm embrace—which was just a bear trap covered in plush. Especially since the black community in particular was boiling in rage and on the verge of revolt—and, praise the lord, bing bongo, a black man gets into office.
Can you hear the crickets now?
Obama will do no wrong in their eyes…no matter what he does.
It was brilliant—and it was a conspiracy. There is evidence for it. There’s no longer any such thing as democracy; I do not trust any election and believe the entire process has been either corrupted or merely was a scam for a long time. Maybe it always was.
I think David Icke is possibly another one—either this or he is simply deranged. I just can’t get my head around Icke—one minute he makes so much sense, and the next he’s talking about shapeshifters, a hollow earth, and reptile-alien beings who are ruling the world, or something. Crazy shit without a shred of proof, no evidence whatsoever…all based on what? I dunno. Theory. Here’s what I mean:
I love the comment under this one, by the way:
“They are both in the entertainment business and it’s lizard eat lizard.”
THE CONSPIRACY BUSINESS
I think it can be a business—and, yes, you have to bring people in if it is a business. And you bring people in by attracting them—and you attract them by posting smut or by trying to scare them. Or baffle them with bullshit—entertain them—with bright colours and effects and sparkling, shiny crap and effects, and maybe an explosion or two.
But I think people like Icke are making money off gullible people who will simply believe anything, without any proof—without any sense, any real gut instincts either. Because they probably believe in nothing, and, well, here’s something. And it can’t be proven wrong—as Dice points out, you can’t disprove it.
Hmmm…something about proving a negative…or something…nevermind.
But this raises into question the case of Mark Dice…
Now, he’s accusing Alex Jones of a lot of stuff—mainly of being a sell-out (trying a bit too hard to make money off this so-called “Truth Movement”). But he’s lying in places. I’ve seen some ads on Infowars.com, and while I’m extremely anti-corporate/anti-advertising, I understand that shows cost money to make, and that cash has to come from somewhere, and if you’re doing this thing full-time, well, where’s the money going to come from? and so forth. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
Dice lied about the one ad he mentioned. As the host encourages: “Tell us about the penis pills…”
Now, I actually saw this ad, and watched al of it (Dice obviously did not watch all of it and did not understand what he did watch, or is deliberately trying to obfuscate what it was about, or he’s acting obtuse for his own agenda). The ad was actually based in a lot of fact, a lot of evidence; the whole thing was about how men are becoming less masculine—naturally, you can see why I watched it and remember it, since this is a subject in which I’ve been interested for years.
I was skeptical, watching it, too, but I gave it chance, and, from what I’ve personally researched, a lot of it was spot on. It dealt more with the physiological effects—it had nothing to do with “penis pills,” for crissakes. It was about fucking testosterone, which is about the testicles, and about hormones, et cetera, not about the penis. The ad went on to give some pretty good information, then went into a segment on what could be done. This was free advice—some of it good advice, I thought—and then *after that* it got into its product which claimed to naturally raise testosterone levels in men.
I did not mind this (20-some-minute) ad because it was not manipulative, was not full of bullshit (that I could detect), and offered advice and tips before ever getting into the product it was selling. Only a few minutes of this ad were dedicated to its own product. (Trying to find a link to the ad to show you.)
The point is, Dice is a liar. I think he’s trying to steal “fans” of Alex Jones and become just like him. Christ, I watched a short video of Mark Dice the entire content of which was him walking to a book store shelf and pointing out that his book (“The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction”) was there, in stock.
—and tell me this guy is so different, such a non-sell out. Holy fuck—“like me on Facebook!”—“Follow me on twitter!”—“donate!”—“buy my book!” Give me some money and I’ll give you some truth!
That’s what I see. And yeah, Alex Jones is a bit of a whore in this regard too. But Dice is just a shadow of what Jones is regarding dedication, and the bulk and scope of information presented. And I don’t know what to make of the guy—at first glance, he seems like a self-absorbed ego-fucking-maniac. All his avs have his smiling face—his website is his whole fucking name—half his YouTube videos are just him talking, the camera pointing right at his face. And another large percentage of them are about American celebrities…
Hey, I’m a success, look at my face! Remember my name! I’m gonna be famous! I’m interviewing famous people! Wanna hear me drop some names! Will that make me royalty too! Do you love me!? Give me some money!
But I’m just not sure if he’s a phony fuck like Glenn Beck or Michael Moore, or if he’s just an Alex Jones wanna-be…
What I just cannot comprehend is, along with preppers who show their faces on YouTube, those who say they believe the shit is going to hit the fan and that the government is going come for people like them…and yet they annouce to the world either their names or display their faces, or both.
If what they say is true, the government is going to round up or kill those poor bastards first. Right? So, isn’t revealing your real name, your whole name, and showing your face everywhere…kinda sorta suicidal? I mean, Dice has a YouTube username called TheResistance. So, well, did the French Resistance under Nazi occupation post their names in lights and staple their faces on every telephone pole?
I dunno…I doubt it. They’d tend to get caught and killed if they did that. I mean, I wasn’t there…but this just makes sense to me. Maybe I’m just weird…
The trouble with the “Truth Movement” is the same thing that plagued (and ended) the “Men’s Movement.” It was taken over, hi-jacked, by assholes, shills, and smiling faces in suits wanting to sell us stuff. I’m sorry, the truth is not for sale.
I’ll say that again because it needs to be fucking said again:
THE TRUTH IS NOT FOR SALE!
I don’t use my real name here—I don’t want attention, I don’t want or need fame or some e-celebrity status. I don’t want your money—don’t donate to me!—I don’t want your money and I’m not trying to sell you something. Whatever I write or create, I offer it to everyone for free. I have no agenda other than Truth, Freedom, and Nature.
Don’t follow me on twitter (I’m not there), don’t fucking “like” me on Facebook (I’m not there either). Don’t rate me or judge me—just think a bit about what I’m saying. And please don’t be a fucking fanboy of me (or anyone), for God’s sake. “Tweet” me and I’ll smack you in the mouth, pal.
I’m not special or great because of all of this (I’m no better or worse than anyone else), but I do think I’m real, and not a hypocrite, because of this. I respect this quality (striving for truth and freedom without selling out or letting your ego take over your principles) in others. I’ve always been cautious of those who use their real (full) names online, like a badge, and go out of their way to show us their smiling faces and what clothes they wear…it does not give them credibility, in my mind. Quite the opposite.
I understand people need money to live…but, Jesus, there is a difference between making a living and being a shallow, self-obsessed sell-out and making a killing off what should be free for everyone: the fucking Truth.
But the agendas are what I can’t stand. The Christian agenda is about proving that what’s happening is biblical prophecy come true (the End Times), and another agenda is about this Zionist Jew something or other.
I dunno. Maybe I’m wrong.
THE RESISTANCE IS NOT FOR SALE
Anyway, Moore and Icke and (probably Dice too) can fuck off. I still like Alex Jones—I agree with about 80% of what he talks about—but I am aware that he has an agenda as a Christian (I see it all the time), so I have to take him with a grain of salt as well. You have to understand the context.
Oh, I almost forget about Rich Zubaty, with whom I agree on maybe 95% of things, well, he’s MIA; his “Rude Guy” blog has been inactive since August of 2012. Either he’s given up, gone insane, or perhaps the police have him, and he’s in the clinker now. Or maybe he’s injured or sick. Or maybe he’s dead. Have been considering emailing him since September to see what’s up, but I keep leaning towards the “just give him a bit more time.” Maybe I will send him an email.
All for now. And to all the good folks out there, fighting for truth, freedom, and liberty, well, keep up the good work, guys (and girls). And keep it real.
Remember: if a smelly lunatic in tattered clothes tells you that you have got shit on your shoe, and you look down and there’s shit on your shoe, what matter if he was crazy? He just told you the truth.
Three cheers for the resistance—the real resistance.