Category Archives: Pop Culture

How to solve extreme poverty and every refugee crises forever

The most popular Youtube vlogger is Pewdiepie, a Swedish man-child who posts videos about playing video games and acting silly in his computer room. Pewdiepie currently posts about one blog each weak, which means, in the time between each of his posts, at least 1,900 civilians died horrible war-related deaths somewhere in the world, and that’s a very conservative estimate.

The civilians who survive these conflicts are only technically lucky. Over 22 million people are living in foreign countries right now because they’ve had to flee the apocalyptic death, destruction and destitution in their birth-land. That’s not counting the 65 million people who have fled their homes but haven’t left their country. This means there are about 100 million people who are homeless because they would die if they went home.

That number doesn’t count the 100 million people in the world who are just old-fashioned homeless, or the 1.3 billion people who have homes and jobs but are working themselves to death while starving in a shit-covered tin hut with no water, electricity or sanitation.

In conflict zones, it’s hard to get real numbers how many people are suffering, but we know that over 3 billion people live on under $2.50 per day. These statistics don’t highlight a few isolated travesties. Almost half the population of the world lives in extreme poverty, and there are still several billion more who make more than $2.50 per day and live below the poverty level.

Basically, if you have running water, air conditioning, heat, a bed, pornography and an education, you’re one of the most privileged people in the entire world. Drop to your knees and thank God if  the worst problem in your life is that nobody loves you.

If you factor in all the money countries and nongovernment agencies spend on humanitarian aid each year, the cost easily eclipses $100 billion dollars each year. The world could afford to spend more money to fight poverty, but it spends over $2 trillion on the militaries which are displacing people. So tax payers are spending more money on creating humanitarian crises than solving them.

We already spends trillions of dollars every year on infrastructure that is supposed to help people live functionally, but it hasn’t solved the problem because it addresses the problem in a round about way that creates more problems than it solves. All the roads, plumbing and power lines haven’t saved the poor in Detroit or any other major city in the world.

This makes the problem seem unsolvable, but the solution is really very simple. All people need to be happy and healthy are food, clothing, shelter, water, electricity, jobs, transportation and access to markets. If you built a ring-shaped apartment complex with 100 million condos and offices, then dug a man-made river encircling the entire building and used that to water gardens and orchards, you could give the people living there agriculture jobs and a never-ending supply of food and water.

With those problems solved, some workers could specialize in other jobs, which they could reach by walking across the hallway in their apartment complex. Every business would be connected by one road that would never get congested. The bigger you make the diameter of the circular building, the more external markets it would have access to.

Basically, the complex would operate like a secular monastery the size of a major city. You could also think of it as a permanent, self-sustaining refugee camp. As long as the residents don’t have to pay rent, receive an equitable percentage of the profits their work produces, and aren’t overcharged for the goods and services the monastery sells, then everyone will always have everything they need, and nobody would live in destitution or fear thereof.

How would you pay for such a mega project, and who would build it?  It costs about $120 per square foot to build a traditional house, but if you built the refugee camp/monastery using earthbags, you could bring the construction cost down as low as $10 per square foot. Since all that dirt will need to be dug up anyway, you can use the dirt from digging the reservoir/water channel/moat around the complex.

It would take thousands, if not millions of people to build a structure the length of a small country, but earthbag construction is relatively simple. You could simply have the 100 million refugees do the work and then move into the home they built when they’re done. Then they would have a sense of ownership, pride and shared identity with their fellow coworkers/neighbors.

The richest 1,400 people in the world have $5.4 trillion dollars just sitting in their bank accounts, not doing anything. If each apartment unit in the earthbag megastructure is 500 square feet and costs $10 per square foot, you could build 1 billion, eighty-five million units with $5.4 trillion. This figure doesn’t take all the building costs into account, but to put this in perspective, it costs $1 billion per mile to dig an underground tunnel to reduce traffic congestion. You could build a mile of earthbag apartments with a road, gardens, utilities and an aquaduct for far less than $1 billion per mile, especially if you built it in the middle of Africa, Russia or China where property values are low.

We have the money to end extreme poverty in less than five years. We just need to stop spending it on constructing and repairing inefficient cities full of economic dead zones, and build a mega-home that fills all its residents’ basic needs.

The picture below has the aquifer in the center of the building instead of a moat around it, but it still illustrates my proposal.

If you liked this post, you’ll also like these:

 


Should transsexuals be allowed in the military? A politically agnostic veteran’s perspective

Note: I served in the U.S. Air Force from 2000-2007. My job code was 3C0X1 (Communications computer systems operator). My highest rank was E-5 (Staff Sergeant), and I received an honorable discharge.

On July 26, 2017, president Trump Tweeted, “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.” The typos are Trump’s, not mine.

This is a bold, historic decision on a philosophically profound topic that is going to cause a lot of heated arguments, and most of them will overlook the nuance of all the issues involved.

For starters, how can we have an academic discussion about this, when Donald Trump didn’t make his decision based on rigorous academic analysis? He just thought it would make his supporters happy and keep his opponents distracted while he does even more absurd things. It’s sad that Trump made America have this conversation in this way and that Fox News is going to continue to frame the debate in an impossibly unproductive way.

To make things more confusing, both sides are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong, but the biggest problems caused by having transsexuals in the military, exist because of deeper rooted flaws in America’s government and military. So splitting hairs over this issue distracts attention from the real problem more than it achieves social justice.

Trump and his generals were wrong to ban any man who wants to rock a pixie cut, but they were correct that the logistical cost/benefit analysis of paying for transgender soldiers’ treatments, doesn’t add up. There are valid reasons why this is inhumane, but the purpose of the military is to kill people.

It’s easier to become an officer with a degree in engineering than psychology because officers aren’t there to worry about their subordinate’s journey to self-actualization. An officer’s job is to calculate risks, formulate plans and be as emotionless as possible while sending their troops to their deaths.

The military already treats troops in ways that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and America’s own employee protection laws. The military views and treats its troops like disposable numbers, not human beings. So getting your snowflake print panties in a twist over it being unfair that the military isn’t sensitive to the needs of transsexuals, is like being offended that an indifferent, sin-eating death machine didn’t invite you to its birthday party.

If you’re just now getting angry that the military doesn’t care about people’s feelings, then you must be too privileged and sheltered to have ever seen the reality of war or how the U.S. military works.

If you’re going to be pissed about how the military treats the troops, focus that anger towards the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice strips troops of their basic human rights and the military operates exactly like a cult with a Colonial caste system.

Regardless of whether my description of the military is true, and even if it is and could be fixed, war is still a battle of resources, and every decision requires a cost/benefit analysis of how to spend money. Troops cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and equip.

On top of that, troops have access to 100% nationalized healthcare. All of their essential medical needs are completely free, and the more they get hurt on the job, the more free healthcare they’ll receive after leaving the military. You can even qualify for a medical discharge with free healthcare for life, for certain non-service-related medical problems.

Under this system, any transsexual who joins the military would be automatically guaranteed free healthcare for life. As expensive as sex changes are, it would be stupid for every transsexual to not try to get an administrative job in the Air Force at a stateside base.

The military budget is already so large it’s bankrupting the country. This is not the time to lower entry standards to accommodate anyone who is more expensive to provide medical care to.

Troops are a massive financial investment, which makes them a liability to the bottom line of the war effort. This is why you have to go undergo a full medical physical before enlisting. The cost/benefit analysis of accepting people with high health risks doesn’t add up.

This is why people with flat feet aren’t allowed to enlist. Nobody has ever protested about that blatant instance of discrimination because everyone collectively shrugged their shoulders and said, “Yeah, people who can’t walk long distances probably wouldn’t make good long distance walkers.”

If you’d ever been to a war zone, you wouldn’t think you’re helping transsexuals by opening that “opportunity” to them. War is the most stressful experience a human being can go through. It’s so profoundly difficult, recruits have to be mentally broken and psychologically reprogrammed to accept the absurdity of their actions. Even then, or because of it, the suicide rate of veterans is above average.

The suicide rate of transsexuals is already higher than normal as well. The worst place in the world for them to successfully transition their mind and body, is in a war zone, where they’ll be struggling to hold onto their humanity under the stress of constant fear and loss, and living in a totalitarian cult that views them as a disposable liability.

Fighting to get transsexuals in the military isn’t doing cis gender troops any favors either. Every soldier needs to be as clear-headed and focused as possible. Nobody on the battlefield should be on any kind of pill or injection that alters their mind and mood. When failure is not an option, it would be irresponsible to everyone, to allow a transitioning transgender to fight. Keeping them out of harm’s way would be the most humane thing to do for them and everyone else.

I would have supported Trump if he said that, but he’s obviously an opportunistic bigot who would throw his own mother under a bus if it got a cheer from a crowd. He did raise an interesting point he didn’t realize though. If the best military strategy is to minimize the expense of troops, then it would be more efficient if women were either not allowed in the military, or served on segregated bases.

Females’ medical costs and risks are higher than men. And they have the option to separate from the military when they have a child. If every member of the military had that option, it would make warfare impossible and defeat the purpose of the dishonorable discharge, since everyone would have a legitimate way to get out of the military in nine months.

Plus, women are physically weaker than men. Female troops have lower fitness and grooming standards than men, which means tax payers are spending more money to put weaker, more vulnerable soldiers on the battlefield who can quit with a year’s notice at any time.

Yes, women have proven themselves more than capable in combat, but if we look at women as numbers, you could put more men on the battle field for less money with less risk of having to take them out for medical issues. From that point of view, the cost/benefit analysis of having female soldiers doesn’t add up.

So if we’re going to ban transsexuals from serving because of the high cost, the logic follows that we should do the same to women. If we accept the higher cost and liability of female soldiers, then why not transsexuals?

It was completely unnecessary for Trump to ban transsexuals from serving in any capacity in the military. Every base has hotels that are staffed by civilian contractors, who don’t get free medical care. To deny transsexuals the opportunity to change pillow cases at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, is cut-and-dry Jim Crow-style oppression.

We wouldn’t be going down this moral rabbit hole at all if every single American civilian had the same access to healthcare as the troops, Congress and the president. Unfortunately, that solution would be too expensive under America’s current health care system, in which insurance companies have inflated medical costs beyond affordability.

However, if the American government passed regulation making healthcare less expensive instead of less attainable, we could easily afford to cover everyone’s medical needs by nationalizing the health care industry completely or by rationing a set amount of free care each year. Then cost wouldn’t be a barrier to transsexuals, or anyone else with medical conditions, serving in the military.

Another reason we can’t afford to provide tax payers with unlimited access to health care is because we’re spending so much money on the military to wage perpetual war in the most financially inefficient way possible. America’s industrial war complex is a cash cow bloated with fraud, waste and abuse.

If you’re worried about how much money it costs to send a transsexual soldier to a war zone, you would be mortified to learn how much it costs to send a healthy civilian contractor. Transsexuals are the least of the military’s budget problems. It’s losing money through a sieve everywhere it has boots on the ground.

The biggest money trails lead to the blue chip defense companies like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. So if you’re truly passionate about saving military money and lives, then you should be screaming to get defense money out of politics.

If you liked this blog, you may like these:

Military issues

Transsexuals

Healthcare

Socialism

Taxes


Floyd Mayweather vs. Conor McGregor: A cautionary tale

I don’t follow sports. I don’t like pop culture, and I don’t approve of normalizing violence. So you’d think I wouldn’t watch The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). However, I do value setting goals, pushing yourself beyond what you thought possible, physical fitness and the spirit of competition. For those reasons, the UFC is the only sport I watch.

If I were a dictator, I would replace all high school sports with chess and mixed martial arts competitions. This would replace the “us vs. them” indoctrination of the youth with a “me vs. my best” mentality. Plus, it would teach students a useful skill: how to defend themselves.

This would be useful to every individual, and it would create a nation-wide atmosphere of mutually assured destruction, which sounds sinister on the surface, but if you knew everyone has been trained in hand-to-hand combat, you’d think twice about abusing others.

I don’t believe systemic martial arts training would encourage violence, because the core philosophy of martial arts is personal responsibility, not wanton destruction. Granted, the UFC does reward cinematic violence, but the motivating philosophy behind martial arts is inherently more profound than any ball-centric sport.

So even though my first reaction to the UFC many years ago was negative, I quickly came to appreciate the change it could bring to professional sports. Now I hate to say it, but my opinion of the UFC took a major hit in the past month because of how the UFC is promoting the fight between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor,which will take place on August 26, 2017.

Before I get into that, I’ll explain the backstory on the fight. Floyd Mayweather is a retired, forty year old American boxing champion, who has never fought in professional mixed martial arts competitions. Conor McGregor is a twenty nine year old Irish MMA champion who has never fought in a professional boxing competition. McGregor is going to fight Mayweather in a boxing match, which makes the conflict complicated, since it’s one champion past his prime fighting a younger opponent outside of his element.

The whole competition is an unapologetic promotional stunt for the UFC, but I’m reluctantly fine with that if it draws people away from vapid ball-centric sports to mixed martial arts. However, the UFC has been hosting promotional events where Mayweather and McGregor talk juvenile shit to each other in front of hysterical fans. And their trash talking is bad. It’s really bad.

I know neither competitor really believes what they’re saying. They’re trying to psyche each other out to gain an advantage in the fight, and with tens of millions of dollars on the line, they both have legitimate motive to take their pre-game fight to the highest level.

I also know that both fighters are brands, trying to sell their product to the public audience. From the cosmic perspective, there’s no reason for customers to care about their rivalry.  So they have to create human interest. The Olympics does the exact same thing when they produce segments about the athletes’ life stories before events. They’re mind-fucking you into caring about the outcome of people doing pointless shit.

I’m convinced the organizers of the Olympics were inspired to do that by watching professional wrestling, which invented the art of using story-telling techniques to get their audience emotionally invested in a meaningless competition between two people they don’t know.

Think about your favorite movie. The hero isn’t even real, but you connect with him/her so much that you feel their pain, fear, hope and joy so vividly you’ll pay money to experience those emotions over and over again. Why? Because watching a human go through the stages of accomplishing a goal, excites the same regions of your brain that are stimulated when you achieve a goal in real life. On some physical level, you truly live vicariously through Luke Skywalker as he fights Darth Vader and saves the galaxy.

Since Mayweather and McGregor’s fight is utterly unimportant in comparison to all the real wars going on in the world right now, they have to get inside their audience’s minds and take them on “the hero’s journey” to make them care enough about them to pay to see how their story ends.

The more Mayweather and McGregor offend each other, and hype themselves up, the more it raises the stakes in their story. Therefore, it raises the tension. Therefore, it feels more real and important to the audience, even if it’s just flickers on a screen. If Mayweather and McGregor do their job right, people will be jumping out of their seats and crumpling to the floor at the end of the fight, even though the outcome has no real world significance.

I grew up in a consumer culture. I understand the need to promote the product your’e selling, but the UFC used to promote their fighters more like the Olympics than the WWE. Granted, McGregor isn’t the first UFC fighter to earn a reputation acting over-dramatic and playing the emotionally magnetic villain card, but Mayweather vs. McGregor took the shtick to a whole lower level. They abandoned all the dignity of self-restraint, respect for your opponent and appreciation for life that is the hallmark of martial arts.

To take things to an even lower level, their juvenile behavior wasn’t done in spite of the UFC’s standards of conduct. The CEO, Dana White, has encouraged cinematic aggression in the participants of his TV show, The Ultimate Fighter, for years.

I know Dana White is a fight promoter. He’s the Michael Bay of professional sports, which is why he was able to grow MMA fighting from a disrespected basement league to a mainstream professional sport. That’s admirable, but in a world dying from stupidity, I hoped the UFC would legitimize mixed martial arts as a higher art form than G.L.O.W., but Dana White abandoned any pretense of that with the Mayweather/McGregor fight.

Truthfully, I shouldn’t have expected Dana White to bring any more integrity to MMA than Michael Bay brought to the Transformers brand, but Mayweather vs. McGregor has already done to MMA, what Michael Bay did to Transformers.

The moral of the story is, I hate watching my culture die, and I just saw another rerun. #FML

 


My theory on why Fox News acts so biased and evil

I recently posted a blog titled “My theory on just about every conspiracy theory,” which was twelve pages long. So I doubt many people read the whole thing. Towards the bottom of the list was my  explanation of why Fox News is so crazy. The section is important enough that I decided to post it again here as a stand-alone blog.

The majority of  conservative Americans get most of their news from Fox News, which claims to be fair and balanced, yet is bombastically pro-conservative, pro-Republican, pro-Capitalism and pro-American. It’s equally anti-liberal, anti-Democrat, anti-economic equality, anti-science and anti-immigrants. Fox’s news segments contain slander, logical fallacies, misdirection, false-flag scares, emotional hype, misdirection and lies. This doesn’t happen because Fox is full of amateur journalists. Bullshit is the product Fox sells, and it has bullshit broken down to a science.

Fox news is so consistent in its agenda and dishonesty, it looks like there’ s a conspiracy among its leaders to create a civil war between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. It makes you wonder what’s really going on, and what’s the mastermind’s end game? The truth is easy to deduce if you look at the history of its founders Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

Rupert Murdoch was born in Australia in 1931. He inherited a fortune from his father and spent the 1950’s and 60’s buying up tabloid newspapers in Australia, which he consolidated under a parent company, News Corp. In the early 70’s, he bought up the major tabloids in Britain and the United States, adding them to News Corp. roster of sensationalist, fake news magazines. News Corp. was convicted of criminal charges for corruption, hacking and stealing in all three countries.

Roger Ailes was born in America in 1940. He started as a production assistant at a local news station in Ohio, where he was promoted several times, earning him the credentials to produce a daytime television talk show. In 1968, Ailes became a professional political campaign manager. He managed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns, and he advised George H. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

So Fox News was founded by an international tabloid kingpin who sells lies for a living, and the public relations manager of the Republican Party. When you put them together, you get sensationalist Republican propaganda with the journalistic integrity of a tabloid.

Basically, these two men pulled off a plan to create a television network that indoctrinates its viewers into basing their identity and beliefs on the Republican Party’s political agenda. This is corruption and treason at the highest level. It created a fake culture war that real people have died in. It’s driving the country to the brink of civil war. It orchestrated the launch of the longest war in America’s history. It’s the source of the war on science, which could destroy humanity, and it got Donald Trump elected president.

Why the hell would two men do that? Are they trying to destroy the world? No. They’re just businessmen doing what they do. Rupert Murdoch wanted to sell newspapers and TV shows, and Roger Ailes wanted to produce TV shows. By teaming up with the Republican Party, Murdoch and Ailes got loyal customers, and the Republican Party got loyal voters. They all got a lot richer, and that’s what it’s all about.

If you liked this post, you may like these:


My middle of the road theory on sexual morality and gender labels

If an American turned on their television in the 1950’s, they’d see women cooking and cleaning the house, and men going to work in business suits. Boys played with toy guns, and girls played with dolls. There were only two choices for sex and gender, but it wasn’t really a choice, because the genitals you were born with determined how society expected you to behave.  If you were born with a penis, you acted like Ward Clever, and if you were born with a vagina, you acted like June Clever.

In the 1950’s, American television culture was so prudish, sitcoms weren’t allowed to show married heterosexual couples in the same bed.  So husbands and wives were always portrayed sleeping in separate twin-sized beds, fully clothed. When the children who grew up watching “Leave it to Beaver” became adults, they considered the sitcom, “Three’s Company” obscene, because it showed a single man living with two single females. To the old timers’ dismay, “Three’s Company” was popular enough with the younger generation to last eight seasons.

In 2004, the Baby Boomers who grew up on “Three’s Company” considered “The L Word” obscene because it showed promiscuous lesbians living together and getting married. The only reason “The L Word” was allowed on television at all, was because it aired on late night cable, far from the impressionable eyes of children.

It didn’t take another twenty years for society to accept the next next jump in which sexual norms are allowed to be shown on television. In less than a decade, the bonds of tradition loosened to the point that NBC (a family-oriented channel) produced, “The New Normal,” a sitcom in which two gay men hire a woman to be a surrogate mother for their child.

If that wasn’t enough to give Baby Boomers heart attacks, they also had to come to terms with  shows like “Ru Paul’s Drag Race” and “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” in which transsexuals openly demand to be celebrated. To the old timers’ dismay, both of those shows are so popular with young people, they’ve already lasted more seasons than “Three’s Company.”

In the history of mankind, society has never changed this fast. The reason this is happening now, is because technology is spreading information to people, who are learning more, faster than ever. Radio and TV were unprecedented, but the invention of the internet sped up communication exponentially, and its pace is still compounding. If things are changing so fast right now your head is spinning, it’s going to have spun completely off your body in twenty years, because this whirlwind of change is only going to get faster.

Sexual orientation and gender norms have always been debated, but the conversation has never been this polarized or violent. The reason the national dialogue on sex and gender isn’t as calm as it was in the 1990’s is because we’re all in uncharted territory. The young, progressive liberals leading the charge are as lost as the elderly conservative curmudgeons who are holding onto tradition. Moderates in the middle are wondering who is less wrong.

For example, you used to be considered a liberal progressive if you believed in women’s right to work or homosexuals’ right to marry, but if the progressive social justice warriors get their way in 2017, when you fill out a job application that asks your gender, it will have to include 50-80 different types of gender pronouns your coworkers will have to address you by, according to your choice.

Don’t ask me to explain this chart. I don’t know.

To some of America’s social justice warriors, those pronouns aren’t enough to accurately label everyone. So they invented a chart explaining how sex and gender are part of a spectrum, which children can use to determine the nature of their gender and sexuality. Every American agrees freedom of choice is a good thing, but even moderate liberals laugh and cringe at The Gender Unicorn.

There actually is a degree of truth to the fluidity of sex and gender, but it’s more nuanced than social justice warriors or Christians are ready to admit. For starters, the traditional way of thinking about sex and gender is that there are only two possibilities. You’re either a boy with a penis or a girl with a vagina. Life isn’t that simple. Sex organs are determined by chromosomes. If you have an XY chromosome, you’ll be born with a penis and all the hormones that make you think and act masculine. If you have  XX chromosomes, you’ll be born with a vagina and all the chromosomes that make you think and act feminine.

However, people are often born with a mismatched combination of chromosomes like XXY, XXXY, or just X. These genetic codes create mixed signals within people’s body. Some combinations will cause someone to have the body of one sex, but the mental wiring of the other.  This makes them feel like they’re living in the wrong body, and no amount of will-power or philosophizing is going to change that. In these cases, getting a sex change is a drastic, but legitimate, choice.

Some conservatives argue this saying, “You may have the choice to cut your dick off, but how is that not insane?” Well, insanity is defined as “a pattern of mental or behavioral patterns that may be abnormal to social norms and definitely causes someone to be a danger to themselves or others.”

Chopping your dick off is definitely abnormal. It’s probably not going to cause you to harm other people, but the suicide rate among transsexuals is above average. So technically, being a transsexual fits the definition of insanity, but so does autism and ADHD. Down syndrome and neurofibromatosis are caused by abnormal chromosomes. So if you’re going to hate transsexuals for being born with a more difficult genetic makeup to manage than the average person, then you need to hate almost everybody.

Some transsexuals don’t have abnormal chromosomes, but their life experiences convinced them to seek a new identity. For example, I once met a man who got a sex change and lived as a woman. He was molested repeatedly by his father as a child, and he told me that at one point, when he was being raped, it was like a switch went off in his head. He remembered thinking, “Daddy has sex with mommy, and daddy is having sex with me. So I must be a mommy.” The rest of his life was a downward spiral into confusion and self-destructive behavior. Technically, this person’s thoughts and behavior fit the definition of insanity, but if you’re going to hate him for that, you’re not trying to understand anything, and you’re one of the bad guys.  Even if he made the wrong decision, that doesn’t mean he deserves to be hated.

On a lighter note, I once met a teenage girl who identified as a man, but she spent her evenings shopping for shoes on her smart phone and doing everything girls do, including dating guys. She got swept up in the social movement for sexual equality before she was old enough to understand genetics and found a niche that gave her an identity even though it didn’t truly fit her. She’ll undoubtedly grow out of it, like I grew out of my heavy metal phase.Does this make her an insane piece of shit who deserves to be spat on? No. She’s just a naive kid trying to find herself, like the rest of us.

Her story doesn’t change the fact that there are more than two types of chromosome patterns humans can be born with. Transsexuals are real. If you can’t accept that, then you don’t believe in reality, which fits the definition of insanity. At the same time though, you don’t get to decide you’re a real transsexual just because it’s trendy.

If the poser transsexual I mentioned above wants to wear pants instead of dresses, and get a job instead of raising children, her decision is amoral, not immoral. Scottish men wear kilts. Arab men wear a long, flowing garb called a thawb, which looks dress-like to Westerners. Different cultures all over the world, and throughout history, have assigned different gender roles to men and women, including how they dress, act and work.

These kind of gender differences are social constructs that we have social pressure to follow but no moral obligation. Anyone can dress however they want. Clothing patterns are a non-issue. If you believe you have a divine duty to enforce your parents’ dress code on everyone else, you’re intellectually lazy at best, and insane at worst.

Granted, telling a preschooler they get to choose how to define their sexuality and gender role for the rest of their life is setting them up for failure. If you tell a five year old boy he can be whatever he wants, he’s more likely to choose to be a dinosaur than a girl.

Kids don’t know what the hell is going on, and this is all the more reason we shouldn’t encourage girls to wear dresses and play with Barbies, and boys to wear pants and play with action figures. We’re indoctrinating kids with gender roles that wouldn’t matter if they were broken. In the cosmic scale of things, the clothes you wear don’t matter. They’re useful, but it’s unnecessary to force people to wear clothes that fit your fleeting cultural upbringing.

Another unnecessary social construct is the idea that everyone under the age of eighteen is going to be traumatized by seeing genitals. No other animal on the planet gets worked up over seeing genitals, and children who grow up in nudist colonies don’t leave traumatized. Their curse is having to live the rest of their lives wondering why everyone else is so uptight.

The solution to whether or not trans men should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms is to remove all gender segregation and let men and women piss, shit and shower together. This sounds outrageous if you’ve never experienced it, but that’s not because it’s crazy. It’s because you’ve been indoctrinated with your society’s cultural norms. If everyone walked around naked together, like in the shower scene in “Starship Troopers,” we would all just get on with our lives and not worry about other people’s bodies.

At some point, someone may get raped by sharing bathrooms, but I sincerely believe there will be less rapes overall because society’s sexual frustration level will be lower across the board. If we’re going to segregate the sexes and force people to hide their skin, then we can’t condemn cultures that force women to cover their entire bodies. They’re doing the same thing as you. They’ve just taken your moderate style of oppression and ran with it to its inevitable conclusion.

Who you choose to have sex with is just as much of a non-issue as what clothes you wear or who sees your genitals. Sexual attraction is partly determined by hormones and partly by choice. Either way, if you get stranded on a deserted island for the rest of your life, eventually, you’re going to fuck whatever is there, even if your only companion is a sheep.

It’s an understatement to say everyone is bi-sexual. Humans are omni-sexual. The most accurate way to define humans isn’t heterosexual or homosexual. We’re all just fuck bots. When you remove the social pressure to only have one type of sex, people will fuck just about anything. This isn’t immoral. It’s amoral. It doesn’t matter where you stick your dick, what you stick inside of you, or what orifice you stick it in… as long as nobody gets hurt or is forced to do something against their will.

Everyone over the age of thirty has thought, even just for a second, about fucking something that isn’t a member of the opposite sex. Most of us have fucked our hand or a toy, but we don’t have a special name for that, because we don’t care. Imagine if we told people that if you ever think about having sex with a pocket pussy, it makes you a latex-ophile, which is how you must have been born and thus how you have to identify yourself and behave.

There are undoubtedly millions of men and women who had a passing thought that they might like to have intercourse with someone of their own sex. But because society says only gay people think about that, people often assume their one-off fantasy must mean they’re gay and therefore have to wear rainbow flags and act flamboyant. If we’d all grown up believing humans are just horny fuck bots and it doesn’t matter how you achieve orgasm, we’d all get on with our lives and not end up basing our personality on our sexual fantasies.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to identify as gay. Some people have the right cocktail of hormones that predispose them to wanting to have gay sex. However, they’re not going to burst into flames if they decide to have heterosexual intercourse. So all I’m saying is it’s unnecessary to force people into conforming to a social group that fits their fantasies. Many militant homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are guilty of forcing this dichotomy on others.

In conclusion, progressives are correct that there are more than two choices for how to live. However, forcing people to pick one of eighty labels, and then demonizing people who don’t, is oppressive in exactly the same way as forcing people to pick between one of two labels and demonizing those who don’t fit your expectations. The left has become guilty of enforcing too many labels, and the right has been guilty of enforcing too few. The solution is to get rid of the need for any labels by not giving a fuck about other people.

Most people who read this probably won’t agree with half of what I’ve said, but I believe history will vindicate me. I believe the future will look like Star Trek, where everyone wears gender neutral onesies because people will have stopped worrying about socially constructed gender differences. There will also be men who wear dresses and women who wear combat boots. Everyone will be showering with each other and having casual sex. The world won’t end. Life will go on, and everyone will get more of what they want.

Most people alive today will be glad they won’t live to see the new world, because they can’t let go of their traditions, which are based on archaic and intellectually lazy labels for sex and gender. If it’s any consolation, your children won’t have to pick their gender identity on a unicorn chart, and adults won’t have to pick between eighty different labels when they fill out employment applications, because nobody will care enough to make that distinction.

If you liked this post, you may like these:

 

 


My theory on just about every conspiracy theory

Aliens


The universe is too large for there to not be other life forms. However, it’s also too large for aliens to receive radio transmission from Earth, let alone visit us without spaceships capable of faster than light travel. The chances of aliens knowing Earth exists is slim but not impossible. Until we have more definitive proof, there’s no reason to believe aliens have been near Earth.

I’m 99.9% certain aliens have never set foot on our planet, because if they had, we all would have died from the space flu, and they would have died from the human flu. For this reason, I expect we’ll never be allowed to land on other planets inhabited by intelligent life, and they will never want to land on ours.

UFOs


There’s a good chance alien spacecraft have flown by Earth. I want to believe they’ve been captured on film, and I’ve seen some pretty crazy videos of UFOs, but until aliens make contact with us, the simplest explanation of UFOs is, they’re man-made.

Consider that the SR-71 Blackbird was invented in 1964 and wasn’t declassified until 1980. The F-117 Nighthawk was invented in 1975 and wasn’t declassified until 1989. So for decades, sky watchers could see strange shaped aircraft traveling faster than any aircraft known to the public.

It’s fair to assume that in any given year, the U.S. Air Force currently has classified aircraft technology 20 years ahead of what the public knows about. If I were in charge of keeping these aircraft secret, I would spread rumors they’re alien spacecraft to deflect attention from the truth.

Area 51


Area 51 is a real Air Force base located in a remote, deserted part of Nevada. Many strange aircraft have been seen in the skies nearby, and there are widespread rumors that it does, or did, contain the wreckage of an alien spacecraft and the bodies of its extraterrestrial passengers.

Some locals living near Aviano Air Force Base, Italy also believe the Air Force is hiding the body of a dead alien in an underground bunker there too. I was stationed at Aviano for two years with a top secret security clearance. I can assure you, life on base is normal and mundane. My guess is that a work day in Area 51 is closer to my experiences than the way Hollywood portrays it.

Since we know man-made aircraft, 20 years more technologically advanced than commercial airplanes, like the SR-71 Blackbird, are tested at Area 51, there’s a common sense explanation for why people keep seeing UFOs around there. I’m sure whatever is in Area 51 is mind blowing, but I doubt it has anything to do with aliens.

The Illuminati


The Illuminati was a real secret society in Germany during the 17th century that included royalty and other celebrities of the time. Their goal was to, “oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power.” Basically, they were humanitarian intellectuals committed to promoting truth and empowering the masses.

Conspiracy theorists believe this group still exists, but now they want to take over the world and oppress everyone. There’s no evidence this is true. So it would be stupid to take it seriously.

The Freemasons


The Masonic Lodge was originally a fraternal brotherhood in Europe dating back to the 14th century. It was partly a social club and partly a union for mason workers. It spread to America in the 17th century, where its members included many famous politicians and leaders of industry.

Conspiracy theorists believe it still has members at the highest level of government who worship Satan and want to control and oppress the world. You can still find Masonic Lodges operating all over America today, but they’re just a slightly more cultish version of the Rotary Club or Kiwanis Club. They’re basically Cub Scouts for grown-ups. You can join their silly meet-up group and climb the ranks, but you won’t find a secret conspiracy at the top of the pyramid. You’ll just find a bunch of suburban Christians having boring meetings.

Reptilians


Former sports broadcaster, turned professional conspiracy theorist, David Icke, popularized the idea that the world is controlled by shape-shifting aliens called Reptilians. There’s no evidence of this, and anyone who believes in Reptilians either needs to go back to school to learn logic or see a therapist.

If you believe in Reptilians, you’re a gullible, weak-minded fool who will believe anything. The Reptilian conspiracy theory is like Pizzagate. It’s a story invented by a professional liar who has to keep selling stories to keep getting paid.

American secret societies


America has a number of known secret fraternities like the Skull and Bones club, Bilderberg Group and Bohemian Grove, that include many politicians and leaders of industry. Conspiracy theorists believe these semi-secret organizations control the world or are plotting to.

The truth is, these are just groups of rich people who want to help each other get richer. They have a lot of power since they have a lot of money, but the world is bigger than them. China, India, and other world superpowers undoubtedly have their own little clubs for rich assholes, but none of them control the entire world, and it’s doubtful any of them want to.

All they want is for their businesses to make more money. They’ve undoubtedly done some shady things like fighting unions and environmental regulations and keeping the minimum wage at poverty levels. They probably congratulate themselves for ruling the world, but they don’t, nor do they need to.

The moon landing was faked
NASA faked some pictures and video of astronauts on the moon, but they did it because they didn’t have enough real footage to satisfy the public’s interest. Neil Degrasse Tyson does a better job than I could of explaining why it would be easier to go to the moon than to fake all the footage.

JFK


It’s possible there was more than one shooter involved in the JFK assassination, but nobody knows why JFK got shot. It’s doubtful any more evidence will come to light. So we’re just going to have to accept the fact that we’ll never know the whole truth.

Moon bases


In 2001, I was enlisted in the U.S. Air Force, stationed at Aviano Air Force Base, Italy. There, I met a man who claimed to have met a man whose job was to airbrush details out of government photos before the invention of Photoshop. This person claimed to have airbrushed bases out of pictures taken on the dark side of the moon. This story is proof of nothing, but it sure sounds cool. Frankly, I’d be disappointed in aliens and our government if there aren’t any permanent structures on the moon, but there’s no reason to believe there are until we have any real evidence.

The September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks 


On September 11, 2001, members of the terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, hijacked several commercial airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in a coordinated terrorist attack. Conspiracy theorists claim this was really an inside job, created by the American government as a false flag attack to justify war in the Middle East.

It’s not crazy to believe the American government is capable of this, because they used a false flag attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify starting the Vietnam War. It also drew up plans for Operation Northwoods, in which the CIA would commit a false flag attack on American civilians so the Department of Defense could justify going to war with Cuba. The plan was never enacted, but its real evidence of how low the American Government’s moral standards are. Given that the American government also invented false evidence and lied about its justification to go to war with Iraq, there’s no reason to trust anything the American government says.

Having said that, at best, we have evidence a crime was committed, and the American government had the means and motive to do it, but if the government were put on trial, there wouldn’t be enough evidence to convict them. If anything shady happened on September 11th, we’ll probably never know the whole truth. So we shouldn’t act like we do.

 

HAARP


In 1993, the American military built a ridiculously huge and expensive array of antennas in Alaska called the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, or HAARP. Officially, their primary goal was to see if they could use the atmosphere as a giant radar or communication device. Eventually, the program was shut down and sold to a college. Conspiracy theorists believe the American military was using HAARP to weaponize the weather.

It’s not crazy to believe the American military would try to weaponize the weather. They weaponized dolphins and tried to weaponize psychics. The people running the Department of Defense would weaponize their mothers if they could. The fact that they defunded HAARP and sold the equipment to a college, means they couldn’t find a way to do anything with the atmosphere… for now.

The American government is spying on you


It used to be a joke that people who believe the government is spying on them are tinfoil hat-wearing, paranoid lunatics. In 2013, Edward Snowden, one of the government employees who spied on Americans, leaked conclusive evidence that the government is spying on everyone and constantly trying to get better at it. It’s no longer a conspiracy theory that the American government is spying on you. At this point, it’s crazier to trust the American government than to distrust it.

The Communist agenda


Karl Marx said that Communism must be spread by the sword, because everyone deserves to be free, and if they’re not, it’s a moral imperative to overthrow their oppressors. This was part of America’s justification for going to war with Vietnam and for putting an embargo on Cuba for decades. The more countries that became Communist, the bigger of an alliance they could form. If enough countries got together, they could overthrow America, which again, their mission statement says they’re obligated to do.

Communist aggression is a thing of the past though, and it only ever really existed in the Russian revolution. Once Lenin and Stalin got in power, they ran Russia as a dictatorship and called it Communism, which is the same thing that happened in China, Vietnam, Cuba and every other country that ever called itself Communist. Communism has never actually been tried, and nobody is even attempting to try anymore. “Communist” China is the sweatshop capital of the world. That’s as Capitalist as it gets, and the farthest thing from Communism.

American conservatives will scream about how Communists want to take over America, but most American Communists are the kind of suburban mall rats who would pay $20 for a Che Guevara T-shirt printed in a Chinese sweat shop. They don’t have much of a clue what Communism is or how to implement it. The Communist spirit is dead, and anyone worried about it has had smoke blown up their butt by a fear mongering shock jocks who probably doesn’t know what Communism is either, other than a trigger word that excites conservatives.

The Socialist agenda


Socialism means shared ownership of the means of production. Co-op stores that are owned and operated by their employees are Socialist businesses. If a government takes ownership of a business, like Venezuela has done with its oil industry, that would be Socialist if Hugo Chavez paid every citizen an equal share of the profits.

Taking government control of a business and then putting the profits into the government’s coffers is Nationalizing the business, not Socializing it. If any of that money goes into politicians’ pockets, or to pay for their pet projects, then that would constitute a dictatorship.

“Socialized medicine” like Britain’s National Health System, is a misnomer. It’s Nationalized health care, not Socialized. The people don’t own the hospitals or make a profit from them. They just pay taxes for a service. Getting access to things like roads, schools or welfare, in exchange for paying taxes, isn’t Socialism.

A welfare state isn’t a Socialist state. It’s just a poorly run economy that fails to address the reason people are poor, which is that they’re underpaid by their employers. Socialism would actually fix the problems inherent in a welfare state, which is probably why rich people starting calling welfare, Socialism. This way, employees will demonize the solution to the problem their employers created.

Whenever you hear a conservative scream about the Socialist agenda to take over America and turn it into a welfare state, you’re hearing one economically illiterate fool echoing economically illiterate bullshit he heard a pro-capitalist, fear mongering shock jock say on TV. The only real Socialist agenda you’ll find in America is the Co-op movement, which can and does exist harmoniously with Capitalism.

Obama is a Muslim Socialist and illegal immigrant


If you ever believed Obama was a Muslim, Socialist or illegal immigrant, you need to stop watching whatever TV shows you’ve been watching, because you’ve been duped by a fear mongering shock jocks who will tell you whatever trigger words will get you to keep watching their show.

If Obama were a Muslim or a Socialist, he’s the worst one ever. His illegal wars have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and set the Muslim world back decades. His economic policies were pro-Capitalist. He even went as far as allowing the Occupy Wall Street protests to be illegally and violently shut down.

Obama’s sin is that he was a professional campaigner who worked for rich lobbyists. He’s a Capitalist’s wet dream and millionaire himself. Furthermore, Obamacare wasn’t Socialist. He didn’t give people ownership of health insurance companies. He forced the public to pay private companies for a shitty product. That’s Capitalism operating at its most predatory extreme.

The liberal agenda


Conservative Americans often complain about the “liberal agenda” to destroy America by turning it into a gay-loving, anti-Christian welfare state. If you believe this, you’ve been duped again by fear mongering shock jocks who make meaningless statements to scare viewers into watching more television.

Liberals don’t want to destroy America. It’s crazy that there are actually people who believe legions of faceless liberals are meeting up and conspiring to destroy America for no other reason than, they’re evil. Reread that last sentence, and replace “liberals” with “Jews,” and “America” with “Germany.” People who believe liberals are evil worry me, and the people who keep telling them liberals are a threat to their survival and deserve to be hated, terrify me.

The conservative agenda


The majority of American conservatives get most of their news from Fox News, which claims to be fair and balanced, but is bombastically pro-conservative, pro-Republican, pro-Capitalism and pro-American. It’s equally anti-liberal, anti-Democrat, anti-economic equality, anti-science and anti-immigrants.

Fox’s news segments contain slander, logical fallacies, misdirection, false-flag scares, emotional hype, misdirection and lies. This doesn’t happen because Fox is full of amateur journalists. Bullshit is the product Fox sells, and it has bullshit broken down to a science.

Fox news is so consistent in its agenda and dishonesty, it looks like there’ s a conspiracy among its leaders to create a civil war between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. It makes you wonder what’s really going on, and what’s the mastermind’s end game? The truth is easy to deduce if you look at the history of its founders Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

Rupert Murdoch was born in Australia in 1931. He inherited a fortune from his father and spent the 1950’s and 60’s buying up tabloid newspapers in Australia, which he consolidated under a parent company, News Corp. In the early 70’s, he bought up the major tabloids in Britain and the United States, adding them to News Corp. roster of sensationalist, fake news magazines. News Corp. was convicted of criminal charges for corruption, hacking and stealing in all three countries.

Roger Ailes was born in America in 1940. He started as a production assistant at a local news station in Ohio, where he was promoted several times, earning him the credentials to produce a daytime television talk show. In 1968, Ailes became a professional political campaign manager. He managed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns, and he advised George H. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

So Fox News was founded by an international tabloid kingpin, who sells lies for a living, and the public relations manager of the Republican Party. When you put them together, you get sensationalist Republican propaganda with the journalistic integrity of a tabloid.

Basically, these two men pulled off a plan to create a television network that indoctrinates its viewers into basing their identity and beliefs on the Republican Party’s political agenda. This is corruption and treason at the highest level. It created a fake culture war that real people have died in. It’s driving the country to the brink of civil war. It orchestrated the launch of the longest war in America’s history. It’s the source of the war on science, which could destroy humanity. And it got Donald Trump elected president.

Why the hell would two men do that? Are they trying to destroy the world? No. They’re just businessmen doing what they do. Rupert Murdoch wanted to sell newspapers and TV shows, and Roger Ailes wanted to produce TV shows. By teaming up with the Republican Party, Murdoch and Ailes got loyal customers, and the Republican Party got loyal voters. They all got a lot richer, and that’s what it’s all about.
Chemtrails


Some conspiracy theorists believe the government is putting chemicals into airplanes and crop dusting the world in an attempt to kill civilians or make them stupid. There’s no evidence of it, and worrying about it wastes time you could be worrying about all the poisonous chemicals that are in practically every product you buy at your local grocery store. Even those are only part of a conspiracy to sell the cheapest product at the highest price to make the companies selling them richer.

Fluoride


Governments have been putting fluoride in drinking water for decades to help strengthen people’s teeth. While fluoride is good for your teeth, consuming it will harm your brain and make you stupid. Guards at Soviet gulags intentionally put fluoride in the water to make the prisoners less sharp and more docile.

Are American politicians putting fluoride in drinking water to make the population stupid or because they’re stupid? This is one of those conspiracy theories that is probably best solved using Hanlon’s Razor, which states, “Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.”

You shouldn’t drink tap water anyway. Every piece of equipment involved in getting that water to your house was built by the lowest bidder. It contains toxins from a hundred different sources, due to a hundred different people’s bad decisions.

The War on Drugs isn’t about drugs. It’s a war on people.


There’s a popular rumor, especially in the African-American community, that the government introduced hard drugs into the ghetto and set high prison sentences for drug users as a way to oppress the black community.

John Ehrlichman, a former aide to Richard Nixon, confirmed this when he confessed, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The war on drugs has always been a war on people. If it’s a war on African Americans specifically, the perpetrators have an unlimited tolerance for collateral damage. The War on Drugs causes suffering to people of every color, and it had done as much harm to Colombia as it has to Chicago. Even if African Americans were singled out, it wasn’t because of the color of their skin. If the majority of African Americans were die-hard Republicans who supported Nixon’s agendas, he would have pandered to them instead of attacking them.

The war on drugs may have been invented by racists, but Barack Obama had 8 years to end it. He held that torch tight and passed it dutifully. The only reason he did, was because he accepted campaign donations and promises from war dogs, many of whom were children in 1971, when Nixon basically used a false flag attack to declare war on Democrats and liberals. At this point, the war on drugs is just a pork barrel project that got too fat to kill. That’s as deep as the conspiracy goes.

Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster and other local legends
Scientists discover new species every year. It’s possible we’ll find an unbelievably large stealthy creature, but until we capture one, there’s no reason to say they exist. That’s how sanity works.

The Holocaust never happened


Some conspiracy theorists believe the Holocaust never happened, and the story was invented by Jews to help justify invading Palestine and creating the modern nation of Israel. Much like faking the moon landing, it would be easier to kill 6 million people than to create a fake story which nobody involved ever leaked the truth about.

We already have cures for most diseases
Some conspiracy theorists believe the shadow government that rules the world already has the cure for AIDS, cancer and most other diseases. There’s no need to bring shadow governments into this. We know for a fact drug companies are withholding medicine, or at least over-pricing them, to force people to keep buying their product. That’s how Capitalism works.

Every business owner decides independently to do whatever it takes to sell their product to as many people as possible, as often as possible, for as much profit as possible. So, yes. There is a conspiracy to withhold medicine, but there’s no central mastermind behind it. There’s just a bunch of rich sociopaths like Martin Shkreli, who have no problem screwing the poor and sick to make a lot of money.

This concept also applies to the conspiracy theory that the government is suppressing technology that would give us unlimited energy so that we remain dependent on oil. I’m sure big oil companies have covered up new technologies. They’ve lobbied heavily against solar and wind power. The politicians they make campaign contributions to have colluded to help them keep the world dependent on their product, but that’s not unique to the fossil fuel industry. Every industry bribes politicians to give them an advantage over their competition. Politicians aren’t colluding in this because it’s all part of their master plan. It’s just that their priorities are up for public auction.

The war on Islam


America has been waging war in the Middle East for decades, and it often kills with disregard for collateral damage. This has led many Muslims to the conclusion America is at war with Islam. Muslim terrorist cults like Al-Queda and ISIS help spread this rumor to recruit gullible, poor, ignorant, disenfranchised young people.

It’s ironic that some American conservatives believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, since he’s responsible for the deaths of enough Muslims to convince the Islamic world that America is at war with their religion. Obama isn’t a Muslim, and the American military isn’t waging a holy war. America just has an industrial war complex that’s wagging the dog.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin can’t sell more weapons to the government if America’s not at war. The Middle East is the most convenient place to wage perpetual war since it’s full of weak, unlikable political leaders and radical sectarian death cults, who nobody minds getting shot. The fact that they’re Muslim is irrelevant to the weapons industry. They’d declare war on mothers and say it’s for freedom if it would convince the American government to buy more bullets.

America is an aggressive empire bent on world domination

Americans don’t think of their country as an evil empire, but there is a popular belief in many countries that America is an empire bent on world domination. As proof, they point to the fact that America toppled their government by force or by subterfuge, took their natural resources and outsourced sweatshops to their country.

Technically, America behaves like an evil empire, but what is America? Who is making all the evil decisions, and why? There is no evil genius or central committee. Remember, American politics is an auction house. America’s actions are for sale to the highest bidder. That doesn’t mean the richest person controls it. That means every rich person in the world can pay to play America like a video game. America is controlled by a bunch of monkeys paying to slap the country’s steering wheel. All these monkeys want the same thing: money.

America could do a much better job of taking over the world by military force if its government was well organized and focused. But there is no focus. The American military is a headless robot being taken on a joy ride by a line of rich guys. Those guys aren’t trying to take over the world. They just want to make the world more friendly to their profit margin. Their company is the empire they’re building. If America looks like an empire, it’s because there are a bunch of imperial companies wearing America like a glove.
Tools of the global elite

The World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are international organizations ostensibly devoted to economic prosperity. In reality, they cripple third world countries with tariffs, loans and bureaucracy. Technically, this constitutes a global conspiracy to control the world. However, there’s no evil genius at the top of the pyramid twirling his mustache. There’s just a gang of rich countries holding down poor countries, which is how the world has always worked.

Zionism


In order to understand Zionism, you need to know a little Jewish history. Thousands of years ago, the nation of Israel was conquered by Assyria, Babylonia and Rome, in that order. Each time the Jews were exiled, they picked themselves up by the bootstraps, got organized and retook their homeland.

Rome sent the Jews into exile around 70AD, and they lived in immigrant communities around the world until the 19th century, when a bunch of Jews got together and decided they were going to re-establish a Jewish state. They called the dream of returning to their homeland and reestablishing a Jewish state, Zionism.

The goal of Zionism was accomplished in 1948, when the well-organized Zionists gathered millions of dollars in donations from other Jews around the world, created an army and lobbied the world’s super powers to recognize the new Jewish government and not defend Palestine when Israel invaded the country, toppled the old government, committed ethnic cleansing on the Palestinian population and put the survivors in concentration camps.

Some anti-Semites believe that was really just the first step of Zionism, and the real goal is total world domination. That sounds sinister and unbelievable until you realize that every country wants to rule the world. However, most ordinary citizens just want to survive and take care of their family.

In every country, there are people want to build an empire, and there are those who don’t. Israel can’t even figure out a final solution to the Palestinian problem. Israel is never going to take over the world, and I’m sure most Jews know this, if they ever even thought about it at all. At this point, America is the world’s superpower, and Israel is one of America’s allies. So they got the next best thing. I believe most Jews are content with this.

The Jews run Hollywood


Many people have noticed there are a lot of Jewish names in Hollywood movie credits, which has led some to jump to the conclusion the Jews run Hollywood and are using movies to brainwash the world. There may be a lot of Jews in Hollywood, but that probably only means there’s a conspiracy among Jews to enter profitable industries, which is what everyone in the world wants. Judging by the low quality of movies coming out of Hollywood, I’d say the only conspiracy among them is to make cheap products that appeal to gullible consumers with low intellectual standards, which is what every business owner in the world wants.

Antisemitism


Some Jewish conspiracy theorists believe there’s a worldwide movement to oppress the Jews, and anyone who criticizes any Jew or the Israeli government is prejudice. The reality is, everyone is a little racist, but most people are too busy worrying about themselves to worry about other groups. Jews may be disappointed to learn how little anyone really thinks about them.

There are a lot of religions and ethnic groups around the world who have victim complexes and pull the prejudice card so often it never gets put back in the deck. Sometimes they really are being victimized, like when Nazis put Jews in concentration camps, but sometimes ethnic groups play the victim card to deflect valid criticisms.

For example, I’ve liked every Jew I’ve ever met, but I don’t like the fact that the Jewish government in Israel is putting Palestinians in concentration camps. That’s not me be being anti-Semitic. That’s me pointing out a cut-and-dry violation of the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights. If there’s a conspiracy here, it’s not that anti-Semitism is epidemic, it’s that political spin, bullshit excuses and lack of accountability are epidemic.
.
Basic training is brainwashing


At some point in your life, someone has told you basic training is brainwashing. If you’ve never read a book on brainwashing or been through basic training, you probably thought to yourself, “I guess I could see how that kind of makes sense.” Then you never really thought about it again. If you did go through basic training, and someone told you it’s brainwashing, you probably told them they’re an idiot.

Most civilians and veterans haven’t read any books on brainwashing. Since neither side knows what brainwashing is, neither can prove their case, even if they’ve been through basic training. The only way to settle this argument is to go through basic training and take a checklist of brainwashing techniques with you. Then see if you find any of the red flags and check them off the list.

If you do that, you’ll check off every single criterion. Basic training is the perfection of brainwashing. To make matters creepier, if you take a checklist of a cult and walk around a military base looking for its red flags, you’ll check off every criterion on that list as well.

Basic training is the indoctrination process of a tax payer-funded death cult. This isn’t an opinion or a theory. Basic training literally fits the definition of brainwashing, and the military’s behaviors fit the definition of a cult. This fact isn’t controversial due to lack of evidence. It’s controversial because it civilians can’t accept they’re funding a death cult that commits human right violations on their heroes, and military members can’t accept it for the same reasons Scientologists can’t admit they belong to a cult.

Global warming and the war on science


Lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry legally bribed Republican politicians to repeal environmental protection laws, because they made producing energy more expensive and thus less profitable. But those politicians couldn’t legalize pollution, because that would look evil, and they would lose voters.

The most important thing in the world to a professional campaigner is their image. So they called up the guy they pay to manage their image, Roger Ailes and told him they need their voters to oppose environmental protection laws. Ailes told his business partner, Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News. They used all Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid tricks to convince half of America to believe in a strawman argument about climate change so they’d support Republicans passing laws that help fossil fuel companies make more money by not having to spend it cleaning and reducing the pollution they create.

We shouldn’t even be arguing about climate change. The term was invented by employees of Murdoch and Ailes to trick people into not saying “global warming,” because “climate change” doesn’t sound deadly. But even “global warming” is a distraction from the real issue, which is pollution.

Pollution is poison. The more poison there is in the environment, the more things will die from it. The less poison there is, the fewer things will die from it. That’s true regardless of whether or not climate change is real, and there’s too much poison in our environment already.

If you liked this post, you may like these: 


This Was Your Life: Two Social Justice Warriors

This is the 30th episode in an ongoing series in which Loki and his supernatural friends taunt the recently deceased at the gate to the afterlife.  

sjw small

See who else Loki and his friends have taunted:


%d bloggers like this: