09 November 2019

Martin Goldberg on Porn

Because I'm not bored as hell by the topic of porn just yet, here's the first of two videos from Martin Goldberg, Mr. Economic Invincibility himself. This one deals with porn directly. Here he presents a rational, balanced perspective and actually brings up one of the few good points on the subject, that porn can be an excuse for some men to not take risks with women.

He also brings up what he admits is a weaker argument, that porn may be better than anything you can expect in real life.

Now, I don't usually speak from experience, because I tend to lean on the more theoretical side, but given the subject and the wonder and mystery any potential readers may have, from what I've seen in my day, I honestly never thought the chicks in porn videos looked all that great (and the amateurs are just that, regular off the street people who you do see every day, if you run in those circles of chicks who have lots of tattoos and daddy issues). Furthermore, speaking, as it were, about what people seem to be referring to almost exclusively, of the whole dick entering various parts of a woman type videos, it always seemed laughably stupid and awkward to me, like the stupidest possible ways of having sex just to make sure everything is on camera. That just never did anything for me.

Also, and he doesn't bring it up in the video but other people have brought it up, the whole serial escalation argument. You first see a picture of a tit, then you get bored of tits (as if that was even possible) so now you have to start watching like finger bang videos, then get bored of that and you have to start watching bukkake, then you get bored of that and have to start watching real videos of real life rape, and then you're bored of that and have to go out and commit rape yourself, then it escalates even further and all of a sudden you're Jeffrey Dahmer. All I have to say is fuck off, escalation. You can smoke a whole forest of weed and never have the desire to go to crack, and then from crack to meth, and then from meth you're hanging yourself in your closet like Robin Williams. Escalation is bullshit, weed is not a gateway drug, and Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

07 November 2019

The Cult of Anti-Porn

It's November, so now I have to watch all the quasi-religious freaks try to look special by denouncing porn.

Let me start out by saying that this has nothing to do with my or your opinion of porn, this is just how utterly creepy the anti-porn people are and how they all say the exact same thing, like none of them have ever had an original thought.

I've been writing The Urban Mystic since February 2006, 13 years, and have never once talked about porn, that I know of. It just never crossed my mind. I never saw it as anything compelling to write about. But what I have written about a lot is cults, and these anti-porn male feminists are a cult, and just like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnessism, Islam, Neo-Nazism, "We Wuz Kangz", they're all fucking insane.

And let me just expand on that last bit, while I have explained before in great detail why Mormonism is a cult, and is decidedly anti-Christian, and is demonstrably false, I still think that most Mormons are good people, which is something that I cannot say about other cults. Even though Mormonism is a cult, and most Mormons are crazy and wrong, it is a cult that by and large makes people more friendly.

So, after almost a decade and a half, here is a very, very brief introduction on the cult of anti-porn.

The anti-porn people miss the fundamental reality that they are confusing cause and effect.

Porn is not a cause, porn is an effect.

The cause is feminism destroying healthy relationships between men and women. I'll get into that in more detail later in the month, but for now just run with it and see where it leads.

Without a woman with which to fulfill his biological imperative, a man is going to execute that base level programming alone. Plain and simple. Unless you're one of those 1 in a million who is able to become a monk and sublimate sexual energy, you absolutely will not and cannot (and should not) overrule three billion years of evolutionary hardwiring.

It's not some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people. White people are the army that keeps Jews from being exterminated, it profits them not to eliminate their defenders when half the world's Jews won't even touch a gun. That's the problem I have with the Neo-Nazis who try to say everything bad that exists is the deliberate action of the Jews to exterminate white people, is that it's self-contradictory. If the Jews, who supposedly run the world, are so smart to create this global conspiracy to wipe out whites and replace them with blacks and Arabs, then surely those same Jews would be smart enough to realize that blacks and Arabs would do what they've always done, which is turn Jews into third-class dhimmi serfs should white people stop defending their Jewish overlords. Any Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people would really be cutting off their rather prominent noses to spite their face. It makes no sense.

Most porn today is actually produced by amateurs, people who are exhibitionists, but even the corporate stuff is war profiteering. A gulf exists between men and women that was created by anti-male laws and social customs that have been created over the past 50 years, and pornographers are just taking advantage of that situation. Just as someone selling toilet paper for a million dollars a sheet in Venezuela didn't create the shitty economy in the country, the pornographers didn't create the anti-male climate we are living in, they are just taking advantage of it.

Eliminate feminism and porn vanishes all on its own as the market naturally dries up.

The anti-porn people also are hypocrites, in that they focus exclusively on getting men to stop using porn and don't give a toss about the billions of dollars women spend each year on porn. The most profitable franchise of the past decade has been a pornographic rape fantasy for women. But the anti-porn people be like "Women can hump pillows all they want as long as men don't let one single sperm come in contact with the air!" They are holding men and women to different standards.

They also think that 100% of all porn contains dicks. They think 100% of all porn is videos of men fucking women, with dicks front and center. Wasn't it just last year, or maybe even earlier this year, where the most common search results of major porn sites was released for every state? What did those results reveal? First of all, that women watch porn too, and second, that the number one search for both men and women in all 50 states was "lesbian". Most people watch porn that has no men in it, therefore the whole argument that you're cucking yourself for watching porn goes out the window if you're only looking at women.

Is Playboy not porn? Is pictures of naked women not porn? Are cam girls stripping and masturbating for money and attention not porn? The anti-porn people seem to have a paraphilia for videos of dicks, so much so that they hallucinate the existence of dicks where dicks do not exist. Either that or they are really afraid of their own latent homoerotic desires.

The anti-porn people are young, impressionable, dick-obsessed, male feminists who are living in a utopian delusion who seek to score with women and gain status among men by showing off how they manifest superpowers while calling other men out as being lesser beings in a quasi-moralistic crusade that is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.

06 November 2019

The Non-Problem of Porn

It's November, so the anti-porn cultists are coming out of their basements, with those disgusting, stained mattresses they live on because of all the nocturnal emissions they have from never getting it off, and they have to bray in the streets about how they stopped nutting for fifteen hours and have now become motherfucking immortal and can now see through time and fly.

Here is the only honest video on the subject ever created, not surprisingly by Styx.

17 October 2019

A Very Brief Introduction to Political Groups

We hear a lot about the "political spectrum" and different groups like the alt-right, Antifa, and good old fashioned conservatives and liberals, but what does all that really mean, really? Using a decade and a half of first-hand experience in "the biz" I break it all down for you in the most urban way possible.

Mainstream Republicans want to bend over before leftists and accept the throbbing cock of defeat in order to look like nice people. Love me, Daddy.

Conservatives want you to die in the gutter for not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps while they smoke cigars on a golf course and drive around in gas guzzling cars to show off how much money they can waste.

Liberals want you to live in the gutter in a deluxe cardboard box with free heroin and designated shitting streets while they party on Epstein's rape island.

LOLbertarians want the same thing as liberals but with legal weed and naked fat guy dancers.

AnCaps (sometimes called "libertarians") want you to die, but not in the gutter because that's private property. Fuck you.

AnComs (sometimes called "Antifa") want to throw piss bottles at you and LARP at being revolutionaries but will scatter to the winds if you fight back.

White (German) Supremeists (sometimes called "black pill") don't care what you do, but they want all white people to move to Montana and secede from the United States to make white people even more powerless and irrelevant because they're fucking retarded. They worship Adolf Hitler, who murdered more white people than anyone else in history. They also what to replace Christianity with either German paganism or state atheism.

Black Supremeists want to turn America into Detroit and make white people pay reparations and become slaves because "We wuz kangz and shiet!"

"Democratic" Socialists want free shit provided for by printing money because they're all trust fund babies who don't know how economics works.They also think the Nordic countries are socialist because they can't tell the difference between socialism and hyper-capitalism coupled with a welfare state.

Progressives have NO endgame. They constantly move the goalposts because they need a reason to be offended all the time.

13 October 2019

Donald Trump is the Greatest President in 50 Years

Donald Trump is not only the best president since JFK, he's the only good president since JFK. This is just a preview of a longer piece to come called "All The Presidents' Sins", but here's a very brief rundown of how the nine presidents since Kennedy were all worthless scumbags who did everything in their power to destroy America. Virtually everything good in the past five decades happened in spite of the nine bad presidents we've been forced to endure, not because of them.

Lyndon Johnson stonewalled every civil rights initiative while he was in the Senate because he was a virulent racist, then when he became president championed those causes to trick blacks into voting for Democrats.

Richard Nixon was great for the environment but he gave formal recognition to Mao's China, the most brutal regime in the history of the planet.

Gerald Ford did jack shit. You could replace him with a turnip and have the same effect.

Jimmy Carter, to his credit, put solar panels on the White House, but he was weak and feckless and allowed the Iranians to hold Americans hostage for 444 days.

Ronald Reagan, the darling of the right, was okay at best. He flooded California with illegals, giving the left 55 guaranteed electoral votes in every subsequent election.

Bush 1 was a warmongering piece of shit who flooded the US with coke when he was the head of the CIA, creating the crack epidemic while waging proxy wars of terrorism in Latin America.

Bill Clinton admitted Communist China to the World Trade Organization and sold our industrial capacity to the Chinazis, destroying the middle class for 2 decades and started more foreign wars than any two presidents combined.

Bush 2 is another warmongering shitbag like his father, who got us entangled in a forever war in Iraq and Afghanistan when he had the chance to kill Bin Laden in December 2001 and end the war and decided to let the terror leader go free.

Obama literally spent more money than the previous 43 presidents combined and did everything in his power to destroy race relations in America. His Supreme Court handed down more unconstitutional decisions than any other in history.

07 September 2019

Was Thanos Right?

If you look at history you start to get the "evil" idea that Thanos was right. Every time the population is halved, or at least a significant part of it is eliminated, the standard of living of the survivors increases.

The Black Death (which was not bubonic plague, it was a hemorrhagic disease, which plague is not*) turned Europe from a continent where lords owned the people as slaves to one where workers had the power to demand improved standards of living and allowed for the creation, for the first time ever, of a middle class. Social mobility was created. Had millions of people not died and the social order of the world not been overturned those opportunities would never have arisen.

After 100 million people died in the Second World War America, as the only industrial nation that was not destroyed, saw the greatest boom economy in human history. For the first time ever a man with no education, no training, and no connections could demand, and get, a job that could support a wife, three kids, two cars, a house, a month of vacation, and retire in 30 years and live off a full pension. It was the first time ever that young adults could venture off on their own and not have to live in multi-generational families just to make ends meet (something still tragically seen as normal in our crippled economy). Had millions of people not died and nations not bombed to oblivion that opportunity would have never arisen.

Even in the Soviet Union, with that man-made catastrophe rent by Stalin that saw the murder of 20 million people, actually dramatically improved the lives of the survivors. An entire nation of peasant slaves was turned into an industrial super power with a standard of living half that of the United States in only 70 years. The survivors did have their lives improved. That would never have happened under the Tsar where everyone lived as chattel in an agrarian shithole.

History seems to attest to the fact that there really is a finite amount of resources, and if you eliminate half the people everyone not only gets double the share, but those double shares are worth even more.

"But why not just double the resources?"

Because things that are not earned have no value. Low IQ people take resources given to them by guilty Westerners and use those resources to quadruple their populations. Doubling the resources just exacerbates the problem by incentivizing bad behavior.

Everyone wanted silver, which was rare and highly valued. Wars were waged over silver. But when Spain discovered Potosi, the largest silver deposits in the world, and the supply of silver increased dramatically, all of a sudden silver became worthless because everyone had it and the Spanish economy collapsed.

Everyone wants to be a trillionaire, but when Zimbabwe made everyone a trillionaire the money became worthless. If everyone has a trillion dollars then no one will work, no one will pave roads, or build houses, or bake bread, or raise chickens. Why work when you're rich? But then, since no one is working, all those ordinary goods become extremely valuable and money becomes worthless.

Increasing the supply of a given resource devalues it. Increasing the supply of food, for example, would cause the excess food to rot and be wasted, or would incentivize people to have more kids who would demand more food, which would require resources to be doubled again to meet the new demand.

Any perceived increase in standard of living brought on by increasing resources is an illusion predicated on credit. Extraction of ground water and phosphate have allowed for an increase of food production which has allowed 6 billion extra people to be born in excess of the carrying capacity of the planet. The problem is ground water and phosphate take thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years to become replenished. Meanwhile they are exhausted in generations. Saudi Arabia totally depleted its ground water supply in a couple decades. There are places in America where the ground has subsided 70 feet or more because of the extraction of aquifers that took millennia to fill up. Whole "guano islands" were mined below the waves to extract phosphate for fertilizer and for making explosives and have been depleted in the past century.

It's a simple calculus: extraction of these resources allows for the increase of the population because most people have no concept of a future beyond their own death (or maybe the deaths of their children), an increase in population leads to an escalating pace of resource extraction beyond the point where those resources are being replenished, which leads to a population crash.

Now, it's true that places like Japan and Europe, especially Eastern Europe, have seen declining populations, but Africa's population is exploding. Within the next 50 years 1 in 3 people on the planet will be African if this trend continues. Sustainable agriculture can only support 2 billion people, and there will be at least 4 billion Africans who will not work, who will not invent new particle physics, who will not build rockets to colonize Mars. 4 billion more mouths to be fed by an increasingly smaller pool of Western workers who are being replaced in their home countries.

The long-term survival of the human species requires colonization of other planets. That cannot happen if dumb Westerners keep giving aid to countries in Africa and across the third world where people breed like crazy. There is a finite supply of resources, and those resources must be apportioned toward advancing the survival of the human species over the long-term, not increasing the population dramatically in the here and now.

The long-term survival of the human species requires the immediate end of foreign aid across the board.

“But wouldn't the population just grow back if half of it is eliminated?”

No, not if you eliminate the half that breeds beyond the replacement level.

You're committing the fallacy of assuming humans are fungible, like bacteria. If you eliminate half of a colony of bacteria the colony will just continue to grow until all the resources are consumed. If you double the resources for the colony to grow on the colony will continue to grow until all the resources are consumed. v If you double the resources on Earth some humans will continue to breed until all the resources are consumed. If you remove the half that is breeding beyond replacement level then those resources can be recycled, as they always have been.

Resources are recycled. There are water cycles, phosphate cycles, nitrogen cycles, carbon cycles. Humans use resources, die, and the dead bodies decompose and return the elements to the Earth to be reused. If population is kept stable, at the carrying capacity, then resources can be recycled endlessly. The world will not become overrun with Japanese people, ever. Japanese people are not exhausting resources to fuel their bottomless thirst for expansion, like in China or Saudi Arabia, or Chad. If the wasteful half is eliminated, or simply not allowed to expand, then the stable, sustainable half can reuse the world's resources endlessly until the Sun dies.

*The disease that killed most of the people in the Americas when the Spanish arrived is called "Cocoliztli". It has the same symptoms as the Black Death: high fever, profuse bleeding, large dark spots - especially around the neck and genitals, bloody diarrhea, bloody vomiting, severe body pains, delusions, discoloration and necrosis of the skin. Death was usually in 3-5 days after onset of symptoms, an extremely short amount of time. We don't know the incubation/latency period is, there are very few diseases that kill that quickly. People with Ebola usually linger for 21 days or so. Cholera can kill quicker, but that's from fluid loss.

Coupled with the fact that the disease is spread primarily from person to person, and was devastating in areas that were virtually rodent free while sparing other areas that were teaming with rats, indicates that some unknown viral hemorrhagic fever was the worst killer of humans of all time. It wiped out 75% of Eurasia and 90% of North and South America. We are all the survivors of some extremely virulent disease that nearly brought humanity to extinction within a span of 300 years.

02 September 2019

Nothing Happened Before the Big Bang, Inflation Is Not Past Eternal, And All Systems of Knowledge Are Incomplete

There's been a recent push to change the definition of "big bang", just as with changing the definition of countless other words to suit the will of dialectical materialism. This past month I've come across a new video† by a very popular youtube channel and an article on a popular website talk about "what happened before the big bang" and "why the big bang wasn't the start of everything".

Just as "nothing" no longer means absolutely nothing, it means "the ground state of the quantum vacuum", now the "big bang" isn't what it always has meant, when time, space, matter, and energy all came into existence from absolutely nothing, now it means "inflation", which happened 10^-32 seconds AFTER what was previously defined as the big bang. This is a devious little reach around to claim that "stuff happened before the big bang", just like calling "the ground state of the quantum vacuum" "nothing" allows you to say that ""science" (dialectical materialism) can explain how the universe was created from nothing without God."

Eternal inflation, the idea that the inflation that sped up the expansion of the early universe didnt' stop, it still continues in other regions of space beyond our cosmic horizon, spawning new bubble universes forever, was the first to go. Some thought inflation was eternal into the past too, but in 2003 Vilenkin and Alan Guth ran the calculations on Hubble's Constant and found that it doesn't work. Inflation may continue forever into the future, but it had to have a beginning in the past.

Next came the big bounce, the idea that after a long time, a trillion years or so, expansion slows and stops, eventually reversing until everything flys back into a single point called the Big Crunch. Then the shock of impact of everything on everything starts a new Big Bang, and the cycle continues forever. Unfortunately, disorder increases with time, so each new universe must be more disordered than the one that birthed it. If the cycle had been going on forever disorder would be infinite and the universe would be completely featureless. Since there's stuff in the universe the cycles couldn't have gone on forever. Some people then suggested that the universe just gets bigger with each bounce, so the disorder spreads out more so no one notices it (like in the M-Brane ekpyrotic model and possibly whatever the hell Penrose's new idea is - no one seems to understand his Aeons of time model, within the physics community or anywhere). But if the whole thing is getting bigger it had to start somewhere really really small, maximally small, and that means a finite beginning.

There's also an idea from the 1930s called the cosmic egg or primeval atom, where yes, there was a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, but the thing that banged was an uber-dense subatomic thing that existed forever until it got tired of existing as a tiny little particle and exploded. However, Vilenkin and a graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that quantum instability would have led to the egg's collapse after a finite time. The crack (the Big Bang) had to happen before the egg collapsed into oblivion so it couldn't have existed forever, even if it existed for a really, really long time before the Big Bang.

Here are several prior pieces I've written on why inflation cannot be past eternal:

Balking Hawking Part 1
Balking Hawking Part 2
Georg Cantor's Infinities (Part Two)
Balking Someone
Balking Hawking Part 3: In The Beginning

Make no mistake, when people say "science says" they mean "dialectical materialism says". Science does not say anything, science does not prove anything, individual scientists may say things, but science is not a catalogue of facts, science is a process.

I've made a video many years ago back when I used to make videos called "First Principle Anecdota"* that everything you know, and every conceivable system for attaining knowledge (that is, all forms of epistemology) necessarily relies on what are called "axioms" or "first principles", which are assumptions which must be taken as given but can never be proven true. At its base you can NEVER know anything about the world with absolute certainty. Everything must be based on things which you assume to be true but can never prove. Based on those assumptions you can create a system to demonstrate facts with arbitrary certainty, but the certainty of those facts is always arbitrary and is based entirely on your assumptions.

I've probably talked to hundreds of people about this and no one seems to get it. Not the "praise science" crowd who believe in dialectical materialism. It's like people can get arbitrarily smart, but their smartness is always asymptotic to the level of intelligence needed to realize that all knowledge is built upon unprovable assumptions.

Ordinary people, who are just smart enough to be dangerous, are easy to trick by these linguistic gymnastics like redefining words. You redefine "big bang" and "nothing" and get disaffected teenagers into becoming atheists. That's how they get you. Meanwhile the geniuses (technically the plural is genii), the real hard-nosed intellectual atheists who really look into the subjects like Anthony Flew, turn to belief in God because they realize that the universe and life are far too complex to be explainable by any series of coincidences.

I said a few years ago, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, "How do you change a cow into a horse? You redefine the word "horse" to include cows."

That's really what we've been seeing this past decade go into overdrive as the Fabian socialists who run the West have taken to redefining words as a form of mind control and behavior modification.

*By the way, my videos tend to have very specific titles, and if you search that in quotes mine will appear as the first result. I know Google has algoreithms that skew results to be more in line with previous searches, but I've never searched for that video before, so it's as close to neutral as you can get.

†That video that claimed inflation is the big bang is predicated on a lie. Most people do not watch videos to the end, and at the very end they admitted that inflation does not explain the initial state of the universe (what has always been referred to as the big bang). The video admitted at the very end that everything was a lie knowing almost no one will watch to the end.

This is just like how the New York Times will deliberately publish articles with provocative titles and then in paragraph 6 they will give the truth knowing no one will read that far into the article. An article may be titled "Trump Hates Brown People" and the article may have nothing to do with Trump except at the very end there might be a quote from some race baiter which says "Ralph Sharpman said in interview that "Trump hates brown people."" The NYT will run with that quote, and put it in quotations, but not tell you it's a quote from someone else or tell you the article is about Ralph Sharpman until the very end.

This is how they can technically not be lying outright but still be lying by saying something true in a misleading way. It's lying because it omits the context of the original statement.

24 August 2019

Invasion of the Puss-Covered Kudzu

I saw the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers last night. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

"It initially received varied reviews from critics, though its critical reception has significantly improved in subsequent years, receiving a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, and also being hailed as one of the greatest remakes ever as well as one of the best science-fiction horror films of all time."

Here's what I have to say:

It's shit. Absolute total shit. Despite having at least 3 A-listers on board, it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was worse than some school plays I've seen, with some of the top actors of all time phoning in some of the absolute worst performances in the entire history of cinema.

Absolutely zero money was spent on wardrobe, as everyone wore the exact same outfit (as if they were me) over the course of about a week, with at least two or maybe three of the characters wearing the exact same coat, as if they were on sale at K Mart or something at the time.

The last third of the movie was shot in near total darkness from some of the worst angles I have ever seen. The sound quality was shit, the dialogue was shit, the effects were sub-par for movies made during that era, and there's a scene where a dog with a man's face appears out of butt fuck nowhere, for no other reason than to scare the humans and out them in front of the aliens, and then disappears with no explanation and is never spoken of again.

Now the two worst aspects. First, the movie breaks its own rules. When you have a movie where something impossible happens, like alien plants invade and duplicate people or zombies come back to life, you have to establish the rules early on and stick with them to the very end. It's already been established two things: 1. the aliens just float in from space and 2. it takes hours for a person to be duplicated. If we take 1 at face value then why do the aliens need to establish a base in San Francisco and then have pods trucked out to everywhere else? Couldn't they just waft in anywhere and everywhere on the planet simultaneously? This does not make sense. This is a major plot hole. The other major plot hole is 2, it takes hours for a person to be duplicated. For 3/4 of the movie this is a major plot point, because three times people have fallen asleep and we watch the pod grow a duplicate very slowly, slow enough that the person can be woken up and the duplicate will die. Yet somehow, for "drama" or lack of time or whatever, near the very end when Brooke Adams' character falls asleep for like a second, despite there being no pods in the vicinity, she crumbles to dust and a new perfectly formed duplicate appears naked in the bushes instantly to scare Donald Sutherland. This is the second major plot hole, and taken together they absolutely ruin this movie.

And the second worst aspect is the script. This is some of the absolute worst writing I have ever seen. Okay, so we begin the movie, the beginning, the very beginning, where the aliens invade. Maybe two characters are very partially introduced, and then in the next scene hundreds of people have already been replaced. It's like the whole first act was cut out. Brooke Adams (I don't remember any of the characters names except Donald Sutherland was Matthew because they said his name seven, eight thousand times) goes to Donald Sutherland and says "My boyfriend has been replaced, his personality is totally different!" Let's not introduce the character and spend 20 minutes getting to know him so we the audience can be sure he's different, let's introduce him out of nowhere already replaced and just take it as given he's different. The same thing happens with everyone. Characters are not introduced until after they are replaced and we're supposed to take as given that they are different. There's zero chance of getting into the movie because the entire first third, where the world and the characters are introduced, was omitted for whatever reason. It wasn't run time, because the movie was almost 2 hours long and they had time enough to repeat several plot points three times, just so we would get it.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978 shouldn't have been released to theaters, it shouldn't even even have been released straight to video, it should have been released straight into the garbage.

10 August 2019

Let's Go Die at Area 51!

Some two million idiots have pledged to "Storm Area 51" because "They can't stop all of us." These idiots think they can run to the base, confident in the belief that the base's defenders will run out of bullets (and napalm) before all their ranks are devastated.

Storming Area 51 is a logistics nightmare. Even reaching it is something that's very difficult, and almost impossible on foot. The nearest civilian rest stop is 86 miles from the base. Even running at 200% capacity it may be able to supply a couple thousand people. As for Area 51 itself, the distance from the gate to the buildings themselves is 28 miles of some of the harshest desert on the planet. You would have to be in peak physical condition (and not the people who signed up to storm the base) just to make it there on foot. The world record for marathon, which is less than the distance that needs to be crossed than the perimeter around Area 51, is just over 2 hours. Imagine doing that in 110 degree heat on blinding white salt flats with no shade. The elements themselves will defeat 90% of the people attempting this stunt, and, given the lack of medical facilities in the area, several thousand will probably die from heat stroke even just camping out in the desert.

Assuming even 10% of the people stupid enough to go manage to cross the desert, Area 51 sits on a US Air Force base. The Air Force has napalm, and they're not afraid to use it, at least in built-up civilian areas in Iraq.

This is Napalm. Water cannot put it out. Yes, they can stop all of you.

Napalm aside, those signs all over the desert warning of the use of lethal force are not jokes. People have been shot, to death, trying to access Area 51. Even if 10% of the keyboard warriors decide not to sleep late and actually storm Area 51, and if 10% of them are surprisingly fit enough to make it the nearly 100 miles through the desert to the base, that means 20,000 people will be on the receiving end of, at the very least, rubber bullets, active denial weapons (which will stop you in your tracks unless you are very stoned on PCP or something), tear gas, and other rather cool non-lethal weapons.

This is Active Denial. It will stop you.

There are also legal ramifications in attempting to storm Area 51, as this Internet lawyer can explain. Even if you are not killed, pelted with rubber bullets, or sent to the hospital for dehydration, you will be sent to jail and fined perhaps half your monthly welfare check.

One can only pray to our Lord Thanos (the best alien, by the way) that at the very least 10% of these idiots do decide to go through with this jackassery so that the universe can become more balanced, as all things should be, through their removal from the gene pool. Best case scenario ALL of them decide to go and balance the universe.

A man can dream, can't he?


26 May 2019

How to Overcome Nihilism

"Black people invented John Malkovich" - Economic Invincibility

Nihilism is the disease of the modern age. The structure of society feeds nihilism and depression. There's not much we can do at first as individuals to change society, but we can make changes in our own lives and in the lives of the people we care about that will improve our quality of life tremendously. And, at the end of the day, that will make all the difference.