08 December 2016

Jordan Peterson on Why Pronouns Aren't About Respect

Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology, explains why identity is not subjective, pronouns are not about respect, and the whole infinite genders movement is a strategy of the government to use poorly socialised individuals as a tool to take away our freedom of speech.

06 December 2016

The Global Warming Hoax

Lord Christopher Monckton joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the failure of alarmist global warming models to offer accurate predictions, why CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change, the scientific manipulations which are used to push the global warming agenda and the new information which will further expose the global warming hoax.

03 December 2016

An Inconvenient Lie

William Happer, physics professor at Princeton University, talks with Stefan Molyneux on the science behind why CO2 is good for plants and why climate change is horseshit.

09 November 2016

Hail to the Chief

Donald J. Trump Full Victory Speech after becoming the President-elect of the United States. Trump addressed supporters as the newly anointed 45th President of the United States in New York City: "Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division," Trump added. "I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all of Americans, and this is so important to me." He told the cheering crowd, "Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream."

06 November 2016

What is at Stake in the Next Election

There are three primary issues that I care about that influence my decision on the next election. All the little things, the degeneracy, the lies, the demographic decline and fall of the West, that's all secondary. All that can be dealt with much later. That's been my position for many years. For other people, they want to deal with minutia right now and ignore major problems. They want to deal with the hangnail RIGHT NOW and focus on the massive hemorrhaging wound at their own convenience, if ever. Look at all the issues that have captured the attention of the masses over the past five years. They're all trivial. Look at the three biggest catastrophes facing the country: the economy, national security, and the worst education system in the developed world; the masses ignore them completely.

As long as Caesar gave the plebs bread and circuses the masses were happy. The same is true today but with welfare and celebrities exposing themselves on television.

Haven't I been saying it? We have the worst unemployment in US history, terror attacks - whether organised or "lone wolf" - are at a terrifying level, we're hemorrhaging $4 billion per day - over $1 trillion per year - more than we have, there's more debt than money in the entire US economy, the criminal government is decapitating duly elected governments in the Muslim world and replacing them with radical barbarians from the 7th century who burn women alive in cages, throw gays off buildings, and post the videos of their rape and murder online, Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, diseases that had once been eradicated like TB and measles have been reintroduced due to the gigantic flood of illegal migration, and the masses are concerned over trivial issues that concern maybe 2 million people, tops. Let's focus on the 93 million people without jobs first, then get to the 2 million people who want to use the wrong bathroom. I'm not saying let's ignore the trivially small issue, I'm saying let's focus on fixing the catastrophe first, then when we're not on the verge of total collapse, then we can deal with the trivial issue.

Issue one is the economy, stupid. Always has been, always will be, until we evolve into a post-economic system where people no longer have to pay to exist.

In 1930 there were 93 million people alive in the US, and 13 million people without jobs. In 2016 there are 350 million people alive in the US (324 million "officially" and at least 40 million here illegally, most uncounted), and 93 million people without jobs. There are more people who are not working in the US today than were alive during the Great Depression. It's that bad.

Don't let the fake "unemployment" numbers fool you, or the "120,000 jobs created last month." That's sophistry. More flashy nonsense designed to distract you from the truth. Those "jobs" that are created are temporary minimum wage jobs that only let you work 20 hours a week. Even if you had three jobs you wouldn't be able to live. And the unemployment numbers are even more deceptive. Once a person's benefits expire they are no longer counted as "unemployed" even if they haven't found a job yet. Those people exist in a state of limbo, where they're not employed but they're not "unemployed", so they are completely forgotten by everyone but the people whose lives are ruined by this disastrous system of lies. Sure, "unemployment" might be 4%, or however low they pretend it to be (4% has always been the margin of error and is, effectively, 0 unemployment), but in terms of real numbers it's over 25%. One in four working age Americans is not making enough money to survive.

I'm no "expert" but it doesn't take a genius to see the economic policies the criminal US government has been pursuing since at least 2007 are not working. In fact, they are making the situation worse year after year. Every year fewer people are working, those who are are having their hours cut, jobs are being shipped overseas, and more immigrants are flooding into the country, diluting an already ruinously low job market.

Printing money, inflating the stock market, and erasing jobs is not the way to fix the economy, it's a way to permanently destroy it.

What's the solution? We need to stop printing money and we need to bring jobs back. Take a good look at the candidates. Only one of them is not a career politician. Only one of them has even held a job, let alone created jobs. Scoffers will say that a handful of Donald Trump's businesses filed for bankruptcy, and they say this is a sign he knows nothing about business. They say this because they know absolutely nothing about business. Most businesses fail within the first ten years, and most very successful people have failed a great deal before finally succeeding. Yes, a handful of Donald Trump's businesses have failed, that's because he is a very successful business mogul who has taken a lot of risks starting a lot of businesses and failing at several of them to discover what works and what doesn't. Even great athletes fail most of the time. With great success no one remembers the failures. No one remembers the 67% of balls you missed, they only focus on the 33% you hit out of the park. But with Donald Trump the scoffers like to point out his handful of failures and say those totally negate his successes! You can make a compilation of all the shots Michael Jordan missed and think you're making him look like an idiot, but most people will recognise that you're the idiot and that Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

Donald Trump has an estimated 500 businesses. 4 of them have gone bankrupt. That's a success rate of  99.2%! And never-Trumpers still parade those four bankruptcies around as if Trump is the worst businessman on the planet!

Scoffers also like to say he started out with tons of money he inherited and that proves he knows nothing about business. They say this because they know absolutely nothing about money. Nearly all lottery winners end up flat broke within a few years of winning. They end up worse off financially than before they won. Inheriting money does not make someone a tremendous success, it usually makes you a loser and a failure. If someone gave you $1,000 and you went and turned it into $1,000,000, then you would be very good at making money. Donald Trump turned a few million into $10 billion. He created a global business that employs tens of thousands of people, and has become one of the most famous billionaires in the world. Sure, people like Carlos Slim and Warren Buffett might be richer, but they're not celebrity billionaires. Very few billionaires are as famous as Donald Trump. He knows more about branding than most of the other billionaires combined.

Who knows more about jobs, Hitlery Roddamn Clinton – career politician, or Donald Trump – business mogul? If you had to take a gamble, would you gamble on someone who can string a bunch of pretty theoretical words together or someone who has actually created jobs? Trump has negotiated with governments all over the world, he knows what he's doing. On the other hand, Clinton's brand of negotiations led to the destabilisation of North Africa and the Near East with the Arab Spring, war in Libya, war in Syria, war in Iraq, the spread of ISIS, war in Ukraine. Donald Trump might have failed selling steaks, but Hitlery Clinton has failed completely at geopolitics, and a million lives have already been lost as a result.

No one can say whether Trump's economic plan will work. Economists said the subprime market was solvent months before it collapsed, so it's safe to say most of economics is guess work. The one thing we do know is that the Bush-Obama-Clinton economic policies have failed, and will continue to fail. A vote for Clinton is a vote for a proven track record of failure. A vote for Trump gives us at least the chance of success.

Safe Bet: Trump

Issue number two is national security. This one should be a no brainer. Ignoring the existence of Islamic terrorism has only made it worse. Every month, just about, we hear of another mass shooting somewhere. Just as one crisis ends another one flairs up with no time in between to recover.

Millions of radical Muslim "refugees" have flooded Europe, and the EU has allowed it because the white Europeans have given up on breeding and they need to import a working class to prop up the bloated welfare system. Sure, rape and murder might have skyrocketed, and thousands of years of European culture might have to be abandoned because it's haram, but that's a small price to pay to replace the European babies who were never born.

The same thing is happening in the US on a smaller scale. ISIS brags online that they are infiltrating the West with operatives who are posing as refugees. Last year FBI Director James Comey said that ISIS has cells in all 50 US states. What is anyone doing to stop them? Attempting to confiscate the guns of legal gun owners? How well did that work out in France? In France guns are close to illegal. Semi-automatic guns, the kind where you have to pull the trigger every time to make it fire, are limited to 3 round capacity. And yet all the gun restrictions in the world didn't stop ISIS terrorists from acquiring bombs and military grade guns and murdering 130 people in Paris last year. It's almost as if criminals don't obey the law!

And as all of this is happening the criminal US government won't even use the words "Islamic" and "terrorist" in the same sentence! Or else they'll try to deflect the issue and say that 99% of Muslims are good, and it's just a handful who are terrorists. Well, 1% of a million people is still ten thousand people! These people have no problem letting in thousands of would-be terrorists, all so that they don't look racialist, even though Islam is not a race, it is a set of beliefs held by people of all races on every continent.

And it's not just the radicals. What counts as "moderate" is abhorrent as well. The governments of eleven Muslim countries make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. You can't say all those countries are full of radicals. The Saudis, the Emirates, Kuwait, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, are they all radicals? The Saudi princes are the biggest supporters of Hitlery Clinton on the planet. They live in all the comfort the Western world has to offer and drink Johnny Walker Black when no one is looking. They seem pretty moderate to me. I mean, they're not running around blowing themselves up or cutting off heads.... Actually the Saudi government beheads more people per year than ISIS does. And they're the moderates.

Clinton has taken $25 million from Saudi Arabia, a country where women are not allowed to vote, or drive, or leave the home without male supervision. A country where marital rape is legal, where child marriage is legal, where child rape is legal. A country that is funding ISIS. That's right, the same country that is funding the enemies of the US are funding Clinton as well! If any other person on the planet was connected to these people that person would not be allowed to run for president. But Clinton is above the law. She's too big to jail.

If you're a woman, or gay, or a Jew, or an atheist and you vote for Hitlery Clinton you are literally a traitor to yourself and your own best interests. Clinton is backed by the Saudi government, which murders gays, treats women as property, and imprisons anyone who is not a Sunni Muslim.

And Trump doesn't want to exclude Muslims from America. In one of the debates he said that the Muslim community in America needs to work with the police to find the few radicals who want to launch terror attacks. The only way to eliminate the radicals is if people within the Muslim community help the police identify who the radicals are. Working together is not exclusion.

Trump's "extreme vetting" of persons from regions that are known to harbor terrorists (Syria, Iran, Lybia), isn't excluding Muslims either. Most Muslims will get through because they're not terrorists. Even Clinton herself said we need "vetting that is as tough as it needs to be." Checking someone's papers who want to enter the United States is not an exclusion of Muslims from America any more than Carter's suspension of visas from Iran in 1979 following the Islamic Revolution, and his deportation of 15,000 Iranians who were found in violation of their visas (which was upheld on First Amendment ground in federal court).

Don't think I'm trying to lay all the blame at the feet of Islamic terrorism. There are other terrorist groups a lot closer to home. Elements within the CIA staged a coup in Ukraine a few years ago as a pretext for going to war with Russia. NATO has been expanding in Russia's near abroad for decades, and their actions have ramped up in recent years. Remember, Russia has 7,000 nuclear weapons. Total war necessarily means nuclear war, which means billions of deaths worldwide. Hitlery Clinton and all the Republicans have come out and said they want nuclear world war with Russia. Donald Trump is the only candidate who has said the only logical statement regarding Russia, that they are our natural ally against Islamic terror in the world. Russia and the Assad regime in Syria represent stabilising influences in the region. So did Gadaffi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Stable, secular military dictatorships all throughout the Islamic world have been eliminated one by one by the US, leading to the spread of radical Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, the breakdown of governance and the rule of law, and millions of deaths. Remember, this started with the first Clinton when he invaded Somalia for no apparent reason, and continued under Bush who destroyed Iraq at the cost of $1 trillion and thousands of American lives, and has escalated under Obama and Hitlery with their Arab Spring policy. Both parties are guilty of destroying stable governments and strengthening Islamic terrorism. Both parties have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands. Both parties want to start a war with Russia. Only Donald Trump wants to avoid war. He wants to work with Russia to defeat ISIS – who the US created, either deliberately or out of criminal negligence – and then he wants to pull out and focus on America.

Clinton is so worried about the 250,000 people in Aleppo, because only the US is allowed to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, no one else. It doesn't matter that up to 1 million Iraqis, mostly civilians, died in the war that she voted for. It doesn't matter that she wants regime change in Syria because the elite who fund her want to build an oil pipeline through the country, it doesn't matter that millions more will die if Assad is eliminated, and that billions will die in nuclear war. Clinton has to stare down Putin because he's the only one on the planet who is resisting US aggression.

Clinton gave Russia the uranium to build nuclear missiles capable of wiping out the United States. 20% of US uranium was sold to Russia in a pay-to-play scheme in exchange for Clinton Foundation "donations".

On live TV she revealed that our response time is 4 minutes, letting them know how far from the coast they need to park their subs to wipe us out before we even notice the launch. 4 minutes by ballistic missile is about the distance from the coast to Bermuda. If Russian subs are closer to the coast than that, they can launch their missiles and destroy our cities BEFORE our defense installations can even detect the launch. Clinton gave the Russians knowledge on how to conduct a decapitation strike against the US, a first strike that eliminates our ability to launch a retaliation.

Clinton calls Putin "Hitler" and threatens to start a war when she gets in the White House. Clinton wants to start a war with Russia after giving them our uranium and letting them know what our nuclear response time is. It's almost as if she wants Russia to annihilate the US.

And securing the border? Trump wants to secure the border so we keep crime and drugs from spilling over into the United States (and by cutting the bottom out of the market, starving the drug cartels and helping Mexico out too).

Some people crossing the border are trafficking drugs. "Most of the drugs that enter the U.S. come from Central and South America."

Some people crossing the border are criminals. In a 2005 report 27% of inmates in Federal prisons were in the country illegally. Yes, that's fewer people than the native population, I don't think anyone denies that, but 49,000 people is still a lot. It would be nice if we could monitor who it is crossing the border, especially with instances of human trafficking and human rights abuse. It would be nice to cut that down, and whether that's with the Great Wall of China, a chain-link fence, or more border patrol agents, stopping human beings, including sex slaves, being smuggled over the border, even if it's only a few thousand, is a good idea.

Drug cartels are using rape as a weapon on the border. From Latina.com:

"From beheading to kidnappings, there seems to be no limit to what the Mexican drug cartels are willing to do to assert their dominance—and they deal not only in drugs, but also in humans. The majority of the coyotes who help undocumented immigrants cross the border are affiliated with the cartels.

Although many politicians would like to believe that the violence will stay to the south of the border, the reality is that it has already begun to affect South Western states. The revelation that Phoenix is now the “kidnapping capital” of the United States only affirms what many residents already believe.

Now, a new method of marking territory has crossed over into the United States. “Rape trees” are popping up in Southern Arizona and their significance is horrific. These “rape trees” are places where cartel members and coyotes rape female border crossers and hang their clothes, specifically undergarments, to mark their conquest."

What is a rape tree:

"Rape trees are trees or bushes that mark where sexual assaults have occurred by arranging the victim's undergarments on or around the trees branches or on the ground. "Rape trees" are commonly and increasingly found along the United States and Mexico borders as illegal immigration grows. Immigrant females are particularly at risk of being assaulted by the typically male "coyotes" that illegally guide them through the border area. Violent crimes including rape are rarely reported as the victims fear they may be deported after coming forward. Women often seek out birth control methods to prevent pregnancy from anticipated sexual assaults. The marked trees serve to intimidate both the illegal immigrants being guided, as well as local citizens, that the human traffickers are willing and able to commit acts of violence to gain compliance from victims and deter potential witnesses or rescuers."

Sure would be nice to put a stop to that. Bill Clinton thought so too 20 years ago, as did most Republicans and Democrats. Trump doesn't want to get rid of Mexicans, he wants to put a stop to human trafficking and cut off the flow of drugs into the US, and to do that we need to secure the border.

What does Clinton think of securing the border? She wants to leave it wide open. She wants to increase the influx of "refugees" (from the war she created!) by 500% over what we are taking in now. She wants amnesty for millions of illegals, because they are her voter base. Granting them all citizenship will guarantee so many Democrat votes that it will be impossible to hold a free and fair election again. She will have imported so many knee-jerk voters that no amount of reason and evidence will ever prevail against 30 million guaranteed Democrats.

If you like your democracy you can keep it.

The evidence is clear, only a fool, or an arms manufacturer, would think that the candidate who promises to go to war is the safer alternative to the candidate who promises to negotiate to keep us out of war. What happened to the anti-war movement under Bush? Did it just evaporate like morning dew? The truth is they were anti-Republicans, not anti-war. It doesn't matter if Obama kills twice as many Americans in Afghanistan than Bush did, and not a peep. Obama launches air-strikes in seven countries, not a peep. Obama brags about how he's "Really good at killing people," not a fucking peep. As long as a Democrat is killing people the supposed anti-war movement does not care.

The choice could not be any more obvious.  

Safe Bet: Trump.

And last, but certainly not least, education.

It should be obvious to anyone willing to examine the evidence, that the US has the worst education system in the developed world. The United States ranks behind Russia, Slovenia, Australia, Estonia, Vietnam, Canada, Poland, and China, to name a few. Is that any surprise? If you've been getting your news from a TV comedian it probably is. If you've been to a store and you see the kid behind the counter doesn't know how to make change, or even how to push the button to change an order, you know this is a major problem.

You already know about the clutural Marxism that has infested academia. You know about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings", and Marxists censoring the free speech of tenured professors. You know that academia is run by authoritarians who care more about hurt feelings than facts, and who believe that producing emotionally-stunted adults who act like children is all that matters.

But let's take a step back. What about the wonderful public school system? High school graduation rates are at the highest they've ever been! That's because dumb kids are being pushed through like cattle to the slaughter and programs for smart kids are being cut so the dumb kids don't feel bad for being excluded.

26% of high school graduates are below the basic reading level. This means these kids do not have the skills necessary to perform simple and everyday literacy activities. One quarter of all high school graduates are functionally illiterate! In 1979 only 1% of graduates were illiterate, and now it's 26% thanks to "outcome-based education." Worse still, 19% of high school graduates can't read AT ALL! One in five graduates cannot read their own name.

Remember Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act"? And it's gotten worse under Common Core, where getting the correct answer is wrong unless you use all your fingers and your toes to count by ones!

The schools have failed a significant percentage of kids. People with no education and no skills, mostly poor urban blacks and Latinos, often can't get a job (see above), and in order to make money just to survive turn to crime. They turn to crime, they turn to drugs, and then they run afoul of the police. They go to prison, they die in gangland shootings, or they die in standoffs with the police. The horrible state of public education in America, combined with economic policies that ship jobs overseas, are creating the crime that is devastating minority communities. Blacks and Latinos who vote for the Bush-Obama-Clinton policies are literally voting for their own poverty and inner city violence. If black lives really mattered, if you really want police shootings to stop, you need to solve the root causes of the problem, which means fixing the economy, fixing the schools, and securing the border. And that means voting for Trump.

Not only has public school failed the children (precisely because children are not allowed to fail or be held back), but college has failed them as well. Student loan debt in the US is at $1.4 trillion! And, unlike other forms of debt, student loan debt cannot be erased through bankruptcy. It is stuck with you until you die. College tuition rates are soaring, and students are graduating with worthless degrees in gender studies or critical theory. College graduates are saddled with, on average $37,000 of debt, which at minimum wage, working 20 hours a week, minus tax, can be paid off in only 6 years, assuming you don't have to eat, or pay rent, or car insurance, or buy gas or food. And God help you if you get sick or injured. With ObamaCare deductibles at $6,000 per year, if you're lucky, you'll be paying all your doctor bills out of pocket, plus your premiums, unless you want to pay the penalty (that's totally not a tax, unless it is, depending on what bullshit the Supreme Court is using to justify the law).

And no, a $15 minimum wage won't help either. College graduates are already competing for minimum wage jobs, for which they are over-qualified, with older people who can't afford to retire, high school kids who can't read, and illegal aliens who can be paid under the table for less. The only thing a $15 minimum wage, a minimum wage well below a living wage, will do is force even more young people out of the labor market and, if they're lucky, onto welfare, and, if they're unlucky, into a life of crime. And it's mostly poor blacks and Latinos who are hurt by these failed Bush-Obama-Clinton policies.

Neither will forgiving student loan debt solve the problem? Who will pay for that $1.4 trillion? Will the Fed just print the money? Even if they do, it's the tax payers who will have to foot the bill. So you think you're debt is forgiven? Fat chance. The government will just take it out of your $15 an hour pay check. You'll be stuck paying no matter what you do. The only way to solve the student loan problem is by reforming the whole loan architecture, and by growing the economy. Only one candidate is talking about that, and it's Donald Trump.

Only Trump is talking about school choice, about vouchers for parents to send their kids to the schools they want, that best suits their child's needs. "Voucher" and "school choice" are dirty words for leftists like Clinton, but it's mostly poor blacks who benefit. A strong majority of blacks favor vouchers, and there's real evidence that even modest assistance provides a huge benefit for kids. So why do people like Clinton oppose vouchers? Is it any surprise? Her financial backers are super racist. They want to keep blacks poor and uneducated so they can promise pie-in-the-sky programs year after year, and once they get and maintain power they deliver nothing.

Clinton represents a continuation of the policies that have failed under Bush and Obama. Trump represents the kind of change that the majority of real people want and need. When it comes to education the answer couldn't be any more obvious.  

Safe Bet: Trump

When it comes to fixing the economy, providing for national security, or fixing the broken education system, the only logical choice, the only choice backed by reason and evidence is Donald Trump.

The Bush-Obama-Clinton policies have bankrupted the nation, have gotten us stuck in endless foreign wars over oil, have failed our kids, especially in the inner cities.

Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, the Main Stream Media, political elites in Washington from both Republican and Democratic parties, and oil sheiks from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Clinton is the candidate of ISIS and the drug cartels that traffick in sex slaves and rape women trying to cross the border. Clinton is the candidate of banker bailouts, golden parachutes, debt, and dead Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is the candidate who would do nothing to stop the massacre in Orlando, do nothing to help disabled veterans or the struggling poor, while showering "refugees" with benefits. Why doesn't she want the veterans who were wounded, physically and mentally, in the war she voted for to get benefits? Why doesn't she want poor blacks and Latinos to get benefits? Why invite tens of thousands of Syrians into America? Are there not enough struggling poor here already who desperately need help? Shouldn't they get help first?

So, what is at stake in the next election? The American dream is at stake. And no, that doesn't mean a return to Jim Crow or slavery, that doesn't mean taking away women's suffrage, that doesn't mean excluding Muslims and Mexicans from America. The American dream means schools that provide children with a proper education. It means school choice. It means a high school graduate can get a job in a factory that can provide for a family of five with a house and two cars. It means college graduates can get good jobs so that they can pay off their loans and won't have to stay at home with their parents forever. It means not getting entangled in pointless foreign wars where untold thousands die for the benefit of a few. It means solving the problems of crime, drugs, and the deterioration of the inner cities. It means keeping people out of prisons just because of a plant.

The American dream was alive and well before NAFTA gutted the middle class, before securing the border went from having bi-partisan support to being an "extreme far-right" position, that tens of millions of Americans support, but the out-of-touch elite in Washington despise. The American dream does not mean eliminating any of the strides we've made in civil rights, it means eliminating the civil wrongs the elite have imposed upon us: crippling debt, corruption, crime, terrorism, and endless foreign wars. That's it. Trump does not want to drag us back to the 1950s, he wants us to strive forward into the future, where we can all get under the big tent called America.

The elite hate us. The super rich globalists who know no allegiance to any nation, they are the enemy. Black, white, Indian, Latino, Chinese, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, atheist, we're all Americans. The elite want to drive wedges between us, they want to get us at each other's throats to divide and rule. Trump wants to unite us all against the elite, who don't give a damn about you. Clinton doesn't care about you any more than she cares about the Syrian people she pretends to support so she can get her oil pipeline. Clinton doesn't care about you any more than she cares about the Haitians whose country she gutted. Clinton is bought and paid for by the elite who own this country and want to keep us poor and stupid and in perpetual debt. The elite hate you. They pull the strings. Now cut them.

When you vote, vote to give a finger to the elite. Vote to cut their strings. Vote to tear the whole corrupt system down. Vote to drain the swamp.

Vote for the American dream. Your dream. Your future, and your children's future.

Vote for Donald Trump.

30 October 2016

NATO Delenda Est

Over the years, since 2002, I've intensely studied the First World War, and what we're seeing right now is a repeat of August 1914.

A century ago millions of men died for absolutely nothing, and millions more would survive with their minds and bodies destroyed. A world that had been stable for 40 years, where conflict between the great powers seemed impossible, was overturned, resulting in the rise of fascism and communism, and, ultimately, the death of an additional 150-200 million people over the 20th century.

There was no reason to fight the war. There was nothing to be gained and everything to be lost. And it all started because of the byzantine system of alliances the great powers had entangled themselves in. These alliances seemed to them to mark the end of all war, as war with any one member state would mean war with the whole world, and no rational person would want that. But, in truth, that system of alliances is what dragged the whole world into the war, turning a small regional conflict, no, a small regional incident, into a four year long meat grinder.

We find ourselves today in the same situation. NATO has 28 member states, including the world's only superpower, the United States, along with Britain, France, and some unstable places like Turkey and Albania. Just like those 1914 alliances, an attack on one member state necessitates war for all 28 members, guaranteeing that any regional disturbance will blow up into global war.

Pundits will assure the plebs that such an alliance is a safeguard against all future wars, but they're lying, just like the pundits of a century ago.

If Estonia is invaded, and at this point there is absolutely no evidence that Russia has any designs on the Baltic, that would drag the US into nuclear war with Russia. Nuclear war means death for the majority of people on the planet. Tell me, are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to murder 5 billion people for Estonia? Because I'm not. And even though Russia has no intention of invading, it is the easiest thing in the world for some NATO guys in fake Russian uniforms to kill a few border guards in a false flag attack and spark a war if the neocons wanted one.

NATO was established to counter the Warsaw Pact, a similar alliance involving the Soviet Union and other eastern European communist states. The Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union are long gone. The Cold War is over, and all the cold warriors are approaching their 70s and 80s. Are you, young men, willing to die in some old man's war? Are you, young women, willing to die because some octogenarians want to stroke their egos one last time?

The recent coup attempt in Turkey and their brazen acts of shooting Russian jets should make clear to all rational people that NATO represents an existential threat to the continued existence of humanity on this planet. NATO is a ticking time bomb that, when it goes off, will start nuclear war.

Donald Trump was absolutely correct. NATO is not only obsolete, it is a suicide pact and it should be dissolved.

28 October 2016

Europe on the Brink of WWIII

Russia has just tested its RS-28 missile, dubbed "Satan 2" by NATO. It can carry up to 40 megatons of warheads, enough to wipe out tens of millions of people, and, if launched from up to 1000 miles away, can destroy New York and Washington DC before our defenses can even detect them.

The missiles do not carry typical MIRV warheads, but the new Object 4202 hypersonic glider warheads. These new warheads travel between mach 5 and 10 and can take advantage of their aerodynamic shape to change direction, making them impervious to all currently deployed anti-ballistic missile countermeasures.

Each missile can carry up to three hypersonic warheads, and each warhead can wipe out a city or a carrier battle group.

Why did Russia do this? Because they are being surrounded by NATO, as Clinton bangs the war drums.

The UK sent 800 troops to Estonia to threaten Russia with war. Why? Because even though Russia has showed absolutely no interest in Estonia, the neocon cold warriors still think this is the 1960s and the evil empire is trying to overrun Europe. They think Ivan will pour through the Fulda Gap with more tanks than God and reach the Rhine in seven days.

And there is no bigger neocon warmonger than Hitlery Clinton. She foams at the mouth, shouting down Russia, promising nuclear war. She soils her Depends just thinking of 5 billion people being reduced to charcoal by 7,000 nuclear missiles.

Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania are being flooded with 40,000 NATO troops, including Americans.

Meanwhile 40 million Russians took part in nuclear war drills, seeking out their local bunkers so they know what to do when the warmonger Hitlery Clinton decides to push the button.

The UK has threatened Spain not to allow Russian ships en route to Syria to refuel at Spanish ports, and so Spain backed down.

Clinton is so worried about the 250,000 people in Aleppo, because only the US is allowed to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, no one else. It doesn't matter that up to 1 million Iraqis, mostly civilians, died in the war that she voted for. It doesn't matter that she wants regime change in Syria because the elite who fund her want to build an oil pipeline through the country, it doesn't matter that millions more will die if Assad is eliminated, and that billions will die in nuclear war. Clinton has to stare down Putin because he's the only one on the planet who is resisting US aggression.

 Clinton gave Russia the uranium to build nuclear missiles capable of wiping out the United States. 20% of US uranium was sold to Russia in a pay-to-play scheme in exchange for Clinton Foundation "donations".

On live TV she revealed that our response time is 4 minutes, letting them know how far from the coast they need to park their subs to wipe us out before we even notice the launch. 4 minutes by ballistic missile is about the distance from the coast to Bermuda. If Russian subs are closer to the coast than that, they can launch their missiles and destroy our cities BEFORE our defense installations can even detect the launch. Clinton gave the Russians knowledge on how to conduct a decapitation strike against the US, a first strike that eliminates our ability to launch a retaliation.

Clinton calls Putin "Hitler" and threatens to start a war when she gets in the White House. Clinton wants to start a war with Russia after giving them our uranium and letting them know what our nuclear response time is. It's almost as if she wants Russia to annihilate the US.

If you like your world war you can keep it.

Trump said he will negotiate with Russia. Clinton said she will go to war to enforce a no-fly zone designed to eliminate Assad and conquer Syria to get the oil. The choice between life under Trump and death under Clinton is yours.

06 October 2016

Cults: Veganism

Lierre Keith is a writer, radical feminist, food activist, and environmentalist (three out of four isn't bad). She's written a book, The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability, that exposes the cult of veganism and how it is destroying the planet (literally).

Amazon's description:

Part memoir, nutritional primer, and political manifesto, this controversial examination exposes the destructive history of agriculture—causing the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil—and asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eating—or not eating—animals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.

Agriculture is tremendously destructive of the environment. The vegan lifestyle is actually the least environmentally friendly of all possible options. Forests and fields need to be cleared, habitat needs to be destroyed, aquifers need to be drained, and oil needs to be drilled to make fertiliser. The system of agribusiness we have in place right now is only possible due to massive government subsidies and petrochemical fertiliser. 5 billion people are alive today because of artificial phosphate fertilisers and ground water irrigation. Those phosphates won't last forever, and neither will the groundwater, just like the guano. Personally I suspect there's two or more centuries worth of oil that remain to be exploited, but phosphates and ground water are being depleted faster than they can be replenished, and I don't put much hope for future utopianisms. Old methods of agriculture can only supply food for about two billion people, not seven, and it takes millions of years for aquifers to fill with water and caves to fill with shit to be used to grow food for five billion real people who will die if they don't eat anything.

There was a great discovery in 1802 of something called guano. Guano is bird shit, and it is perfect for fertiliser (and for making explosives and gunpowder). The great powers of Europe waged wars and colonised the entire planet in search of guano. For thousandsof years seabirds had crapped on tiny rocks and islands, creating piles of guano hundreds of feet thick, and it only took about a century for all the guano to be mined. How long will it take for all the groundwater, phosphate, and oil to be mined? 50 years? 100? Some places like Saudi Arabia, which had tremendous aquifers, have already depleated their groundwater in a single lifetime. They engaged in massive agriculture, growing cash crops like alfalfa and soy that use a tremendous amount of water, and now that they've run out they are buying up water in the United States to grow soy on US soil, depleating our own water reserves.

Some people, most people I would assume, place hope in "future science". "Future science will solve all of our problems!" Has it? Most animals were not designed to eat corn (a human invention of the Andes peoples). But the government subsidises corn, and petrochemical fertilisers can grow a ton of it cheap, so tons of corn are grown and fed to animals to fatten them up quickly. Those animals, because they are eating junk and living in their own shit in cages too small to move, need to be pumped with antibiotics to keep from dropping dead. Massive reliance on antibiotics in factory farms have produced superbugs that are now resistant to all of our drugs of last resort. Just this year colistin, a drug so potent and toxic that it was used only to combat bacteria that would respond to no other treatment, has just met its match in drug resistant superbugs. How could this happen? Because although colostin was only very rarely used in humans, China pumped tons of the stuff into pigs and chickens to keep them from dropping dead in hideously polluted factory farms. Just this May the first colostin-resistant bacteria was discovered. We have no idea if that bacteria has escaped into the wild. Even if it has not we're not too far away from a time when all antibiotics are rendered useless (unless we develop new ones, and there haven't been any new antibiotics in decades). In a single lifetime we have seen the rise and fall of drugs to combat disease.

It's not just superbugs, it's our own bodies too. We're not designed to ingest massive quantities of grown hormone, antibiotics, estrogen from birth control that ends up in the water supply, and all the other toxic crap we're putting into food to grow lots of it really quick and make it last forever.

What if "future science" doesn't solve all of our problems? What is "future science" anyway? It's that stuff no one wants to invest in because it's not two hundred year old science. I love oil. I'm sitting on oil, typing on oil, looking at pictures projected on oil, in a house lit by oil, and I eat food that exists only because of oil, but maybe we should be investing in things beside oil because it's stupid to rely on only one kind of power source, just in case something bad happens to it?

Getting beyond that, the human body isn't designed to eat a plant diet. Most plants are toxic and need to be cooked to destroy those toxins before it is safe to eat them. Even then, most plants aren't too good for your body anyway, and cellulose is impossible to digest, so most of what you're eating just ends up filling the toilet. Some animals can digest plants, animals with very long, complicated guts. Pack hunters like humans, have shorter guts designed to digest meat from animals with longer guts. Herbivores do all the work, we get all the benefit. It's win-win really. Cows, sheep, and pigs are tremendously successful species, because they taste good. Domesticated animals have a very good chance of reproducing. That's why there are billions of them. These animals have thrived, while their wild counterparts have gone extinct, because they have adapted to life under human control. Eating meat keeps many species from going extinct, keeps wilderness land from being destroyed and turned into farms, and provides the human body what it needs to survive.

That said, there's a right and a wrong way to raise animals. The factory farms that pump animals full of antibiotics is the wrong way. What's the right way? Read the book.