Sunday, December 30, 2012

I'm thinking about moving the blog.

So I'm having a lot of problems with Blogger as of late. Many legitimate comments get immediately get removed and put into the 'spam' bin while letting blatantly obvious spam posts get though,  it's not aggregating properly at times, the blog composer is getting very buggy with each tweak, and I constantly have to re-edit HTML code to remove white highlights on text even if I "Paste as plain text."

I may very well leave blogger for WordPress in the near future once I look into pricing for a domain but still keeping the now coveted grandfathered Google Apps I already have. I'll get this all sorted out on my next couple of days off this week.

Let me know what you think in the comments below (if you can) 

Friday, December 28, 2012

A Well Regulated Short Bus

No comments:
Sorry for the absence in posting. I've been getting situated with my new job and moving into my new apartment and it's all behind me now. Yay!

I wasn't going to comment on it because I only saw it a couple times since the Sandy Hook shooting and I thought it was just a fluke, but apparently people think this a real argument for gun control. Let's put this to rest once and for all.

Just for future reference; the line "well regulated militia" doesn't condone nor condemn regulation of personal gun ownership. This example was posted on a video comparing 'reasonable regulations' on free speech to illustrate a point about gun ownership regulations.

"A [b]well regulated[/b] militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Note the part of it being regulated. Point out to similar wording in the first amendment.

Firstly, A militia is not a gun or several guns; it's a collection of people. Like how a company is not a building, just the people who run shit in the building. I can have a well regulated software industry without having laws governing what programs you can operate on your PC.

Secondly, The word "regulated" doesn't mean government regulation; it means trained and disciplined. You see, words have this strange phenomenon in the English language where they can have several meanings and can be deciphered given their context. Like my computer can 'run' a program but actually physically travel with an hastened gate. See; Heller v. DC ruling.

And last of all; the 'militia' is separate from 'the people,' It doesn't say the right of 'the militia' it says 'the people.' The militia is the explanation why the people should be allowed to bear arms.

I know it's a cute game to try and tinker with language to push an ideology, but it's not going to get you anywhere.

The more you know =☆

Thursday, November 29, 2012

LMAOistRebelNews 2: Shoot the Moon

No comments:
This is what happens when you listen to RT, you believe shit.

In he reads a story from RussiaToday that recently (and by that he means over 13 years ago) a program came to light about Project A119 which had a plan to set off a nuke or hydrogen bomb on the moon. While it's true that was something they considered, it was not a plan to "blow up" the moon as he and the RussiaToday (or as I like to call it, KremlinToday.) He also talks to Sagan as a way compliment his achievements to rationalize with him about blowing up the moon. Does he even know Segan died a couple decades ago?  Even if he was alive he wouldn't be watching shitty uninformed videos from a avowed Maoist.

No, they weren't planning to blow up the moon. There's no way the US scientists at the time (which included the great Carl Sagan) weren't high enough to think any bomb we had could "blow up" the moon.

Now because Jason here couldn't be bothered to learn about the space race, this wasn't a knee jerk reaction to incite violence on the moon (I feel so embarrassed for him as I type this knowing someone holds this position.) The point was to show technological capabilities in a time when the Soviets were a threat. If it could be shown to the soviets we had a technological advancement too, it would (in theory) hold off a nuclear war. In the end they opted to put people on the moon, which they did and happy we are for that instead of detonating a nuke on the moon and 'Mericaland won the space race.

See kids, this is what happens when you take RussiaToday seriously  You believe garbage. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go blow up the moon!

Wednesday, November 28, 2012


No comments:
I haven't seen any really dumb Facebook pics in a while, but I have seen some dumb shit come from MaoistRebelNews. For those of you who who don't know, he's a white privileged heterosexual male reaping the rewards in a capitalist country complaining how the other privileged heterosexual male reaping the rewards in a capitalist country don't know what it's like to be poor.

He has TL;DR blogs about, among other things, that Stalin really didn't kill lots of people and how he's ass hurt about a Facebook picture calling Amanda Todd a whore. He also pretends to be a journalist on YouTube while giving his opinions on the latest story from RussiaToday and PressTV, bashing America, and pining how he'd love to live in the DPRK.

Anyways, it's always east to stroll though some of his shit and find outrageously poor researched quotes, blazing ignorance and flat out dishonesty. It's shooting fish in a barrel but I'm out of content so...

The link links to a story about a Cuban a trans-woman was elected to a local office in Cuba. I believe he's trying to say that Cuba, the great socialist paradise, is more advanced on the LGBT front. The problem is there's this thing called reality and he's totally detached from it. Stacie Laughton (D-NH) was elected to the state's House of Representatives earlier in the month. (She is in resignation limbo at the time of this post regarding her status as an ex-felon and the fact she never disclosed it during the campaign.) But let's not forget Joanne Conte (CO) and Althea Garrison (D-MA.) I have to ask, where's all the elected transgendered politicians in the great progressive country of Canada, eh?

He starts off the video by saying Red Dawn is just a propaganda peace to inspire nationalism and jingoism into preemptively bombing North Korea. The problem is the decision to make it about North Korea was a last minute change in editing to appeal to Chinese audience. It is true that North Korea is poor and the narrative still is well established in facts, to say that the movie is made to whip up jingoism into a war with North Korea kind of goes against what the makers had in mind. Why bother to look into it at all when you can just ASSume the facts? I wish I could live in a world like MRN where his uninformed opinion is real like facts.

While it's unrealistic that a group of kids and a off duty solder could ward off an invading country is highly improbable is true. However, Hollywood isn't interested in making action movies with super realistic plots, they're interested in making flashy movies that sell tickets. I don't remember people going "Boondock Saints would of been good if the firefights were more realistic. There's no way they could of survived that!" No, idiot. It's a work of fiction and supposed to be grander than life. The new Red Dawn didn't suck because it had an unrealistic plot, it sucked because it was a peace of shit. If you want reality; watch a documentary, if you want mindless action go see a real movie.  (And no, Michael Moore doesn't count as a real documentary.)

There's nothing to indicate that the makers of this film intended to advocate an invasion of North Korea, if anything it would be China considering that's what it was originally filmed as. Considering they are wanting to market it to Chinese it probably means they just wanted to have a good ol' mindless war movie with explosions and guns. You're just reading into it without having any command of reality, per usual.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this moron. I guess it is fun to pick on the special needs kids from time to time I guess. 

Monday, November 26, 2012


There's a guy on YouTube a lot of you might be familiar with called 'TheTruePooka.' He tried to engage with me, and having seen his bad videos before, was expecting him to fuck everything up as soon as I noticed he responded. Which he did.

However, that's not what I'm going to address here because a minor strawman doesn't hold a candle to the Twitter exchange of fail that followed proving that TheTruePooka lives in a fantasy land where he's always right and everyone else should know better even if it requires psychic abilities or accepting things you never said.

He finds a tweet I made on May 19th. 6 months ago. Now I know he didn't stroll though twitter stream reading it for hours until he got into tweets I made 6 months ago. Just out of curiosity I just Googled our Twitter names and the only result I got was that tweet so I'm guessing that's how he found this:
I love how TheTruePooka love to chime in on shit he knows nothing about. Jews For Jesus is even nutter than VFX, always has been.
He responds:
 I love how people toss out strawman arguments thus showing their total ignorance.
Of course a strawman argument  is when make an argument for your opponent and then attack that instead of their real argument. Seeing how the tweet never attempts to even talk about his argument or assigns a position to him, he's of course inferring a position on me. Essentially he's strawmanning me by accusing me of strawmanning him. The irony is too rich.

The point I was making (if it isn't clear as fucking day) was simple: That he was ignorant of how crazy J4J is if he thinks having a rational dialog will make them reconsider anything. A bit of context made a video the day before (May 18th 2012) asking J4J to have a rational dialog with him regarding them having VenomFang X preach in his neighborhood.


Seeing how Jews for Jesus is a thought reforming abusive cult and their crazy past, I knew it was a fool's errand to rationalize with crazy people. Granted I do the same with conspiracy nuts, but mostly that's for my own enjoyment. He did call his local New Yorkers to help do the same, so it was pretty clear he wanted something to come of this outside of amusement. So what did I strawman him with? Well according to TheTruePooka, he could read my mind and find the true reason I made that tweet:

@JimJesus Show me where I implied J4J are "not nutty". That's your strawman. You need to work on your basics.
When I tell him I implied no such thing he demands to provide an explanation evidence of my cognitive records.
 @JimJesus Provide explanation and evidence 2 back up your original tweet. Don't change the topic. Again. Or are you too much of a simpleton?
To which I did explain.
@TheTruePooka My tweet isn't implicating anything you're asserting. That was my problem with your video, J4J is crazier than VFX (cont.)
@TheTruePooka and attempting to reason with them is a fool's errand. Also, you're a fool so... :/

And I still stand by that given the information at the time. Remember I made this tweet on May 19th. On May 22nd he made a video clarifying his position here and did a BlogTV with "TrollingWithLogic" (which I can't find a back up of. if you know of this place comment below and I will place it here.) Pooka says:

@JimJesus you dumbass. You absolutely missed the purpose of those videos. #GoToTheBackOfTheClass @JimJesus You obviously missed the follow up. You failed because again; You didn't do your research & homework.
@JimJesus You obviously missed the follow up. You failed because again; You didn't do your research & homework. 
@JimJesus This is the same shit you're doing in comments. Talking about shit without all the facts. Arguing from ignorance.
We go back and forth and he clarifies his position saying that he wasn't trying to reason with J4J and VenomfangX, he was using them. "#LocalPolitics." He told me he clarified it in a later video made 2 days after the tweet. Now this is an honest mistake and I try to point this out to him.

@TheTruePooka So you're saying I should know what's in your videos before you make them?
Now this is when he says "OK, I see. You made a tweet before all the facts were out. I can see how you misunderstood considering the facts were not made available to you. Here's the videos where I expound on why I made that video"



@JimJesus I also have done an earlier video addressing the J4J. And despite being Nutty they are part of NYC interfaith #ToeTheLine
That's fine. However this still doesn't mean ex-ante my tweet was inaccurate  The video was clear you wanted to open a dialog with them. You had ulterior motives, fine. No one knew that at the time, why should I be omnipotent.

@JimJesus 0.o I made the video ages ago. You seem to be still supporting the idea I'm ignorant of them with present tweets.
No, I was defending my position at the time before you made the video so I didn't have to bother finding out the purpose of the video. Granted I didn't know these videos exist because I don't watch your videos as I've told you. I saw that one and commented on it. At the time and the information available at the time, it was not inaccurate. Even taking into account the previous video that did exist at the time.

@JimJesus This video is prior to the tweet if it helps 

To which I respond "And this clarifies your point about making a video to J4J about VFX? Pooka, you dun goofed."

Sorry, Pookie. Your video, as presented, was making clear you wanted to open a dialog with J4J which I found ignorant. Again, I don't watch your channel, I've never been a subscriber, and I avoided having a dialog with you given your extreme irrationality on many topics you discuss, including many I agree with you overall on.

There's silence for 2 hours. I figured he might of done something else for a bit, reflected, and/or just dropped it. It's not like I could have known what he was going to say before he said it, nor is it a big deal he didn't take the timeline of events into full consideration. Unfortunately, we're still talking about Pooka here.

@JimJesus No that addresses your claim of; "I'd never commented on J4J prior to your tweet" & "You're ignorant". Jim you dun goofed.
@JimJesus Impression I'm getting is you failed in winning the relevant arguments so you're now grasping at straws here on twitter. #LetItGo

So when he realizes he makes a total ass of himself he doubles down and lies. I never said he said he never commented on Jews For Jesus, nor did I imply it, nor did I hint at it, nor did that thought even cross my mind so he can't even say he read my mind.

Give it up Pooka, you're a human too. You fuck up just like anyone else.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Debunking Bunk Facebook Macros Part 2

No comments:

Debunking Bunk Facebook Macros Part 1

I've noticed a lot bullshit image macros on Facebook. So every time I see one from now on I'll post the corrected version that you can share.

You can follow me on Facebook here and share directly when I post these. Just know I don't engage much there so don't feel upset if I don't reply or like your funny joke. I'm sure it was very funny. :<

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Sorry, I was pooping...

No comments:
I wish to say I'm sorry to those who've been following my blog and not seen any updates recently. As some of you may have seen I've been making 'YouTube Poops' lately. Have a watch and enjoy

Just a fair warning; the first 3 aren't that great. I was still new to the art. They do get progressively better as they go. 

Black and White Perspectives in a Very Grey World

No comments:
Now before I delve in, I would like to point out that EagleEye1975 did a video on this earlier today which did get me more interested in this phenomenon, but it wasn't until today that I was swimming up to my eye balls in this kind of fail logic that inspired me to do a blog post.

I want to lay out some facts here and listen carefully:

  1. Drone strikes are better than conventional methods of attacks which cause greater amounts of collateral damage. 
  2. The NDAA doesn't authorize the arbitrary indefinite detention of US citizens. 
  3. Marijuana is illegal at the federal lever regardless of state law, don't be surprised if you find yourself raided by the D.E.A.
  4. Alex Jones is not COINTELPRO
  5. Hamas is a terrorist organization.
  6. Obama is a terrible president. 
  7. Feminist patriarchy theory often falls into unfalsifiable claims and often skews statistics to support their causes (i.e. wage gap)

Now before you read on let those juggle around in your brain for a moment and then continue... 

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Are women truly this stupid?

1 comment:

"Being a fireman is more than just putting out blazes and giving kittens CPR," intones a super hot fireman (who is in fact holding a kitten). Similarly, being a woman is more than ogling said fireman and kitten -- but sometimes we like to do those things too. Sauza's tongue-in-cheek tequila commercial is over-the-top in terms of its campy attempt to appeal to women ... and it works. Really well.

So are women really going to buy tequila because it appeals to 2 stereotypical likes of females; firemen and kittens? Apparently so! Why do companies think women are this stupid? Are women truly that stupid?

This is a parody to the post "Are men truly this stupid?" On the FreeThoughtBlogs "No Country For Women." link here:  

Update: In case you didn't see the hard to see text at the bottom it said:
This is a parody to the post "Are men truly this stupid?" On the FreeThoughtBlogs "No Country For Women." link here:

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Why I'm Voting for Gary Johnson.

No comments:
As you know I'm no fan of Barack Obama or Mitt Romney nor am I a fan of Paul Ryan or Joe Biden. Romney says things in stark contrast of Obama but his record tells a story similar to Obama.  The only person out of the four who's any different is Paul Ryan who talks the talk of free markets and tries to submit budgets which largely are a step in the right direction, he knows they won't pass and still promotes things like TARP and Economic Stimulus. 

For me, it matters very little if Obama or Romney win the election alone because I don't think they will do much differently except for 2 important aspects that cancel each other out.

If Obama gets elected, Republicans will still take Congress and Senate seats. If this is done, there will be gridlock and we'll see the same situation we saw in the 90's with Clinton and the Republicans. Clinton and the Republicans had no choice but to work with each other and the legislative process was throttled. Which is a good thing.

If Romney wins we'll have a situation like we had in the 00's where the Congress and the Senate will pass bills like crazy and the White House will rubber stamp everything. However, the plus side is Romney may play the same cards Obama plays, but his rhetoric will end the Great Depression style 'regime uncertainty' Obama is so good at. That is to say, Romney's rhetoric will be less volatile and hostile to entrepreneurs who are fearful of new regulations, taxes, and monetary policy that might make their investments in new capital and labor more risky.

Now if I had to chose, I'd go for the Obama/Republican option because it's probably best overall, but neither is significant enough for me to give a shit. For those who make the erroneous claim "Well the Republicans in Clinton's day are different than today's Tea Party Republicans." OK, but then you'd also have to ignore in the 8 year long process of trying to get Clinton impeached from Whitewater to Lewinsky.

In my state of Nevada, we're in a swing state. A few votes can toss the electoral votes either way so my vote technically matters but I don't care. I'm going to play strategically because unless Barack Obama comes out with a video of him killing babies or something, he's probably going to with with or without Nevada so I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Now do I think Gary Johnson has a shot? Not really, not even one fit for hell. However this vote will make an important message to the Republicans if Romney loses by a small margin. If Johnson's vote can be seen to tip the scales as a spoiler the Republican party will have to come to terms with the fact that if it wants to win elections, they can't be a hardline religious right tent anymore. They'd need to appeal to social liberals, libertarians and the log cabin. I've been vocal in my non-support for Ron Paul because of his questionable actions with the paleo-conservative strategy with Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard (i.e. his racist newsletters), but I agree with Ron more than not and what happened to him in the Convention and in states like Maine were totally uncalled for and totally underhanded. The fervor of the religious right and the moral majorists is withering away with the new generation of young conservatives who tent to be more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal.

If your idea of having another Barry Goldwater era of the Republican party, it's time to register Republican and vote Johnson. In the end, Republicans will have to accept that the age of Falwell is nearing it's conclusion and, like evolution, it's time to adapt or go extinct.

...or you can be a pussy and vote for the lesser of two evils and pretend it mattered. 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

ForcedThoughtBlog Retard. (The most politically incorrect blog post I've ever made!)

No comments:
For those who haven't been following the latest Minituth announcements over at FreeThoughtBlogs. Apparently it's perfectly OK to take things out of context, re-word and even totally fabricate your opponent's words to show how evil they are. Why be honest and face your criticism when you can just call them a stupid racist misogynistic libertarian and lie to prove it and call it a day? Of course the lie is pretty clear to anyone who even bothers to look up the discussion which is freely available.

However one of the commenters, Rodney Nelson, struck me as especially retarded. I use the word retarded because I know it will enrage the uber-PB speech Nazis over at FreeThoughtBlogs. It makes them so angry I will repeat this word many times over the course of this blog. I hope I do offend you because you do not deserve to feel comfortable because you guys are lying authoritarian shitbags because not a one of you denounced this lie. Oh, I should of put a trigger warning before this shouldn't I? Oh well

TRIGGER WARNING: I used the word retard and that might trigger some people with a perpetual victimhood complex to be emo-fucktards. More use of the word 'retard' to come. 

So on with the retarded comments:

You can always tell who the libertarians are. They’re the center of the universe, can never do anything wrong, and everyone else should just admire them for their sheer awesomeness.

This is coming from a group who says any atheist who disagrees with them should start an "Atheist Assholes" group and says they're all a bunch of privileged sexist jerks. Fuck you. It's not libertarians who are guilty of this, it's virtually every political group. It's not the ideology, it's the few pretentious assholes who are in it. Atheism+ just happens to be a purely pretentious group.

Now on with his retarded masterpiece.
Let’s take a look at the preamble to the Libertarian Party platform which was given as “proof” that libertarians aren’t selfish assholes:
  • We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
What does “sole dominion” mean? Is it “you can’t tell me what to do”? All kinds of people tell us what to do, starting with our parents, teachers, baby sitters, and elder siblings. I spent two years in the Army where people were telling me what to do. My bosses at work tell me what to do. My doctor tells me what to do. When I buy a pair of shoes the sales associate tells me what to do.
Freedom isn’t always a good thing. The freedom to starve is not good when you’re the one starving. But even if we accept that freedom is generally good, it’s not the only good thing. Physical security, which even prisoners can have, is good. The love of a family is good, yet families are one of the least free groupings we know. The emotional ties of families, imposed upon us by other family members, cannot be discarded with ease.
I’ve seen libertarians explain this away by claiming that choices or the freedom to choose are what make something good. I know in my life I’ve made choices that were not good. Also as I said above, often choices are made for me. Why is my bosses’ choices good for them but not good for me?
The reduction of everything to choices presupposes all choices made will be optimal. If one is making a choice without complete knowledge of the possibilities, then the likelihood of making the best choice erodes. It is impossible for anyone to be knowledgeable about everything required to make life’s everyday choices.
Plus individuals must abide by choices made for the good of society. I cannot set myself up as a physician without passing a medical exam to show I’m minimally competent. Many other professions have similar qualifications to keep the incompetent from preying on the rest of us. Yet only the truly hardcore libertarians object to proficiency examinations, the rest of us want professionals to be qualified to do their jobs.
Quite often the price of greater freedom tomorrow is less freedom today. Total freedom today would just run down accumulated social capital and ignoring future problems. So the choice for freedom is the necessarily the right one on any particular question.
Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may enhance it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may enhance it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is wrong.
Libertarianism’s absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery. (It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.)
Most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Thus people don’t choose absolute freedom. This refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as it defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. So people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

Let's dig in!

1. The Libertarian Party is not representative of Libertarians in the Libertarian Party as a whole like the Democratic Party Platform isn't representative of the Democratic Party as a whole. On top of that; not every libertarian (in fact most libertarians I would argue) is a member or supportive of the Libertarian Party just like not every liberal is a Democrat. It's a stupid position to hold and it shows how stupid you are about, not just politics, but party politics in general. You are a retard.

2. He asks what "sole dominion" means then asks if it means "No one tells me what to do" then attacks that assumption. It is not. Libertarians don't mind being told what to do, so long as it's in a voluntary agreement. A boss tells me what to do because I agreed to join his labor force and be told what to do for pay. Same with the Army; you signed a contract saying the Army can regulate your behavior. And, no you fucking idiot, a sales associate doesn't tell you what to do. You're a fucking retard for thinking you don't have a choice in a voluntary sale. Retard, retard, retard.

3. Sole dominion means what it obviously means. Since you are retarded I will spell it out for you: You own yourself and you should do with yourself as you please provided it does not interfere with others or their property without their consent. I can swing my arms any way I want but that right stops at your nose no matter how much I want to yank out your retarded hipster nose ring.

4. Freedom is always a good thing. Always, including the freedom to starve. I would rather starve then to have some self important bureaucratic asshole or politician shove food down my throat. Also I don't see libertarians run around demanding the freedom to starve, they do demand the freedom to eat what they want which you probably want banned because "It's so bad for you!" Who gives a fuck?

5. " Physical security, which even prisoners can have, is good. The love of a family is good, yet families are one of the least free groupings we know. The emotional ties of families, imposed upon us by other family members, cannot be discarded with ease." Are you done with the irrelevant tangents, retard? This has to do with "freedom" how exactly? Retard.

6. "I’ve seen libertarians explain this away by claiming that choices or the freedom to choose are what make something good" This is retarded. The freedom to choose is always good, but no one says that all the choices you make will be good. Only a retard like you would think something this stupid. I will fight for your right to choose to put that fork in the toaster, and in your case I would encourage you to do it, but that doesn't mean it's a good choice.

7. It never assumed that ALL choices made will be optimal if we all have freedom to choose. We fully accept that you are too stupid to make optimal choices, the thing is you get to make those choices for yourself, only you will suffer the consequences and possibly learn from them. I doubt you will learn seeing that you're retarded, but at least you won't make bad choices for all of society which is what you advocate. I'll make my own poor decisions for me, I don't need your help. Also, you're retarded.

8. Actually, you can call yourself a doctor without any training. However, no one will rust a retard like you without creditably, Dr. Shithead phD in douchery.

9. "Quite often the price of greater freedom tomorrow is less freedom today." Please stick a fork in the toaster. Please, so we don't have to hear anymore of this retarded doublespeak. "Herpaderpderp we need less freedom so we can have more freedom but absolute freedom is less freedom. Freedom is slavery!" If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, we'd need to invent a platinum medal just for you, retard.

10. "For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery." This is probably one of the most sensible things he's said so far, but that's really sad. There's been some debate in libertarian circles about the specifics but there's one thing we can all agree on; if you are volunteering to be a slave, you can't be a slave. Slavery, by definition is conscription which is involuntary. You signed up for the military which is just what you're saying people could do under libertarianism so no, even in your world this is possible and agreeable to you. You fucking idiot.

11. "Most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments." Argument ad-populum. Most people are religious, so much for atheism right? God, you're a retard.

12.  "(It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.) " Yea, like how government are run in most non-libertarian countries. Derp.

13. This is the most important point of all. Let's say you're absolutely right. Libertarianism is stupid and intellectually as bankrupt as say... you. This doesn't mean it's OK to lie about what one of them says to get the upper hand in a debate. But this is my favorite quote of all:

"Goddamnit, I really hate black people and jews more than I do libertarians" - Rodney Nelson

I know it's a fake quote, but you're stupid moonbat so it's OK for me to do. Fucking - retard - asshole. 

Monday, September 10, 2012

A few things I found in SCUM Manifesto...

No comments:
Do you remember Valerie Solanas? The crazy radical feminist who wanted to kill all men and later shot Andy Warhol? Well she wrote a feminist manifesto (that most feminist do not adhere to) where she wrote about how men were incomplete women and need to be slaughtered. I scanned over some of it this morning and found some... "familiar topics" shall we say?

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.
Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:

1. Pussy. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.

2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.

3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.

4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.

5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!

6. Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.

 A completely automated society can be accomplished very simply and quickly once there is a public demand for it. The blueprints for it are already in existence, and it's construction will take only a few weeks with millions of people working on it. Even though off the money system, everyone will be most happy to pitch in and get the automated society built; it will mark the beginning of a fantastic new era, and there will be a celebration atmosphere accompanying the construction. 

Monday, September 3, 2012

Shit Dead People Didn't Say Vol. 2 (The Jeffersonian Edition)

1 comment:
There's a lot of bullshit quotes attributed to Jefferson and I think a volume should be dedicated to him alone.

 "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
The earliest source there is for this quote dates to 2004. In none of his writings or speeches was this ever included or referred to by secondary sources until the 21st century.

"That government is best which governs least"
While Jefferson did say things similar to this, this is not a quote of his. It's a quote from Henry David Thoreau from his book Civil Disobedience.

 "Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

Again this quotation isn't in any of his primary or secondary writings nor is there any evidence that he smoked anything, let alone hemp.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
 This quote is also attributed to Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine but there's no evidence that this is a quote from Jefferson and wasn't attributed to him until 1994.

Thanks to the Skeptical Libertarian for the inspiration for this post and to the Monticello for doing the footwork for this. To see more of the laundry list of fake Jefferson quotes check out the Monticello page here.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

FTB is Full of Shit About A+

So a common theme I got on Twitter from the A+ Zombies yesterday after PZ Myers responded to me was typical of shit I would hear from wingnuts during the lead up to the Iraq War. I equate comments like "WELL IF YOU OPPOSE A+ THEN YOU'RE A SEXIST" to "IF YOU OPPOSE THE IRAQ WAR YOU HATE AMERICA AND SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS." Rightfully so, I called them the Bill O'Reilly of atheism.

So I was wondering, why this response was so predominant with the arguments supporters make to critics.  So I scanned the Atheist+ FAQ and found this.

4. You specifically want to exclude people, so you’re a hatemonger!
You can’t be inclusive to everyone. If you include misogynists, you exclude women – etc, etc. I choose to exclude the assholes. Read Greta’s post on the subject.
So reading though Greta's blog post, she makes the claim that A+ isn't exclusive or divisive because if you're sexist women will leave, if you're racist racial minorities will leave, bigoted against mental illness, transphobic..etc.

Well here's the problem; It's a load of shit just like everything else A+ supporters say about it. Now the FAQ is what people are using here and just using it as gospel. "PEOPLE WHO DON'T SUPPORT A+ WANT WOMEN TO BE CHAINED TO THE OVEN WITH JUST ENOUGH SLACK TO REACH THE BEDROOM! SO IF ANYONE OPPOSES IT, CALL THEM OUT FOR THE SEXIST THEY ARE!" Problem is, A+ isn't just about feminism and even if it were it doesn't mean if you don't support the radical feminist platform (like so many FTB do) that doesn't mean you're sexist. It just means they do not agree. ...and that's OK.

 The Gretta post is just as disingenuous because racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ...etc are not the only stances of A+. A+ is also for "social justice" which is based on economic egalitarianism and wealth redistribution which is the real issue here. Now most of the people I have read comments from or made videos against A+, except for CobraJones and myself, have been on the left of embraced the concepts of social justice. Now here's the important part Gretta and the FTB Thought Police are purposely leaving out; they oppose it being linked to atheism because it's unrelated and excludes conservatives, moderates and libertarians who are necessary to form coalitions.

Another lie of A+ is that they aren't purging people, but rather just ignoring them until they go away until everyone can hold hands and sing Kumbayah. This is a lie. Richard Carrier says explicitly that he wants ostracize them out of The Atheist Community and then compares them to Nazis and the KKK. Later he tried to backtrack by saying:

For example, PZ Myers takes a more hardline stance against Libertarians and equates Atheism+ with explicitly progressive politics, but though I agree he is probably right (IMO, Libertarianism, on any full and proper analysis, doesn’t hold up as sound, and won’t work to solve most of the actual problems we face), I do not agree that it is any defining characteristic of Atheism+ (which is why, when I wrote an elaborate post about what Atheism+ was, this criterion was nowhere to be seen).
I know many Libertarians who are only Libertarians as an excuse to rationalize the fact that they are assholes and don’t give a shit about other people. But I also know many Libertarians who actually do care about social justice issues, and admit problems exist in that domain, and actually have passionate ideas about how to solve them. They might be wrong (sometimes they are even right), but the defining characteristic here is that they care and acknowledge that we should care, about solving those problems. And they will engage in reasonable and honest debate about how to solve them, without hypocrisy. They just have different ideas about what solutions will work.
Thus, those Libertarians are on board with the core values of Atheism+. They are with us–even though they disagree with PZ and I (often radically) on many matters of how to go about solving the problems of injustice and unfairness in society. So this is the defining feature: Do you give a shit about other people, or not? Do you believe something should be done about injustice and unfairness in society (and in talking reasonably about what should be done), or not? If not, then you are an asshole. And you are definitely thumbing-down Atheism+. We are done with you. You are not one of us. You can go start your own clubs and have your own conferences.

So not only is he admitting that A+ is about progressive politics outright and PZ thinks so, he agrees he's probably right. Secondly; he's right that libertarians do care about "social justice" because they explicitly do not support economic egalitarianism or wealth redistribution. That's kind of the point of being a libertarian. So if you want to find this magical unicorn that is an egalitarian libertarian, by my guest. I do think you'll have a better time finding the unicorn first. Now before I receive a torrent of left-libertarians trying to show me I'm wrong, save it. Carrier is talking about right libertarians and that's what I'm responding to. Even then he's leaving out moderates and conservatives which are important. Thought you may not agree with all of them; they are necessary to form collections to fight against things atheists do care about like getting 'God' off money and the pledge.

Lastly, they claim that this isn't about atheism, it's about creating a safe haven for atheists who feel this way. This is a lie. This is "third wave of atheism,"

So please, before you think the reasons why I don't support A+ is because I won't buy a girl a watch for there's a clock on every oven; please take a step back and pull your emotions out of it. I'm not a misogynist. I am not a rapist. I am not a racist. I'm not xenophobic. I am not transphobic. I am not homophobic. I don't care what your political views are. I don't care about any of that stuff in my opposition. The problem I have is these issues, mostly political, are being linked to Atheism itself. The point is to expand the tent, not shrink it.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012


No comments:
All posts regarding VoiceOfReason467 on this blog have been reverted to draft.

Edit: I found a couple that were overlooked and they were removed. If there's another, please leave me a comment. 

Atheists Against Atheist Plus. (AAA+)

1 comment:
I touched on this already, but I thought I would make a catalog of the other various blog posts and videos by others who have weighed in against Atheism Plus. If I am missing any or you want to add yours, email jim at jimjesus dot com (Sorry, I don't want more webcrawlers picking it up) or just leave a comment.


CFI's Ronald A. Lindsay:






IntegralMath has made lots of videos on the topic, here's one, but see his channel for more.





Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Just for the record...

No comments:
I will not respond to any blog directed at me who can't grasp very basic grammar and punctuation. It only demonstrates your maturity and investigatory abilities.

- Thank you. 

Sunday, August 26, 2012

I'm an atheist, that means I'm smart.

I've said this on Twitter many times and I thought I would write a post about why I say it. The common theme of Movement Atheism is:

Atheists infinitely rational ubermenches, theists stupid redneck hillbillies. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennit are infallible and if you disagree with them, even in topics unrelated to the topic of existence of Gods, you must be a theist and thus stupid. 

While even in my hardcore Movement Atheism days I would have never agreed to this, but that sort of superiority complex did consume me briefly but I did snap out of it fairly quickly and since then Atheists have been consuming much more of my patience than the hardcore evangelist Christian crowd.

Let me make my position clear because if I don't I will inevitably get a flood of comments accusing me of being a theist. Even still, I might be accused of being a stealth theist. So for the record:

I do think disregarding religion was one of the best things I've ever done, and I did to it though rational means. However, just because my conversion to atheism was rational, doesn't make everyone else's conversion was done rationally nor does it mean that me or other are rational about other things. The only thing being an atheists is or should ever mean is that you deny the existence of a deity. You made one decision I agree was right on one subject, and nothing else.

With that said I will go over a few reason why I've always said this, then go on to the reason I wrote this entry. The final straw on the camel. Some of these are minor disagreements and some of these are pretty major.

Christopher Hitchens. 

My favorite of the 4 horsemen for sure, however he was an avowed Marxist and supporter of the Iraq War. These are minor disagreements compared to others, but it does illustrate that he was not infallible. 

Sam Harris. 

Seriously, screw this guy. While I thought his book End of Faith was good, and he's a great debator and public speaker on the question of the existence of God, he does advocate racial profiling of Arabs at airports and thinks that the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment should be overturned because it's a quaint relic from religion and that in the future we should use neurological lie detectors.


A YouTuber who's known for making the same 5 videos over and over and over and over again. They are poorly argued, repetitive, poorly made, and just serves as a front for her to sell useless crap on Zazzle and to get people to buy her stuff on her Amazon Wish List. Her line is "Don't just run on automatic; think!" and it seems like all of her videos are running on automatic. They say the same things, argue the same lame points over and over and over and over and over...

Rebecca Watson and P.Z. Myers 

If anyone deserves my full disdain, it's Watson and Myers. While Watson is perfectly fine objectifying herself in sexy pictures in her Skepchick calendar she's not OK with you asking her for coffee in an elevator. If you tell her that it's trivial protest like Dawkins did, then she will announce how evil you are and write you off a "rich old heterosexual white guy." P.Z. Myers has gone to ridiculous lengths to white knight for her, including banning Thunderf00t from FreeThoughtBlogs for daring to question Elevtorgate and their proposals for having 'anti-sexist' rules for further conferences.  They're also now pimping this A+ Atheism snake oil I will talk about later in this post.

Cult of Dusty

A YouTuber who make obnoxiously shouting videos about how religion is the source of all evil and has even tried to make the point that the world would be a near utopia if religion were abolished.

Pat Condell

Pat Condell broke into the atheist community like a bolt of lightning with his Atheist Challenge video he did for the Rational Response Squad. Then his other videos came out where he started expressing Islamaphobia, citing World Net Daily, Jordan Maxwell and Zeitgeists' Christ Myth theory giving misleading and often downright bogus information, and promoting the infamous "Jihad Prevention Act" which would have blocked people immigrating to this country and removed citizenship from Americans who ever expressed support for Sharia Law.This guy goes without saying, he's one of the rare people who was cast out of Movement Atheism for being to fringe. But he is an exception, not the rule. 

You're Either A Plus Good or Thought Criminal. 

Now this was the final straw for me. Trying to institute a "new wave" of Atheism, (See this horrible  Manifesto) because the second wave was just a bunch of rich old white guys according to Rebecca Watson. This new wave of Atheism is Atheism Plus or 'A+.' Apparently this all stemmed from a conversation on one of the blogs at FreeThoughtBlogs, and more importatly one particular comment from Jen McCreight.

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

 Richard Carrier breaks it down like this:

A. Atheism and skepticism should embrace diversity (and not just be a bunch of white guys reading a bunch of white guys). In fact, we should be really keen on expanding our experience and horizons in that regard, aiming to learn as much as possible, and provide resources to help all our comrades in arms.

 While I agree, this kind of goes against the protest against racism bit. If you're going to fight racism, you can stop using "white guys" as a negativism. You should embrace it and hope to expand across ethnic lines. Sure being non-diverse of a group isn't always great, but it's not bad to be any ethnicity, white included.

B. Atheist and skeptic communities should encourage everyone to apply skeptical analysis not just to religion, pseudoscience, and woo, but to social, moral, and political policies, theories and activists.

 No. The skeptical and atheist communities should keep their views open to people of all views except that of religion, pseudoscience, and woo. If you want to be a staunch right wing conservative, Marxist, or a moderate but still oppose religion and homeopathy you should be included. If you don't buy the feminist's theory or thing Obama is not be best of presidents, you should be free to disagree and still be allowed to discuss the unrelated topic of atheism and skepticism. This is just shrinking the tent, and it's not to anyone's benefit.

C. Considering the history of religion and how it has even warped secular life and thought in countries around the world, atheists and skeptics should spend as much time and energy deconstructing illogical and/or inhumane secular policies and claims as they do actively fighting religiously-based interference. We have to be as critical of ourselves and each other as we would expect anyone to be of religion, so we can be sure we don’t make the same mistakes. We must police the rot within, if we are to stand strong against our foes without.
This I can agree with the message that underlies this, but it makes it more malleable and extend it to non-religious issues. Yes, things like female (and male to a lesser extent) genital mutilation is not the greatest bi-products of religion and should be opposed by the skeptical community on the science grounds, and by the atheist community on religious grounds. Opposing the secular stance against, say, the death penalty should not be an official stance of the community if the goal is to broaden the base.

D. In the field of education, atheists and skeptics should help promote courses and curricula that include logic and abstract thought rather than focusing all efforts on science. We need to train kids with a universal toolkit of skeptical and critical thinking about all issues in their lives, not just the scientific, but the social, political, and ideological as well. And we need to take seriously the effort to push for that and make it happen at the fundamental and national level.

Ever hear the story of the family who's great lovable dog was hit by a car, so they cooked and ate him? That's how it was reading this. It was a good read and then they just ruined it. Yes, the skeptic, and to an extent atheist groups should promote skeptic and rational thinking in school. But political and ideological opinions? No. People should use reasoning and logic to deduce what political ideology is best, not given on a silver platter. That's not teaching logic, that's an ideological agenda for manipulating the youth to your brand of politics.  But see, it's bad when right-wing conservatives or evangelical Christians do it, but OK if progressive atheists do it.

So now on the the planks of the new Atheist Plus Manifesto.

1. We believe in being reasonable.
This is that all atheists should be rational and follow lines of logic and evidence. If someone isn't doing this, then call them out. No complaints here.

2. We believe in being compassionate. 
Again, this is the family's dog story all over again. It starts off by saying that we should have empathy and care for people, we shouldn't be harsh or insulting unless it's justified. Then it leaps right into comparing people who "attack" feminism in the same ballpark as racism and sexism.  Whether you agree with them or not, people who oppose feminism aren't advocating things on the same level as sexism or racism. Then it tries to equate the plight of a woman who was apparently doxed and threatened to the guy who asked Watson for some coffee. Mind if I call you, Dick? I thought you believed in being reasonable, Dick.

 3. We believe in personal integrity
Nothing out of the ordinary here. Be honest, don't be a hypocrite...etc. Now with that said, no, you don't have personal integrity, Dick. Go though the comment section here and just see why I say this. People have legitimate concerns and issues with the post and he just attacks and belittles them and offers no acknowledgement to their arguments. Makes irrational comparisons to the Nazis and the KKK. Even just saying "So, one vote for douchery. Got it." to someone who said simply "I'll stick to the original atheism, thank you." Someone did point out how much of a hypocrite you were and now you had to eat your shoe and retract a lot of those comments, however it does illustrate a "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality

Now here's the bad part. If you disagree with he narrative of FreeThoughtBlogs, (which is pro-feminism, left wing populism, and for indoctrinating children with these values) then you're a Goldstien. A an ungood thought criminal. As they put it "Atheist Minus" or "A-" minus. And you are not one of "us" but one of "them."

Let me make this clear; Atheism is not political, it's a-political. You can make a group of political groups what cater to atheism. Like even the term "Progressive Atheist" which you use in the blog would be perfectly fine. Have a group that appeals and spreads the ideas of progressive politics and atheism.  Just like there can be "The Skeptical Libertarian" which aim isn't to make the skeptical movement a streamlined libertarian group, but to promote both skepticism and libertarianism. Or like "Log Cabin Republicans" which is to promote conservatism and gay rights, not to make all conservatives gay rights activists. Don't try and mold a non-belief into a series of beliefs. Atheism is a lack of beliefs; nothing more.

(For a further and more in depth dicection of this A+ blog post and the comments Richard makes, see the video below.)

Stupid Atheists and Smart Christians Exist, Believe It or Not! 

There's a long history of great thinkers coming from judeo-christian beliefs. Not jsut the usual dead scientists but people like Kenneth Miller, a catholic biologist who argued for evolution in the Dover Trial. Francis Collins from the Human Genome Project who is an avowed Evangelical Christian. And the neurosurgeon Ben Carson just to name a few. I don't think anyone worth responding to will deny that that there are brilliant Christians who make contributions to the skeptic community. 

There are stupid atheists. I mean just terribly irrational. There are atheist conspiracy theorists, 9/11 Truthers, New Agers, UFO enthusiasts, utopian ideologues, MLM cultists, and the like. The Raelians is an atheist group and tries to sell itself to atheists. Brett Keene the lying, wife beating, e-begging, welfare king is an avowed atheist. And while I disagree with these women and don't think they're idiots, many leftists do. S.E. Cupp and Ayn Rand are an atheists and atheism is included in Rand's Objectivist philosophy.  There's a host of unpalatable, idiotic or downright morally repugnant people who self apply the atheist label and should never be used as an identifier of a good or rational person because people can reject god for irrational reasons.

In conclusion. 

So in short, don't think for a second that just because you rejected God, you're automatically correct about everything else because you're a rational person. Don't think that just because someone hasn't made that leap that they are stupid or at least dumber than you. Just because you're an atheist AND of a flavor of political thought that your flavor of political thought is the best for all.  Don't make stupid and absurd claims that a world without religion is a utopia or even "better." People have rational beliefs and irrational sacred cows where they believe in a god or not.

If your goal is to push for greater acceptance of atheism in the mainstream, great. I'm with you, but Movement Atheism has long left that goal and is now on to more extremist positions. While I still loathe the term "militant atheist" (like we fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics) I can understand why that label gets bandied about. You're rational in your questioning of God, but irrational in your approach to win hearts and minds. 

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Yea, I'm Done With TZM/TVP

So I've been doing an inventory of what I care about and guess what failed to make the list? It's been a long road, and I've helped many people leave that pointless group and now I'm done.

The Zeitgeist Media Festival was a total failure. It was an empty house on the main stage in Los Angeles, even more-so than last year. Videos of the other events are non-existent. New (Age) World Fair was equally as fail. VTV can't even keep his electricity on with donations anymore and hasn't collected the monthly amount he needed in months and now resorts to trolling with sockpuppets for attention. People advocating TZM/TVP on YouTube videos have come to an almost grinding halt except for a few people and even they are talking about other things anymore. Peter Joseph is having to reverse his no interview policy and is now begging respected people for interviews and because they all turned him down, he's climbing back up the crank pole hoping for an Alex Jones interview. They've been laughed and shunned out of most Occupy camps and the only media attention they can foster is when one of their members breaks the law or does something stupid. If you ask most people they will roll there eyes when you mention Zeitgeist. Most political talkers have a unspoken rule about not talking about TZM because they know they're not dealing with people with a political view, but a host of religious zealots with a superiority complex so they don't waste their time. People know Merola is a conspiracy nut and Fresco is a senile old man and that's the icing on the "why bother?" cake.

And I noticed that in the last 3 days I have only talked to or heard from 2 I would call "Zeitgeist supporters" and even "Zeitards" have been few and far between. Why? Because The Zeitgeist Movement has been dead for some time now and now the corpse is starting to decompose.

There's no point left in even wasting my time exposing them any more unless one of them starts threatening to blow things up or shoots a congress critter again. I will no longer even aknowledge your argument or your comment if you're a member of TZM/TVP. If you use TZM/TVP material or their advocate's materials I will cease communication. It's not worth anyone's time. It's not worth my subcriber's and reader's time and it's really not worth mine. James Kush, MarioBrotha, Muertos, RonOfTheDead, axe863, JustinTemper, Bob Dobbs/AgentMatt, CT2012, TheRealRoxette, Ed Winston, and the rest have does good work exposing them and helping pull membership to critical mass. By critical I mean on life support.

So bad puns aside, I'm done. Leave a comment if you will, I'm on to greener pastures. It's been real.

-Jim Jesus
a.k.a. Machwon
a.k.a. paid disinformation agent
a.k.a. Paid Free Market Economist
a.k.a. The propagandist
a.k.a. the fucking faggot
a.k.a. the reason anarchy will never work
a.k.a. the culturally indoctrinated idiot.
a.k.a. hired reputation destroyer
a.k.a. the patriarch
a.k.a. The guy who watches Bill O'Reilly and Jersey shore
a.k.a. the 1%
a.k.a ... fuck I forgot most of the bullshit you idiots call me. Any way you know who I am. 

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Yes, I deleted VTV's comment.

VTV has been using sockpuppets (like he always does) to try and link his sockpuppet's blog post to here. I deleted them just like he deletes and edits many of my comments from his stuff. I told him I'm not interested in debating him or his poverty Muppets anymore but he still persists to push the issue.

His blog isn't worth addressing as anyone who takes 5 seconds to investigate the quotes and sources he uses would find they prove him to be a liar. So I'm not going to waste my time nor will I waste any more time on VTV at all. He's insignificant to the movement, his fan base is depleting, and most of his critics are members of TZM. It would be like debating LaRouche to somehow sway Democrats into leaving the party. A Google search of "vtv v-radio" does more than enough to discredit him I'm just piling more straw on the dead camel.

So yes, I won't be accepting comments that link to that blog because it's a waste of time and energy and anyone who thinks that blog is objective isn't worth my time anyway. 

Monday, July 30, 2012




Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Shit Dead People Didn't Say Vol. 1


All to common with the conspiracy and anti-Federal Reserve crowd comes a landslide of bullshit quotes, mostly from the founding fathers. Here I will list some things dead people didn't say.

“Give me control over a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”  
–Baron Mayer Amschel Rothschild
The earliest quoting of this passage was from a book written in 1900, more than 80 years after his death and there's simply no contemporary evidence of this quote. This quote is an altered version of the quote "Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." -Andrew Fletcher

Until I can get some evidence that this was said by him from documents or sources in his time, I'm going to give this the debunked label.

“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt”
-John Adams
Never said it. This quote is in none of his article, it's cited in nothing in the founding documents or newspapers in the time. If you can find any evidence what so ever that this is a true quote, let me know and I will pass it off to some historians who have been challenging people to find any evidence of this quote. As far as any historian is aware of; it's a bogus quote invented by anti-Fed conspiracy theorists.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
 -Thomas Jefferson

 This quote is so fake because the words "inflation" (1864) and "deflation" (1920) were not coined until after Jefferson died. On top of that; there's no contemporary documents or sources that quote him saying this.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson

This one is a bit tricky because it's a hack job. Conspiracy theroists have been atempting to save face by sauing it's in the book "The New Freedom" but Woodrow Wilson, but it's not. There are 2 seperate quotes which comprise above quote. "A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom." and  "We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."

He was not regretful of instituting the Fed nor does he think he ruined his country by founding the Fed. That book; "The New Freedom" was published in 1919 but was a compilation of speeches he gave while running for office before the Federal reserve was enacted. 

I think it's important to look at the fed critically, and there's lots of good resources to have a rational discussion of the Fed and it's policies, but using these quotes and relying of conspiratorial information is never a good way to go and only makes you look like a liar and a nut. 

Sunday, July 15, 2012

TZM Wants a Censorship Society

Looks as though someone from The Zeitgeist Movement was upset over a recent posting at James Kush's blog about a peer reviewed study that showed that TZM was "conspirituality" or a new age conspiracy religion. So they took it upon themselves to have the whole site shut down and VTV posted this picture shortly after.

This is in stark contrast to their claims that they want a "free and open society" and opposed all forms of censorship. I already knew this when they false flagged my video "The End of The Zeitgeist Movement" for "hate speech." (Mirror: Which is kind of funny because it's not a sexual orientation or a race, so perhaps this is TZM affirming it is a religion.

Nothing of value was lost. I have been told by James Kush that he regularly backs up the site and it will be back up very soon on it's own domain to prevent further abuse.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

This Ain't Your Grandpa's World's Fair

So strolling around on YouTube for crazy videos I stumbled on this on the TZMOfficialChannel ... channel.

Apparently TZM was invited to The New World Fair. OK, what's that?

I think everyone had that grandpa or great grandpa who talked about that crazy thing they saw/did at the 1945 World's Fair. If not, go vist an old folk's home and chat it up with some of the blue haired beauties and they'll tell you all about it. They stopped calling it the World's Fair and started calling in Expo in 1967 an apparently continues to this day.

Since there's still a sence of nostalgia attached to the name, a bunch of crazy moonbats and new-agers got together and started up a "New" World Fair. Now yesterday I knew nothing about this but apparently it's been going on for a while now and the next ones in in New York and TZM got invited. Already that speaks volumes to the credibility.

So doing a little invistigation I started looking into what's going to be going on there and boy does this sound like a Loonyfest


I don't even know what to say other than you need to see this for yourself. It's just a word salad list of all the new agey words in the dictionary.


Luana DeAngelis: "Luana DeAngelis is Founder and Director of You Can Thrive! Foundation, a large utopian version of the future of health care. " What? Apparently this place is a new age healing center that cures diseases by meditation, yoga, eating vegetables, aligning your chakras, spanking the pudd..etc. This is so not a scam. *ahem*

Andrew Norton Webber: A nut bar who thinks drinking your piss will cure everything including AIDS.

Dina Vitantonio; A horsey faced Sarah Jessica Parker lookalike who runs a quack healing outfit that uses the "energy" from crystals, alligning you chakras, medication, yoga, martial arts, Reiki, Tao and all kinds of other new age nonsense.

Russ Baker: An investigative journalist who I know nothing about nor can I tell anything about him on his site.

Bill Still: The guy who made the notoriously incorrect films The Money Masters and The Secrets of Oz

Adam Kokesh: A libertarian activist but noted 9/11 Truther and conspiracy theorist. His buddy, Luke Rudowski a key person in the conspiracy activist group We Are Change.

Webster Griffin Tarpley: Conspiracy nut and former LaRouche cultist who thinks everything in a false flag operation.

Susan Lindauer: A crazy bitch who decided to be a spy for the Iraqi Government but was declaired mentally unfit for trial. The charges were dropped later but she still claims she knew about 9/11 in advance, worked for the CIA and other nutty adventures.

Vashisht Vaid: New age crank that rambles about expanding consciousnesses, esoteric knowledge, vortex of energies, and other new age meaningless psychobabble.

Jonathan Talat Philips: A new agey religious blogger for HuffPo who wrote a play called "The Ayahuasca Monologues"


I won't list all of them but I'll list some of the highlights:

Food Beware: A film about how we should all eat organic local foods even hough ir will just result in more expensive food and less of it.

Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point: A movie about how we should have free energy, even though it violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The Future of Food: Morgan Spurlock tells us GMO good is bad and Organic is good. Crap.

Supercharge This!: A wannabe SuperSize Me movie about raw foodism.

The Beautiful Earth: There's a conspiracy to keep the cure from cancer known by big pharma but somehow they forgot to cover up this movie.

2012 A Time for Change: A new age Mayan Calender Doomsday movie with a twist; it's going to be a good thing.

A few other 2012 movies...

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. A debunked movie about a Utopian form of social restructuring.

The Boy With Divine Powers: About a guy who is Buddha reincarnate. I didn't know Buddha slapped people and had his followers kidnapped women. He's also a fraud.

What in the World Are They Spraying? LOLCHEMTRAILS! Chemtrail nuttery movie. Nuff' said.

Freedom To Fascism: One of the conspiracy movies I used to like long ago. It's crap. A lot of inaccurate claims about the history of the fed, lot of bogus quotes used. Also sorry, you have to pay income taxes.

Kymatica/Esoteric Agenda. It's like a new age Zeitgiest on crack. One of the most insufferable conspiracy nut videos I ever watched.

If my Grandfather were alive today, they would be facepalming the very notion that the World Fair had turned into this shit.

Friday, July 13, 2012

VTV is a Liar, and the Pope is Catholic.

No comments:
--- UPDATE! I already issued an update and this post is only 2 hours old! See below --

Calling VTV a liar is like saying the sky is blue; we all already know it's true and it's a waste of breath saying it. There are some people still in TZM who think he's a cool dude just because his radio show agrees with their ideology and he was a former administrator of the TZM Forums.

I'm just going to give you a quick taste of how dishonest this guy is, because it's important for members of TZM still giving this guy resources to represent them to know how much damage he's doing to their group. For full disclosure I haven't been very nice to TZM in the public arena but consider this to be another olive branch I give to you when I say you need to walk away from this guy.

Now for those of you who haven't been following the news, VTV is representing TZM in the Rick Ross forums. He is defending TZM from accusations of it being a cult. I went there and said I do not think it is a cult but needs to have an eye kept on as it in the future becomes smaller and more radicalized. I have always defended TZM not being a cult but have heed the warning that it's somewhat close in many respects but mostly benign.

VTV is doing more than the lion share of the work convincing people that TZM is a cult. He's used "us and them" language, he has demonstrated to the forum he's willing to lie about the rules of the TZM forums, he has demonstrated that the group has 'apostates' and that they are demonized after leaving...etc. Most importantly he's representing himself as some what of a leader and is blatantly lying and engaging in character assassination to this community of cult researchers. These people know the red flags of cults and VTV is waving them high and proud and I think it's fucked up and it's fucked up to TZM.

...but I digress.

VTV said something I will not even bother responding to on the thread there that is deliberately misleading. He's tried twisting thing a while back, it failed then and I won't even allow it to go though the same steps of fail again on the thread because it's not the appropriate avenue for Mr. Ross' forum. We've already shown that VTV has used this quote of mine (pun intended) to try and make it look like I'm saying Mario and Kush are intentionally dishonest.

He quotes me as saying: 

"I will admit this: I have seen Mario use very sensational and sometimes misleading titles for his videos and blogs. I have seen Kush publish information that turned out inaccurate when new evidence has surfaced. I can't speak for the occult aspects of it as I am not well versed in occultism. (note: occult isn't a cult)"

He omits the last sentence, and does so for a very important reason, because it's a quote mine to make Kush and Mario look bad.

I will admit this:
I have seen Mario use very sensational and sometimes misleading titles for his videos and blogs. I have seen Kush publish information that turned out inaccurate when new evidence has surfaced. I can't speak for the occult aspects of it as I am not well versed in occultism. (note: occult isn't a cult)
I can not say in good faith they are deliberately dishonest as you clearly are.

Because they aren't dishonest and VTV is, that is what I was saying. Mario in the past has used sensational and misleading titles for his videos. SomethingSea1 made a video pointing this out and Mario went though all of his videos and re-titled them all, and he has been more careful since. Kush being wrong ex-post is not lying is what he was saying was true ex-ante. Would you call sports casters predicting a certain a team winning before the start of a game liars because the teams lost? No, nor should you expect Kush to have a crystal ball and be privy to all the facts in the universe. I was stating people make mistakes, VTV doesn't make mistakes because he's too busy intentionally lying.

I know this is where VTV was going because this isn't the first time he's tried to use this quote against me. Last time he failed miserably trying to show this as me admitting Kush and Mario are liars, but he can never admit he was mistaken because he's a narcissist.

"And since there is no evidence to verify this yet we are expected to believe you. You are basically asking us to trust a known liar [you Neil] on his word."
And you have yet to prove that I am a known liar at all.
Yet people here have already admitted that even they have seen that James Kush lies on his blog. :)

Anticultist was quick to call him on this lie:

"Yet people here have already admitted that even they have seen that James Kush lies on his blog. :)"
Noone said any such thing, what was said by jim jesus was that James Kush makes mistakes and then has to rectify it after evidence contrary to the initial posts surfaces.
Dont try and stretch peoples comments here into something they did not say.

VTV tries to affirm that he was not trying to twist my words and conveniently omits that last sentence to quote mine me.
Anti-cultist, this was said earlier by Jim Jesus:
"I will admit this:
I have seen Mario use very sensational and sometimes misleading titles for his videos and blogs. I have seen Kush publish information that turned out inaccurate when new evidence has surfaced. I can't speak for the occult aspects of it as I am not well versed in occultism. (note: occult isn't a cult)"
So yes, someone said such a thing. :)

And anticultist still refuses to buy into his lie.

You said someone said James Kush lies on his blog.
Noone said any such thing even that quote you just supplied doesnt say it, so the only person saying it here is you.

Then later he goes on to try misquoting anticultist as well which I won't get into here. But this thread is an entertaining read. 

That's pretty much it, VTV is trying to quote mine me at the Rick Ross Institute Forums to show that Kush is a liar. I didn't say he's a liar. Never hinted it, never insinuated it, never implied it. The only thing I was saying is that mistakes are made, but that doesn't make them a liar like VTV.

---------- UPDATE ------------

VTV got so angry at the latest blogs exposing him by James Kush that he hopped on a proxy and posted as "LibertyGirl" then when he got called out, he stated pretending to be "Anonymous" and getting mad over 'Zeitfags' even though Anons have always called thing -fags for years. (i.e. Christfags, scifags, furfags, moralfags...etc)

LibertyGirl Comments: