Finding Nimmo
Pitiful conspiracy nut loses control of metaphorical bowels on hearing about global referendum. Kurt Nimmo, an equal opportunity purveyor of paranoia (left, right
and centre), was in a feverish delirium of excitement on Thursday. He'd somehow managed to get hold of the the latest plans of the Green Gay Alliance of Soul Enslaving One Worlders, GGAoSEOW for short. They have well established links to China; just try pronouncing GGAoSEOW. SEE!?
Their appalling plan? To encourage a small
NGO to further its plans for a global referendum on global governance—basically, to ask everyone on the planet the following question: Do you support the creation of a directly-elected, representative and democratic world government?
Oh the humanity! GGAoSEOW will stop at NOTHING.
The piece is unselfconsciously titled: Minor League NGO Calls for Globalist Imposed “Democracy.” This from an absolute (as opposed to merely relative) nonentity like Nimmo. Not even the legendary ”
total perspective vortex” can crack this kind of self reflection fail.
No doubt, dear reader, your naivete and general air of unknowing innocence will cause you to wonder ... WTF? How is this a problem? I mean we’re just asking the question, right? But you can’t pull the wool over Kurt’s eyes. He KNOWS what the real agenda is. How he knows this isn’t explained exactly ... but surely it has something to do with extended exposure to comic sans, poor formatting and psychadelic HTML.
For your entertainment, here is a brief sample of the lunacy. Don’t forget your safety gear!
Stark and the 45 authors enumerated in the press release are suckers for the real honest to pete globalists who have anything but democracy in mind. On the contrary, the real one-worlders desire nothing less than to strip every last human on the planet of any sort of god-given or natural right and turn what might have been paradise into a slave labor gulag with a high-tech control grid overlay. As for what they ultimately have in mind for us, it is carved on the Georgia Guidestones — a eugenics-inspired reduction in world population to a mere 500 million souls who will be automatons serving at the beck and call of the elite. Nimmo explores the known continuum of wingnuttery, and perhaps a little beyond, dispensing with a coherent article in favour of wild-eyed paranoia, coupled with weak-kneed bleating. The unholy progeny of this union are an army of straw men; miserable exemplars, all drooping barn scrapings, reeking of bullshit, and drenched in horse piss. Nonetheless, Nimmo knows his audience and hits them with both barrels of teh blazing, undiluted stupid. The kind of concentrated stupid that burns, the
white phosphorus of the intertubes.
The depressing truth of course, is that this kind of rancid nonsense detracts from actual atrocities being perpetrated in plain sight; murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing occurring right now in Dafur, Zimbabwe and Chechnya to name but a few of the more familiar trouble spots. You’d think Nimmo’s attention would gravitate to the steaming piles of dung on our collective plate, but no, Nimmo is on all fours studying the dining room floor with a magnifying glass, hunting for the tiny unicorns that live in the carpet.
The real danger to our future doesn’t come from the shadowy bogey men lurking in the dusty corners of Nimmo’s mind, but in our well documented, relentlessly human impulse to demonise, dehumanise and destroy ”the other.” Indeed, Nimmo’s ”article” is a textbook example of the genre; rich with nefarious and scheming ”elites.”
In all of human history the only way we have found to control the impulse to tribalism is through agreed laws fairly applied.
It’s time to take that global.
China, Opponent, Opportunity or both?
Host Desecration and Atheism - Scroll down for Poll
The burden of Proof
I was reading the comments on this
blog, and came across this ping pong about the burden of proof. Theists seem to either struggle to get it, or to disingenously obfuscate.
Hume established a fairly important point in this regard which perhaps can help to cut through the noise. In summary "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.".
The theist claims that not only is there an invisible being everywhere and everywhen, but that it is all powerful, good and knowing,
despite the world we see. To explain this glaring disconnect, the theist must resort to convoluted, but ultimately futile feats of logic, resorting to platitudes such as "God is God", "It's a mystery etc.", to fill the void the application of logic inevitabley leaves.
Furthermore we are to understand that this being desires a very specific body of behaviours from humans, but theists cannot actually agree on what this body of behaviour is, how it has been communicated, or wether it may change, often disagreeing violently with each other on the specifics.
Yet those that reject all of these absurd, mutually contradictory and frequently objectionable bodies of belief, must "prove" to the satisfaction of any given religious adherent
a) The non-existence, of a being noted for it's desire not to be found. We know this of course, only because its acolytes have told us. It is not entirely clear how
they know, and although they don't agree on much, they do seem to agree on this.
b) That a particular body of religious claims, is untrue.
This seems to me to be stacking the deck. The burden of proof
clearly rests with those making the extraordinary claim. Humes simple idea dismisses all religions (presented to date) at a single stroke, because they have all uniformly failed to present compelling evidence
despite having had several thousand years to do so.
By comparison the germ theory of disease, took about 50 years to become standard practice across the entire planet.
To hamfistedly demand that the sceptic prove a negative, is to dismiss the most powerful tool of investigation the human race has ever developed, or perhaps merely to fail to understand it.
Whatever the reason for doing so, the outcome will always be muddle, tautology and occasional violence, which of course is exactly what we see on the
religious front.
Proof that the Bible is both immoral and inaccurate
You may have heard this before, but I have really cracked it. No
really. Lets start with some wholly writ.
2 Kings
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. Wow!!! Mr. Grumpy, sensitive or what?
First, immoral. How can this possibly square with a loving God? Would God
really imbue bears to kill kids, for calling some bald guy names? Does this strike you as remotely likely, OK, or moral? Maybe if you're Fred Phelps.
So on to inaccurate. Would 40 children really have hung about while the bears ate the first 2 kids? I mean ... would you?
Logistically how would this work? Imagine the scene. Two bears lumber out of the forest growling and snarling. The kids scatter in all directions as the bears approach. Now, If it takes each bear 30 seconds to kill one child, and each running child can cover 100 metres in 30 seconds (and given the motivation, I consider this a modest underestimate of their likely speed), then 90 seconds in we have 6 dead kids, with the bears in the middle of a rapidly expanding circle of screaming children
at least 600 metres in diameter, and growing by 200 metres every 30 seconds.
After 5 minutes, some of the surviving kids (at least 30) will be 2 kilometres away from the bears, and their buddies of fleeter foot will be closing in on 3 klicks. Add to this that the bears will be sure to stop and sample some of the juicier kids more .... comprehensively. Which brings me on to my next question, how many 40 kilogram children can a bear actually
eat?
Lets assume each bear weighs 500 kilos. This means that 24 kids in, each bear has munched their own body weight in kids, still chasing children, some of whom are now 5 kilometres or more away ... likely?
Maybe, but it'd take divine intervention, and probably flying bears.
Labels: Bible Errors Scripture
Nationalism is Fascism
Or, at the very least a dormant form of Fascism, with all the key elements smouldering in place, ready to flare into full-blown flame should a sustained and powerful gust of wind come along.
Nationalists will tell you that they respect the rights of other nations, but this is a polite, but threadbare fiction. Nationalist ideology promotes the "ethical" principles that:
i. The moral duties of individuals to fellow members of the nation override those to non-members (the rest of the world).
ii. The national loyalty, in case of conflict, overrides local loyalties, and all other loyalties to family, friends, profession, religion, or class.
There in a nutshell is the problem. Within the nation state, I cannot violate the laws of the state to protect, defend or otherwise promote the interests of my family, or those who live next door, or those in the same city. So why stop at the nation state? If armed gangs rampage through the street it's considered criminal in almost all societies everywhere and everywhen, yet bizarrely, this arrangement does not extend past the completely arbitrary borders of the nation state.
Once it's a military engagement, we are free to kill each other in enormous numbers, within a broad and very flexible framework, a framework I might add, largely ignored by all parties once hostilities are in train.
WHAT THE FUCK? Seems hardly adequate to articulate the lunacy of this arrangement. Yet it is accepted as perfectly sensible, and those who propose binding global laws to eliminate the problem, are considered naive, or worse.
Nationalism (after dogmatic religion) is possibly the most toxic idea ever introduced into the human blood stream. It at once harnesses all the most laudable impulses of our kind, while directing them to nefarious ends. Like religion, the momentary inhumanity of the nationalist at full extension, is excused in the context of some nebulous, future "greater" good, or "superior" morality.
The horrors of the French Revolution, the long dark decades of terrorism in Ireland and the current "fight them over there" meme prevalent in the US all have their roots sunk deep into the bloody soil of nationalism. They are all nourished by the same insidious greater good, ends justify the means thinking, that short circuits rational debate, because the "good" or the "ends" are an unknown quantity which must be taken on "faith".
The idea that "we" are
intrinsically better then "them", is a keystone of this philosophy. The water is often muddied by claiming that "we" are
objectively better!!! For example, we might have better education systems, less people in prison, lower crime rates, lower unemployment, longer life spans, healthier children, greater freedoms or any of a hundred objective metrics that indicate "we"
are better than "them". This is an insidious thought process, because it allows us to indulge in a kind of superiority, apparently bolstered by objective reality.
It is of course an illusion. All of the above simply condense to "we were born here" and in no way tell us anything about the relative value of people. It is my contention, and the contention of the founders of the United States, that people are of
equal worth everywhere. If that idea strikes you as peculiar, try and put yourself in the position of an 18th century nobleman contemplating the American Revolution.
Today, those of us in the developed world are, like the nobility of the past, absurdly proud of our education, cleanliness and overall superiority to the "lower classes", when our "station" is simply a product of the lottery of birth. We might just as well consider the random colouring of our eyes, our hair or our skin as indicating our intrinsic greater value. This thinking is just a subtle form of racism, lets call it .... regionalism.
This thinking quietly paves the way for "we" are better than "them", to become, "we" are better than "them", and therefore must kill them in large numbers if we feel remotely threatened by anyone of the miserable "other". Or anyone in the region, or with the same skin colour, language or religion. This is how killing 50,000+ Iraqis to protect the "homeland" of the US could be considered perfectly reasonable behaviour by Americans. After all, American lives are of far greater value, and must be protected
regardless of the cost in foreign blood.
At its root, nationalism, even the less virulent versions, can never be compatible with the values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. For the simple reason that those rights all stop at some arbitrary, imaginary line in the sand, and that dear reader, is total bullshit.
