©  blog.robertsutton.net

Prepare to believe
August 17, 2007

I've found the nervous Creationists odd, speaking of evolution as the "Darwinist Belief System". As a young boy I was fortunate to grow up in central Pennsylvania near a gold mind of Carboniferous period fossils. It never crossed my mind that thinking these life imprints were an amazing 300 million years old were beliefs. My carbon black radio worked well enough so I assumed the dates were correct. What's even more amazing is discovering 20 years later that 120 Million US citizens believe the earth is less than 10 thousand years old.

My Catholic grade school science teacher, Mr. Dumm (cursed from birth), took us on fossil hunts and taught us the heresy of evolution. Thank god we didn't have to read that damn bible or my head would have exploded with the contradictions. In mass what I heard from the bible was few and far between; for good reason it seems. I was given some choice by 7th grade and was able to go to public school. That was when I was forced to go to Sunday school, which lacked all the only things I liked about church: incense, music and wine. My frontal lobe did not accord with the non-sense of the bible translator, as anyone who rejects double speak knows.

My families sect doesn't believe the sun revolves around us, but they do believe we evolved over millions of years guided by the hand of god. There are around 100 million Americans who fit this dualistic form of Christian compatible science. I'm sure the most common answer is that man wrote the bible and the Catholics loaded the canon, therefore it's a "kind of" Gospel, an almost unquestionable truth. I can't imagine why they believe the inspired dictator of god had a problem writing 15 billion instead of 6 thousand. I'm sure that number existed then as it does now. That is the signal of gospel, a metaphysical truth. There's no questioning it and a person who would say, you have to believe in 15 billion is a sign of mental illness.

We are never going to find every fossil from every generation of every animal and plant. That's the proof Creationists demand for what they claim is a holy theory. The fact that mutations occur and selective pressures exist in the wild which promotes adaptation, a metaphysical proof supported by facts, are not enough. I have respect for thinkers of the past who had to create imaginative hypothesis and put them to the pressure of examination and have the false ones drop like flies. That's what makes a belief, it hasn't been put the pressure of test and/or critical reasoning.

The argument presented against the Creationist belief is that we don't have to prove the negative. It's not necessary to prove the negative because their positive crumbles under logic. God is disproven by it's most simple definition, it can do anything. Not being able to do something is something. I wonder what their explanation for gods mass genocide during their "great flood" was and why he didn't kill off the species we caused to go extent. I'm sure they'll be creative for they came up with this gem: god tricked us by placing light mid flight so would could believe ancient solar systems existed in the distant universe.

The reason for them insisting that evolution is a belief system is quite obvious, they want to legitimize their fantasy by placing it on level ground with cold hard science. What I find truly sad is that the reason for them rejecting evolution is so obvious and it goes beyond the god image argument. They are insulted considering that we came from a lesser life form. It's far more majestic knowing that we came from an extremely improbable spark and a damn near countless number of births, trials and adaptations. Even imagining how many yeast cells that have been born and died in my life is boggling. Intelligence save us from people who, believe therefore they are.

This I believe
August 17, 2007

Bug Eyed
August 18, 2007

Shaking grains. Out of the expanse. Fleeing head.

the cAmpaingn
August 19, 2007

At NOSHA's August meeting we received the OUT handout. It's an attempt to make atheism supersexy memelicious. The OUT campaign is being organized by Richard Dawkins, author of the "The God Delusion". I enjoyed the book but found the humor a little dry for an English man. My opinion is that the Brits do best with The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog. The religious make fools of themselves when they do their possessed spirit dances or the pope and his funny wardrobe, but mostly when they try to defend their nonsense with pseudo intellectualism. No one with half a brain buys the holy word argument.

I have no shame in being an atheist but find it an odd thing to be proud of. I actually lived for 16 years without even knowing I was an atheist. I suppose most monotheists might find that difficult to believe until they realize they are an Athorists. For 16 years I lived a pure secular life enjoying food, art, recreation, companionship and the fruits of intellectual pursuit. I didn't give a thought to the flocks of believers that constitute the fast majority of this nation. I enjoyed conversation with philosophic people which usually revolved around deist and spirit ideas. Non of the arguments I was involved with convinced me of their legitimacy but the mind is a terrible thing to taste.

In Dawkins manifesto he says, "Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom". I've been out since I was able to recognize the bullshit being feed to me as a young adult by my family, priests and nuns. I don't see the logic in having the adjective in front of conformity though. I think that any conformity outside of team work and civil ethics are good for an individual. There's plenty of negative conformity in the secular world, it's just easier to see it in the religious "non-iPod" world, well that's unless were talking holy underwear. Uh oh, I'm going the way of the antirabbit. Freedom is as strange a word as atheism. I hope that Humankind will someday wonder what both mean, because both depend on bullshit and oppression to be relevant. Freedom should be a modifier, not a noun.

That is why I stopped addressing myself as an atheist, though I do make sure when I'm speaking with someone about issues involving the "big bearded man in the sky", I point out that he has the legitimacy of The Omnipotent Sourdough Loaf. (Why does The Flying Spaghetti Monster get all the attention?). I've embraced the term Naturalist. It's a positive Identity but even it gets befuddled amongst intellectuals. People tend to think anything from nature lovers to nude enthusiasts. And the Theistic argument inevitably arises that if god exists, he fits perfectly well in the definition of natural. Well, it doesn't! A Naturalist believes that only matter and energy exist and the metaphysical are dependent on both. Although the acts of murder or organ donation can fit into the modifying form of natural, as in, they happen in the natural world, that is not what Naturalism means. Naturalism is a specific enermaterialistic philosophy. And although I have read very little on the philo, I know the power of a non-holy WORD.

Dawkins furthers his OUTing with, "Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins." I definitely have a different interpretation of cosmic origin from the average jouliet. I don't even think I would call it an interpretation. It's more of a clashing of scientific fact and metaphysical poetry, a strange place indeed. I don't even believe that "cosmic origins" is a coherent word grouping. Most atheist have to deal with the difficult question: Why is there something instead of nothing. I think the evidence from the First law of thermodynamics does a great job of proving that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. How much more evidence does one need to believe that the stuff that makes the cosmos is eternal, thus has no origin? I love the wild and wear cloths, but as a Naturalist I believe that only matter and energy exist, thus in a positive way reject a third supernatural substance.

I obviously don't reject the metaphysical, though the title of my blog, Metaphysic Storm, is a different reference. Meta adj. beyond : Physic n. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative. Our brains are a storm of ideas, emotions, concepts, dreams and imaginations. We are dependent on the atoms that make our brain and the current that waves us to mind our consciousness, but we are not any one single thread in our head. The naturalist knows well, that we can not exist without our body and that no consciousness does, but we don't reject that the pattern in the sand is not the sand in itself. The campaign should have a big N not a big A. What are 4/5 of the world going to think of us when we wear T-Shirts that say we reject what you hold dear. They were the T around their neck to create unity, not a slashed out A.

Dawkings stated that, "Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people." I hate to put a damper on our glorious prison statistics but atheists are not necessarily ordinary or nice people. In fact, I think most of us are who are involved in trying to kill the poison of religion are exceptional people but an atheist can just as easy be a mass murdering ass munch. Harry said that he thought we at NOSHA were generally morally superior to the mass of Faithheads swarming NOLA's streets. It's true that Humanist do typically share a respect for human dignity and legitimate reason, but let's not grow those horns we're accused of. The Theists are sick. They are suffering from dogma that teaches they are superior to non believers and they have a protoplasmic body waiting to be filled in paradise. I believe the

's

will harm our cause. If only the Nah were as sexy as the A, we could market a positive campaign.

Evil Gaytheist consperisy
August 21, 2007

The more I think about the OUT campaign the more it bothers me. It's obviously supposed to be parallel with homosexuals coming out of the closet. However, unlike homosexuals, atheists really don't have anything to come out to. It's not as if many of us want to walk down the street holding ZERO's hand. Unlike the homosexuals who just wanted to be able to be who they are in public, the atheists who want a voice are more antisupernaturalists than simply godless. Homosexuals were not implying that the heterosexual lifestyle, as if there is such a thing, was not wrong. Naturalists are claiming that the religious are wrong and that we're tired of the supernatural shit that saturates public policy and opinion.

The parallels between the two hated groups is easy to confuse. This is mostly due to the Christians and Muslims because their holy word throughly condemns the "unnatural" acts. Fundamental Christians or the far right see homosexuals as a threat to heterosexuality. Almost understandably, they don't want anal sex education in the public school, though fellatio is just as odd a subject to teach. Perhaps they have a point and we should incorporate homosexual education into Life science. Sex ed should really be in life science but for some reason many people don't like to know we're animals. The gay zietguist is that a person is born a homosexual and thus strait Christian folk have nothing to fear. But the truth is that a person can choose to be gay or have life experiences which fosters the desire to switch teams. Even though that's the case it doesn't make homosexuality wrong or threaten the existence of heterosexuality or their majority.
But the simple minded people who think that razing a child in a homosexual house will turn the child into a homosexual is obviously untrue. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a child raised in a Christian house is more likely to become all things not Christian, if they start the painful process of thinking for themselves. Children raised in a true minority household, will most likely be some of the most excepting and empathetic adults.

Any group of people that share a trait which is hated or feared and thus become oppressed, naturally develop the fight or flight thinking pattern. The homosexuals obviously took the flight path for centuries which brought a bubbling fight to the forefront of modern debate. It's now created irrational behavior from many of them. Gay Pride is one of the oddest secular things I've heard of. Why would some one find their sexual orientation something to be proud of? I don't mind the fag flags but many times walking through Provence town, Key West and the French Quarter, I've felt almost threatened by my straitness. Can you imagine how a young homosexual would feel during a Strait Pride Parade? Equality is a two way street or else it's not equal. Living pale in the Chocolate City I've come to realized the importance of freedom of expression. They can be warning signs. It's not a White Power rally that's the problem, it's the ignorance that fosters such utter and total collective bullshit.

For the most part the Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual, Transgender humans are not saying that their way is right, just that it is not wrong. Us Naturalists are a different breed though. We are claiming that submitting one's will to the force of ghosts, goblins and reincarnated fat cats, is not only a bad idea but a dangerous one. Lately I've lost a little respect for Dawkins in two key areas. First, in his interview with the BBC he stated that god "almost certainly does not exist" and his collectivism attitude towards atheists. He's giving food to fools like Vox Populi, who are gaining legitimacy in their Dawkinism fear. Leave it to an English Biologist to develop the Theory of "Meme" Manipulation.

There seems to be a bit of confusion about existence. There is reason to believe that the famous pink cock head unicorn could come into existence, because it would consist of the two elements that make up the universe, god and ghosts are an entirely different story. To leave open their possibility, consciousness outside of body, is actually stating that nothing can't be proved. The last number "can't" be proved but +1 is a fact. God is an idea and ideas do exist in the metaphysical. And everyone knows the metaphysical is only found in the mindsurfing brain. With the billions who have searched critically, but found nothing, we are safe declaring a real god certainty does not exist.
However, Professor Dawkins does make one extremely significant point in his battle against the believer. Parents have no right speaking for their children. It's as ridiculous to declare one's child a Muslim as it is to declare them a Republican. To "speak" for anyone is to oppress their thought, that is never good. I understand why we are the last group that it's "alright" to hate, we are an antibody of Faith. And we don't have to force our children to twist their mind into a dogmatic stupor. But, I don't think that the OUT campaign is going to cause anyone to ponder deconversion. It's a numbers game and unfortunately Human numbers are the cause of most of Earths problems.

That crazy Jew
August 22, 2007

Pioneering Ignostic Jew, Rabbi Wine, died a short time ago. "In 1969 he helped establish the Society for Humanistic Judaism to serve as the national outreach vehicle for the humanistic movement. In 1986 he helped to create the International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews" Although Ignostic Jew is an Oxymoron, I do find Rabbi Wine's coinage of the term "Ignostic" to be quite a revelation in linguistics. Ignostic is a version of agnostic but unlike agnostic, which is the stance that god may exist, ignostism is the belief that the word "god" is noncognitive. I don't have a cognition problem imagining a disembodied, all knowing, all powerful, and all loving consciousness. But I know it's logically impossible. That's the divine thing about logic, "it" doesn't care what you think or say.

Madness and genius sometimes seem to parallel each other, especially in thoroughbreds. When a species consciously encourages inbreeding to create a "pure blood line" or more accurately, an artificially restricted genetic pool to bring out subjectively desired physical traits, it seems that the mental positive and negative aspects are intensified within the breed, subspecies, race or whatever other noncognitive word you want to give it. The Pantheist Jew Albert Einstein is an excellent example of this. He was brilliant enough to discover that time is variable, depending on mass and speed relative to light in a near void, but was unable to see that race identity is what fostered the hate of the Nazi's. I don't think it takes a genius to realize that a group claiming "we are a different type of human" creates their own enemies. The secular and Christian Germans of the early 20th century were feeling financially oppressed by the Jewish Klan. It's a fact that there is no stronger unifying force than the common suffering and a common enemy, hence the war on whatever.

Intellectuals most beloved Jewish raised Ignostic, Noam Chomsky, has had some brilliant statements mixed in with his utter babble. I don't know If I'm over steeping political correctness by giving someone a label such as "Ignostic" but this is my reason: In the ChomskyChat public discussion forum, Chomsky was asked if he believes in a God. He replied, "Do I believe in God? Can't answer, I'm afraid. I'm not being flippant, but I don't understand the question." But along with that bullshit comes this clear and profound statement, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” He goes on to claim that the media is self censoring themselves, a most vile form of willed oppression. It's the free market, not oppression. No one forces the consumer to click their remote. I believe media selectiveness is not conspiracy but a natural avoidance tendency in humanity. Many times when we don't like something about ourselves or our family, it's easier to suppress those thoughts, pushing them deep into our subconscious, just hitting the kid upside the head or pressing the infamous delete button. Doing so can have a paralyzing consequence on growth. The mind or organization that prohibits self criticism is not free.

I have to admit, I'm for some forms of censorship. For instance, I would be against Jesus fish logos finding their way onto food packaging. "Contains nuts" is one thing, but gods blessing is bullshit. I'm actually surprised the pope hasn't started organizing a blessed food/factory campaign. With all the priests going out of business because of their pedophilia interests, they're going to need some other jobs. Gang tags on food would be a great way to help the Us. food market. I wasn't that surprised to find that the Nazi's had their own Food Production Association and a pin to boot. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking of starting a line of Atheist friendly food products.

Good girls never win
August 25, 2007

The idea of discriminating on anything other than performance infuriates me. My saintly twin has written about the virtues of the "no asshole rule." A simple idea: that a nice way to get a team to function at maximum efficiency is to remove all the assholes. That's a tough cookie to swallow because asshole is very difficult to define. It's a hole after all, dependent on the fleshy gluteus maximums for its existence. All one has to do is walk into a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods to see the benefit of the no asshole rule. What odd corporations they are. They remind me of a bizarro world New York stock exchange, selling tangible life sustaining things with a smile, but still somehow mechanically inhuman.

I've never been a team leader but I imagine that having an optimal team is about how the individuals interact with each other relative to the objective. There must be an asshole quotient, therefore if the mean is high, perhaps it would be a detriment to have an outsider on board, an antiass. I'm sure it's dependent on the purpose of the team. Think tanks probably work better with assholes; synchronized swimmers less so. While being an overass may be grounds for dismissal, I don't think it's a good basis for determining wage. I suppose the logic behind the assrule is that having one in the midst of the office could cause the nice folk to seek other employment or hurt the others performance by over activating the mental hate centers. It seems odd to me to even consider "who" a person is as relevant to their job. Cult of personality has it's place, I just think it makes more sense in Hollywood.

I've listened to the arguments against sexual discrimination in the work place. The statistics reveal that males tend to make more money than females doing the same job. I except a naturally existing variance in wage, depending on the job, because males and females generally exhibit much different behavior in youth, which lends to being raised differently, thus excelling in different areas of skill. I would expect that there are jobs that females average higher wages than males, jobs that require keen communications skills for instance, and vice versa. Statistics are a funny beast. Mark Twain said it best, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." I imagine people of resent African decent average more money in basketball. It's not that light skinned people are being unjustly discriminated against, it's just genetically there are more 7 foot dark skinned people. Hopefully humans realize that Mind is not genetic and that legitimate height discrimination for B-ball doesn't get carried over to the office. This is were the complex issue of sexual discrimination comes into play, men and women do have physically different brains. Natural discrepancies in performance are bound to surface.

A feminist activist friend of mine came to the same conclusion as I, wage should be based souly on individual performance. Anything else violates the principle of equality. I know that there are unjust biases in the minds of many and that will be a problem that humankind will probably always struggle with. No one is or ever will be perfect. However the problem is much larger than I had realized. A friend of mine in the corporate world told me of an experience she had with her boss. He hired a male for a secretarial position and started him at a much higher rate than the female that formally held the position. As this is obviously unconstitutional, my friend confronted the sexist bastards prejudice. He said, "Yeah, but he's a man. Men have families to take care of." My asshole opened up and I almost lost my shit. I knew that people discriminate unconsciously but to say it out loud and not be able to recognize it, boggled my mind.

At first I couldn't understand how my friend could keep working for him. Though, she concluded that he is just stupid, not really sexist. When she opened his eyes, he realized that he could get in trouble for what he did and started the trainee at a sexually equal rate. If I were a woman I would have a difficult time looking at him, lest working for his company. I'm the kind of person who has to believe 100% in what I do and who I do it for. I'd rather be poor than be you're hired by Donald Trump. I walk the walk too, I mean I walk so much my shoes wear fast. I began to think of ways women could fight back against this manly family man bullshit. My first thought was that the market could dent it. There are a limited amount of workers for any job, and generally half of them will be women. If women put the anti-ass principle above money, they will hurt the asshole business owners passively by reducing their available talent base. This would increase the success of equal minded business owners. Good girls never win, but they can help fight.

DIE NO MIGHT
August 26, 2007

The Bush burns. NO CONTRA septic. Because He said so.

I eat fascists for breakfast
August 26, 2007

Mr. Carvar said - Has anybody read [American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America] & if so, was it a worthwhile purchase & a worthy addition to any Freethinker's library?
Thanks

I said - I've got one more chapter to go. It's pretty good, though it's preaching to the choir and doesn't present any real solutions. It's not hard for anyone to see the problems we face from asecular madness. The author graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School so I assume he is a faith head. I've held a slight prejudice against the author because, although I despise invalid religious reasoning, I have more respect for a person who uses the complete "word of god" as their base, than I do from the religious that pick and chose "their word of god." If one believes in gospel, it should be gospel. The god of the bible is certainly not liberal and claiming that he could be only encourages faithers to put on humanities specially designed blinders.

Insert: "We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant."

Call me intolerant, but I don't have respect for those who pick only the "good" things from their faith or collective and claim that the bad elements are a perversion of it's true form. Nor do I believe that the people who pump out the religious media are responsible for the idiots who turn it on and listen to the drivel. Like the invisible watch maker of evolution who is guided by survival pressure, the market is dependent on the demand of the "belief consumer." Collectivism is an insult to the individual. God bless democracy and the gang wars that follow. I'll donate it to the library next meeting.

Bill said - I have not read this book, but I've read a number of books quoting pre-WWII European leaders and followers who in one way or another could be described as fascists. Fascists overwhelmingly came out of the ranks of conservative Christians. Fascism reflects many Christian beliefs and attitudes. Many fascist leaders, both laity and clergy, especially hated/feared "atheism" as they defined it, which included church-state separation, political liberalism/socialism and the alleged immoralities of societies. Fascists believed Jews, more than any other gorup, were behind atheism. This fear of atheism likely was a major, if not the primary reason European Christians committed the Holocaust. The full chain of evidence/argument is too much to go into, but it's probably safe to assume that most conservative Christians are fascists, and vice-versa. Hatred of church-state separation is a particularly strong indicator of fascist attitudes.

I said - "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes." - Wikipedia

I've always thought the Christians were behind Atheism. The Catholic church "created" me, and I don't know many other people who despise religion or race more. But, I've always wondered where my skater punk culture would take me. I started my blasphemy career when I was a young pup.

The truth is all religions preach principle law, community service and common good. That sounds an awful lot like what a Nation-State is. I think the Jews are held under atheist suspicion because they seem to be the only ones that are able to be bend illogic enough to be a Believer Abelief. You don't see The Vatican, officially the "State of the Vatican City" or Iran, officially "Islamic Republic of Iran", embracing "atheisms values" quite like the worlds shining star of Israel

Mr. Calver said - [American Fascists] Sounds interesting but if the author is covering the same territory that has been explored repeatedly, I'll probably wait on reading it. It is frustrating to hear otherwise sane people tell me that their religious belief is good and naturally the correct interpretation of whatever scripture they claim as valid. It's those other people who have it all wrong that give "Insert Religion Here" a bad name.

I said - If you can't see the massi've problem the extreme religious right pose to equality and liberty, your just not looking or don't care about future generations. But Hedges main premise is that the Christian right is a threat to democracy. That simply is not true because democracy is about numbers nothing more. People chose to become sheep and choice is the principle of democracy. Democracies biggest downfall is mob rule, hence the constitution.

But history has shown you can't kill your way out of humans desire to be free. There will always be Humans who gravitate to being individuals because thats what we really are. We're not christians, democrats, blacks, gays, upperclass, atheists, groupies, ect... WE are Human, nothing more. I (and YOU) are many things but Unique is the most import thing to remember when we speak of identity.

The last paragraph of Hedges book: "The attacks by this movement on the rights and beliefs of muslims, jew, immigrants, gays, lesbian, women, scholars, scientists, those they dismiss as "nominal christians," and those they brand with the curse of "secular humanist" are an attack on all of us, on our values, our freedoms and ultimately our democracy. Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance coupled with passivity is a vice."

I just don't understand how a Christian writer can say "our values" and include everyone. Values are irrelevant, principles are what matter. I've condensed where the prime "Human Values" are logically grounded: Self ownership, Equality of social and natural resources and Passive reciprocity. Everything else is just banter that gets in the way of understanding how not to be bad. They (and He) have an irrational book as their encore, logic has one line.

I think Dawkins has two extremely significant points in the God Delution. First, parents have no right branding their children with an identity other than their jeans. Second, it is not the extremists that threaten the rational world, it's the religious moderates because they create that agar dish for the spawning of the Dali dick head, Osama bin fuck nut, Iran Mahmoud Ah, George H. itler Bush, and everyones favorite Antichrist, Ratzinger.

Bill said - First of all, even scholars have a hard time defining fascism and identifying fascists. Many Nazis apparently rejected the fascist label. I define fascism as basically a belief that might makes right, as opposed to the constitutional democratic principle that might defends right. Among other characteristics, fascism rejected all of the principles of liberal democracy developed since the 18th century.

I also see fascism as one reaction to the horrendous trauma of World War I. Although many people turned to a libertine attitude (the Roaring 20s), others turned against what they perceived as the massive failure of liberal democracies in 1914.

One characteristic of liberal democracy was church-state separation, which conservative Christians (starting the later 19th century) increasingly blamed for society's problems, for immorality, and for freeing Jews from their traditional, Christian-imposed restrictions. Conservative Christians blamed this "atheism" for the bad things that happened. Before the war, Chr. antisemites were held in check. After the war, it seems that a lot of people blamed the war and other problems (down to the Great Depression) on God's wrath for rejecting him via church-state separation. Since Jews benefited the most from churcuh-state separation, conservative Chrs. blamed them more and more for everything that was wrong.

Another characteristic of fascism was intense paranoia toward "outsiders." Paranoia is also a pre-eminent Chr. attitude from the beginning of the cult, particularly toward the moral "contamination" ("infection," "pollution," "disease") posed by non-Chrs. I think this paranoia and antisemitism are the two most prominent Christian characteristics in fascism. Also, fascism and Christianity were both extremely authoritarian, so conservative Christians were conditioned (or oriented) toward authoritarian forms of government.

There's more I could point out, but I think the above is sufficient to show that Chr. was a significant factor in the rise of fascism and the attitudes behind it.

I said - ["Since Jews benefited the most from churcuh-state separation"]

This just blows me away. Why would the "Jews" be the people that benefit most from temple-state separation? Israel was not created to help the victoms of the Holocaust, the State was created for the Jews. The U.S. would have been the most logical location to give a new home to the survivors. Even more logical would have been to keep them in Germany so they could integrate into local life. I know that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy", but if it doesn't have anything to do with Religion then it is simply a Racist State nestled in a fruit full cradle. Though, I'm sure the continuing existence of the Dome of the Rock is a high priority and is etched into Israels constitution.

Antisemitism is not fostered solely because of xenophobia, it's generated by the collectivism and isolationism of the TrueJew™. Culture is dynamic, not an identity. Everyone's favorite fascist Führer was smart enough to know that race is nonsense.

Adolf Hitler - "I know perfectly well that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. As a politician I need an idea which enables the order which has hitherto existed on a historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new order enforced and given an intellectual basis. And for this purpose the idea of race serves me well."

I said - The simple fact is we would not except a group of roman nose folk claiming the circumference of the Mediterranean sea because they were oppressed from worshiping Zeus for a thousand years.

Bill said - First of all, Christian perspectives are what count, not what reality is. Christians believed Jews benefited the most from church-state separation. Prior to that, Jews were not allowed to be citizens of any state, could not own property, had no legal rights - only "tolerance, a limited protection from the government, and could not hold public office. Under church-state separation, they could (in theory) become full citizens of their countries.

In reality, Chrs. often found ways to block Jewish citizenship. Nonetheless, many Jews did gain legal rights, and that angered conservative Chrs., who believed that only Christians could be good (fill in a nationality - Frenchmen, Germans, Austrians, Poles, Hungarians, etc.) Christian resistance to equal rights for Jews and Chr. outbursts of violence eventually created the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. It was Zionism that promoted the idea of Jews returning to their homeland and creating a refuge. This was long before the Christian slaughter of 6 million Jews. And they could not come to the U.S. in large numbers because the U.S. limited Jewish immigration. When a ship with some 900 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany tried to dock in Cuba in the 1930s, the U.S. government helped coerce Cuban authorities to bar it from ports, and the U.S. turned it away.

Antisemitism and racism are both strictly Christian concepts/inventions. They are based in the Chr. belief that all non-Christians serve Satan. For historical reasons, Chrs. differentiated between pagans and Jews. Pagans were exterminated. Jews got limited protection/tolerance, although it was a concept that was too often ignored in favor of coerced conversion. Racism is nothing more than Chr. anti-paganism applied to dark-skinned peoples. The original "race laws" had nothing to do with race, but were intended to keep Chrs. separate from dark-skinned pagans and allowed the enslavement of pagans because they were pagans. When the concept of race was developed in the later 18th century, Chrs. seized upon it to "explain" why dark-skinned pagans were so hard to convert. The laws and anti-pagan prejudice were already deeply entrenched by then.

I said -  ["Anti-Semitism and racism are both strictly Christian concepts/inventions."]

That is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. I'm not trying to defend Christianity because I despise it as much as the other supernatural beliefs but really, Racism = Christianity? There's racism in Africa which isn't about any belief other than subspecies, whether or not they had the technical term, "breed" has been in the consciousness of humankind for millennia's. Dark or light gums cause some Africans to chop humanity into races. The term anti-semite gets used far to much. It's just easier to see with Jews because the Jews most dominate cause for cohesion is oppression. Those damn ancient Egyptian slave mongers are to blame for giving birth to the Jew. The fact is anti-isolationists can be found throughout the world.

Take high school for instance. I was a skater. The jocks automatically hated me because they thought I had the mindset of the other skaters, which was one of superiority, oppression and isolation. I however judge people by their actions not by their looks or interests. When I approached a jock or prep and they saw that I didn't think differently of them, they lost their prejudiced hate of me.

I was wrong about Israel. After researching the Online Jewish library, I discovered that they don't have a constitution. The main arguments put forward against a constitution was headed by Zionist David Ben-Gurion and the religious parties. However they do have this beauty:

Protection of Holy Places Law 1967:
The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places. Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.

I said - So the Jews are bound by law to protect the Rock of the Dome. Who would have guessed? Since I "am" Jewish due to my mothers "blood", I suppose I should get my free ticket to Israel and open an Olive Garden. Does anyone hear tax exempt status??? I've been a servant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for years.

The reason I suggested "corporatism" rather than "fascism" is that you need to separate goals from methods. Religion, the police state, homophobia, racism, scapegoating, suppression of trade unions, etc. are all just tools, not goals.

Paul Krugman puts it well in his column today in the NYT: "The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once put it, is to get America back to the way it was "up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over," getting rid of "the income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.'"
michael

I quite agree that for some, mainly the leaders, fascism is about helping corporations and the wealthy. But for the vast unwashed masses of fascism, paranoid xenophobia, a swaggering militancy and militarism (most fascists are cowardly bullies who like the idea of beating up the weak), a shallow obsession with symbols and rituals (that's why fascists in this country like pledging allegiance to the flag and shouting nonsensical but emotionally satisfying slogans, rather than studying the Constitution and engaging in reasoned debate), and authoritarian systems that remove much of the thinking and doubts about daily life (religions, ideologies, fascist governments).
Bill

I said - I'm starting to think that the concept of Nation-State is synonymous with Fascism. Whereas City-State has a logical bases for collective identity, common good and community, Nation-State is about Capitol rights and the army that fights to own them. The Nationalist identity and devotion is almost essential for the Konk from Key West to identify with the Rocky ski bum for anything more than the bills they use and the stars they swear to. The Human element transcends all borders, cultures and nationalities.

The power of Religious and/or Secular Nation-State identity is quite useful in getting people in the middle of nowhere USA to be frightened of the evil terrorists kid napping their child. "US and them" is essential, because if we know they are us, we would realize we're doomed to fail because we fight ourselves.

Bill said - You need to do some research. The historical documentation is clear that Western racism is specifically Christian in origin. Before the concept of "race" was developed, Christians already had instituted legal discrimination against dark-skinned peoples - particularly Africans - because they were pagans. Yet initially, when black slaves were first brought to the English colonies, they were treated like indentured servants and freed after 7 years. They were not permanent slaves, and there are records of "black-white" marriages and sex (to use modern terminology). The legal records show that Africans' pagan status and the threat of 'contaminating' Chrs. is what alarmed people.

"Race" had nothing to do with racial discrimination, in its original form. "Race" was an ex post facto "explanation" for why dark-skinned pagans were so "inferior" that they refused to convert. (Yes, I do recognize that non-Christians can be racists; the Japanese are an example. But as far as Western society is considered, Christianity is the sole source of racism. Show me any racist - as opposed to ethnocentric (see below) materials from before the 18th century and you'll have the beginnings of a general argument, not the nonsense you've spouted so far.)

By arguing from blatant ignorance, you've simply, publicly shown that you're the one full of shit, not me.

You also need to recognize the difference between ethnic prejudice and racism. In ethnocentric or tribal cultures, there's an attitude of superiority to non-members. But in most societies, non-members can become members in one fashion or another. The Greeks were prejudiced against 'barbarians" because they did not wear Greek clothes, follow Greek customs or, most importantly, speak Greek. Adopting Greek culture could make one a Greek, as far as Greeks were concerned.

Likewise, most tribal societies have ways of adopting outsiders into the tribe, such as through marriage or adoption rituals. In contrast, racism assumes that members of another "race" are so inferior because of their biology that they can never change. That's what makes racism so virulent and difficult to eradicate. It's not like the prejudice against Italians or the Irish, which could fade away. A genuine racist simply cannot shake off the belief in the biological inferiority of other "races."

A key change in Christianity was the development in the 19th century of racial antisemitism (RSA), which was inherently opposed to theological antisemitism (TA). TA proponents argued that Jews could become Chrs. through conversion. Baptism was supposed to remove Jews' immoral nature and purify them. RA, however, argued that nothing could change a Jew or make him/her into a moral, normal human being. In general, RA was a Protestant position; TA was a Catholic position. However, there were TA Protestants and RA Catholics (Hitler is the most prominent example). When people try to claim that Nazis were anti-Chr., they're usually misled by the hostility between the RA Nazis and TA Protestants. But the majority of German Protestants supported the Nazis and so supported RA. TA Protestants were a minority. When Pius XI signed the concordat with Hitler, he basically was saying that atheism (particularly Communism) scared him more than RA, so he could live with RA proponents as long as they were Christians and anti-atheism.

I said - "By arguing from blatant ignorance, you've simply, publicly shown that you're the one full of shit, not me." - Bill

Ad homonyms have no effect on me. I attacked your argument, not you. 'That is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard.'

Bill said - I don't find Jesuitical hair-splitting persuasive.

I said - What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. - Wikipedia

Bill said - But as far as Western society is considered, Christianity is the sole source of racism.

I said - That simply isn't even close to being true: "Minority racism or inter-minority racism is sometimes considered controversial because of theories of power in society. Prejudiced thinking among and between minority groups does occur, for example conflicts between blacks and Korean Americans (notably in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots) or between blacks and Jews (such as the riots in Crown Heights in 1991) in various urban environments, new immigrant groups (such as Latinos) or towards whites."

"There has been a long running racial tension between African Americans and Mexican Americans. There have been several significant riots in California prisons where Mexican American inmates and African Americans have targeted each other particularly, based on racial reasons. There have been reports of racially motivated attacks against African Americans who have moved into neighborhoods occupied mostly by Mexican Americans, and vice versa. There had also been cases in the late 1920's California in which Filipino immigrants have been victimized for moving into a predominantly white neighborhood, or for working in an overwhelmingly white workplace. Recently there has also been an increase in racial violence between whites and Hispanic immigrants and between African immigrants and American blacks." - Wikipedia

Steve siad - I am puzzled (and somewhat annoyed) by your communications. Perhaps you might help me understand a bit more.

Your words sound vehement and full of certitude but your support for your rather unclear points seems scattered all over the place.

Part of the confusion in my mind has to do with occasional malapropisms or mispellings: E.g., "millennia's" (vs "millennia" is already plural; "millennia's" is a possessive form and therefore makes no sense); "breed" (is apparently meant to rebut some use by Bill but I don't see it used or implied; so the context is lost); "far to much" (vs far too much); "the Jews most dominate cause for cohesion is oppression" (vs you intend the possessive "Jew's"; You apparently intend "dominant" rather than "dominate), etc.

I wonder if you are using a voice processor without proofreading and/or are not spell-checking your content.

You also seem to be trying to say too much in one paragraph:

"load of shit"..."despise...supernatural beliefs"..."dark or light gums"..."damn Egyptian slave mongers are to blame for...the Jew"..."I was a skater..the jocks hated me"..."mindset of ...other skaters"..."a jock or prep...I didn't think differently of them"; "I 'am' Jewish"..."I suppose I should get my free ticket to Israel", etc.

There might be valuable content or insight here but it's a furious stream-of-consciousness that produces in this reader a net interpretation of confusion; and/or perhaps English is a second language. It's too full of angst to be dealt with in a satisfying or even an intelligible way.

I'm suggesting that you pick just one or two points you wish to treat and organize and clarify your language. If you want to express a rage or personal experience, you might just announce this and then simply describe that.

I know. You didn't ask for this interpretation. It's just my impression and some feedback that might be helpful.

I said - I am not well read; hypomanic, dyslexic, ENTP, and if I told you my IQ you wouldn't believe me. I was born into a world of monkeys holding butcher knives, on ALL sides, and I feel a wee bit nervous about the next 20 years. The only thing that gives me comfort is the knowledge that I've lived an incredibly rich life on a paupers wage and I don't have a child.

The Topica mass email format of communication frustrates me. There are two main reasons for this. First, it is completely user unfriendly. For a coherent daily conversation to occur between a dozen people it would require the creation of over 36 emails, therefore it discourages use. Second, it seems as though it is not free or democratic. I may be wrong, but it seems as though there is a moderation process happening. I wrote two things critical of the Humanists, the first was never published and the second was suspiciously delayed in it's appearance. I have to test the steel.

A simple NOSHA blog would liberate everyone who is interested in non-religious ethical positions based in New Orleans, LA. I offered my service to maintain the blog and help members who didn't know how to become a publisher. But with the paranoia "nice" atheists understandably have with new members, I simply made a blog and waited for interest. It was a depressing No Show. Democracy don't mean shit if no one goes to the polls. I was told by HarryG that our group could barely check their email, lest post a blog comment, or g0d forbid, sign up to be an author.

That brings me to my final point. If our goal is to help the religious open their eyes and step into reality, the last thing we want to do is tell them they're stupid. It's easy to do because atheists tend to be more educated and thus statistically of a higher """"mentality"""" than the religious. I however don't judge people based on their IQ. I know that the idiot has just as much to offer me as the Einsteinium. What I'm interested in is creating a world were our children's children can look back and say thanks for all the delicious fish. As for me and my life, I look back and want to kill myself. I hope I coherently answered your question.

Michael said - ["If our goal is to help the religious open their eyes and step into reality, the last thing we want to do is tell them they're stupid."]

Speaking only for myself, I do not consider myself an atheistic evangelist. I do not think I'm going to convince the religious to abandon their illusions. Read some Eugene O'Niell plays. Man lives on illusion. The truth kills.

My objective is to prevent the religious from forcing their delusions on others, especially using the force of law. I was a political science major. I wanted to learn to use the levers and buttons of government to produce a better society. Later, I learned that using the law was also a good tool.

Logical argument is a very powerful tool, but not the only tool I used when I lobby. Ridicule is only useful when a majority agree with your position (which means you've won already), and should be reserved for humor only if you are trying to build a winning majority. People do not react well to mean-spirited ridicule.

I enjoy this forum, because I can call opponents "stupid", because I'm among the like minded. I do not call people stupid in negotiations.

I said - A constitution can just as easily be written or amended by Theists, as ours was created by the beloved Deists. So you ether want to be The team pulling the levers, which I think is a tenet of Fascism or you want to help the majority become fair and rational so democracy can function. You did after all finish your lever/button sentence with, "to produce a better society."

Ignorance kills, The Truth will set US free.

This is nosHa. Humanism is the belief in rational ethics (bible free), democracy (lever free), personal freedom/ responsibility (blame free), supports human rights and the value of imagination. I came to nosHa to find like minded people and advance the cause of Ethical Atheism. If all nosha is, is a place to make jokes about Christians (which doesn't require any imagination) or a place to pat ourselves on the back and declare how great we are, I'll take my talent else were.

Maybe it's just me but I make many mistakes. I encourage people to point out when what I say is stupid, as long as it's supported by logic and reason. But, "because I can call opponents 'stupid' ", is an Ad homonym were ever it's used. And we all know that adhomo sapienyms are full of shit.

I love this city
August 28, 2007

Family Feud
August 30, 2007

A few months ago I joined the New Orleans Secular Humanists Association. I wanted to help the religious residents of New Orleans discover that Atheists are not evil people. NOSHA is NOLA's only "free thinker" organization. I began to participate in their online discussion group but quickly realized there was something askew. I'm now under the impression that the organization has political motivations. I have no desire to see a "Free thinker" make office. A Thinker would suffice for me.

Most Humanist groups seem to be designed to give people who want a religion without god, a social outlet. NOSHA is a wild woman. Private organizations protesting other private organization is a strange ball game. New Orleans Christians have nothing to fear. NOSHA is about as skilled at drawing in new members, as a preacher is at making sence. This was my goodbye kiss.

Dear NOSHA

We've had some good times but I think I'm going to have to break it off. It's not that your ugly or intellectually unstimulateding, I've just been seeing another girl, Philosophy801. Some would say that this is masturbation, but I believe that the true principles of liberty, equality and social responsibility are objective. No committee is needed, just a persistent examination of facts, self criticism and metaphysical proofs.

I knew from the start that we would most likely end like this. Our "values" are just too different. For instance, I know that a Human with even modest brain waves, that's in a state of growth, has Human rights. Therefore killing a middle 1st trimester human is infanticide. I frown greatly upon murder. What exactly is that choice you support?

I also have a problem with your opposition to the liberty of other "non-profit" corporations. The Boy scouts (homophoebes) of America are registered as a non-profit private corporation and are funded from private donations. I empathize with your sympathy because MENSA has discriminated against me. You see, I'm only in the upper 3% of the population in Intelligence Quota. They've banned me from the round table! If you would picket them, I might consider a little somethin' somethin', on the side.

The main reason I put forth the effort to get to know you was because I thought you were focused and organized in opening up the eyes of the faith heads. Supernaturalism is a terrible sickness. Just look at those monks who let the mosquitoes suck their blood. Something is terribly wrong when you let a bug that's attacking you have free rain of your vessels. But I've come to realize that you're actually hurting the cause. You give the christfans a target, a face on the devil they fear. I'm close to many christfans and even though they're a little silly in the head, most of them are nice people, just like you.

Well I'm out the door. I've got Zero in my hand and I'll be looking for a new mate that loves Zero as much as I do. Lord knows, one has to have something to bind you with your mate.

Before god i pronounce you husmand and wife
September 1, 2007

I was married one and a half times. The first lucky lady was Jennifer. We almost went through the whole ceremony but when the time came to kiss the bride, I panicked and ran away. I then jumped off the monkey bars and sprained my ankle. This was witnessed by god for it was done behind St. Patrick's on the playground of my Catholic grade school.

The second time was a real marriage when I was 18. By that time I had my fill of the Church and my bride Sinthia had no love of god, so we opted for a civil ceremony. Her Baptist preacher father was quite disappointed. The wedding was, if I may take the liberty, the most unique marriage in the history of Human kind. It was performed on July 4th, in a park, with all the family and friends we could muster. The Justice of the peace came 3 hours late. He forgot about the service because he got hung up at an Irish wake. My Green Beret short fuse father was furious. He denies it, but I remember him waving his .357 Colt Python chrome plated revolver around telling everyone he was going to blow the head off of that Mick McJP. I just turned up the punk rock music and tried to keep the guests over 80 from dieing in the killer heat. But luck is always on my side. The JP finally arrived, drunk, and my dad didn't kill him. He performed and we only had one hiccup during the ceremony. My step aunt stood up and screamed "louder!" He paused and screamed back that if she couldn't hear him she should move "closer!" Well, Sin and I kissed and then hopped on a 1976 Honda Super Sport and road away. I've been a statistical anomaly from the start. After I graduated from culinary school we moved to Key West and had a gay time. I kept my head under the water killing fish and Sin served fish.

I recently was at the Teamsters Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Caucus website when I read this odd line, "According to recent statistics, the American gay and lesbian population represents close to a 60 billion travel market We do love to travel! Sadly, a staggering number of hotel workers who served us so well are struggling just to make ends meet. Many of them are members of our own LGBT community..." I wonder if I would be considered a member of the LGBT community? After all, sitting on my porch on Truman ave, I could look across the street at Numbers Gay strip club. My friend talked Sin and I into going there for a drink. The naked guys didn't bother me because I'm sure their straidar indicated I wasn't a tipping customer. Though the videos playing on the monitors gave me the he-be-je-bes. At any rate, I was a citizen of one highest per capita gaylebitranian city-states (conk republic) on the planet and I had a difficult time making ends meet serving the LGBT travelers. When I would go snorkeling with one of my gay friends was he a visiting member of my strait community or did I have a gaypass? I don't know. Nonsexual sexuality communities are very confusing.

Recently Mississippi was declared the fattest state in the union. A whooping 30% of the population are clinically obese. They also recently "passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states." - wiki. I think there might a correlation between the two facts. New Orleans chocolate mayor knows all about the advantage of a two-edged sword. I don't think that Mississippians are frightened of skinny homosexuals, I think their hate of homos has more to do with the Holy Book. Regardless of whether "gods" scribes got the Manly man in the skies intent correct or not, most Christians and Muslims throughout history have viewed homosexuality as a grotesque crime. It seems a perfectly acceptable position seeing as one of the commandments is to not covet you neighbors wife's ass, not your neighbors "life partner's" vibrator. Marriage and religion have been twisted together for many ages.

When a priest or rabbi performs a wedding they become an agent of the state. That is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State and shouldn't even be debatable. Ironically, nations where homosexuality is punishable by death, most notably Saudi Arabia, The Islamic Republic of Iran and Sudan, marriages aren't a religious event, they're a civil contract. The solution to same sex marriage is simple, sanction the term marriage to religion and let it have no secular meaning. When couples go to Church to be wed they do so to have god witness the ceremony (odd for an omnipresent guy). If homosexuals are upset that religious organizations beliefs are unfair and irrational, it's because they are. Duh. Why would homosexuals want to give their money to an organization that promotes prejudice and prescribed collectivity anyway? Who would have thought that the answer to the problem resides in Secular Heterosexuals taking a hit and giving up the publicly recognized word, marriage. However, anti organized-religion supernaturalists that want to be "married" have the Unitarian Universalist Church, they'll happily marry anyone in the name of (insert deity of choice here).

Wild beast shed hair here
September 3, 2007

I went to the Tickfaw (wild beast shed hair here) state park yesterday. I rented a canoe for twenty Bucks and launched myself into the blissful wilderness. Most of my occupancy at New Orleans has been in the heart of the city, specifically, Uptown, The French Quarter and The Faubourg Marigny. I haven't had a car on the road for, well, never any consecutive yearly amount of time to speak of. The city has become my home and is one of my best friends. Fortunately for the wilderness, I'm not currently contributing my car's drippings to the drainage system. But not having consistent car access does limit my opportunities to visit the wilderness. An OK catch 22. I like people and New Orleans has plenty.

The more time that passes the more I embrace the identity, Naturalist. Primarily I've assumed it because it's a positive way to reject religion and head-up-their-ass New Agers. Naturalism is the conviction that only matter and energy did, does and will exist and other than choice, cause and effect are omnipresent. It's the opposite of Supernaturalism, an identity that most who embrace, don't even know they are. Supernaturalism is the essential element in all religions and witchcraft because without it, the belief in consciousness after-death, self reincarnation, The holy spirit and magic are null and void. They all require ectoplasm of some sort. Most people that hear "Naturalist" think of a person who worships the wilderness or enjoys designated areas where nudity is acceptable. I'm not a nudist, though I do enjoy a good skinny dip in the ocean night. But when I think of "who I am", my cloths do not come to mind. And although I don't worship the wilderness, I do have a strong attraction to her. The really odd quality about my mind is that I "behave" like a religious new ager, but despise the true form of both. I'm a religiousish worshipless new aging Naturalist.

I spoke with my Ex-wife Sinthia yesterday and found that she's in a stranger place than I. She added an ad to Craig's list looking for a friend. She lives in a village just outside San Francisco with a population of 60 thousand. She feels alone. She feels like it's impossible to meet people in an area that 5 thousand years ago would have relatively been a Shangtoklondpariyorkanglemex. The Naturalist sniffs and declares something is horribly wrong. Statistically speaking humans are more alike than unlike. In fact we are so much more alike than unlike, the thought that we have to filter through a few million people to find a compatible friend is boggling, more than boggling, disturbing. I blame The peoples remote and the unrealistic dream world (applause light flashing) of Friends. Many moons ago, Sin and I recognized a unique quality I possess. That even though I don't have frequent friend interaction, I never have felt a lack of friends. I'm not a loner, mind you.

Five million two hundred forty five thousand two hundred and sixteen minutes ago I went on a three day water fast in Albuquerque. In direct opposition of reason, I strapped a sleeping bag to my back and hiked a couple thousand feet up the Sandia mountains. In the morning I kept climbing until I reached a peak where the city was isolated from view. I hit Walter (who comes up with these names?) and started to focus on my deep breaths. In about a blissful minute I looked out at the beautiful seen and felt that nature some how was aware of my presence. Now don't call me crazy, I don't mean that there was some "nature brain" out their registering me, but rather the vista and I were intimately connected. It was as if it and I were interdependent in our existence. Had I not been there the photons that were bouncing off of each piece of sand and shrub would have been absorbed into some other piece of sand or shrub and eventually turned into heat. Instead, that energy entered my body and was registered in my mind. It "gave" itself to me and I said, "Hello, I think you're sexy and this is a great dance". Then I ate a power bar to keep from passing out and went back to turning the cogs generating bread.

Paddling the canoe through the Tickfaw river I had a similar sensation. Except for my vessel, I felt totally removed from the conscious world, but with a strange sense that I was among an ancient friend, pure Wild Nature. She doesn't hide anything. If something's bothering her, she lets the observant know. She's a strait up girl and doesn't give a shit about those who disrespect her. She can and will bite back. As I paddled my canoe up river I couldn't help but think of what it was like a half millenia ago. This was shattered by the occasional run in with a distant buzz of a lawn mower, jet liner and a non fishy oil slick. Paddling past a tipped three wheeler, folding chairs and "posted" sign, I felt like I was viewing a human zoo. Certainly I'm not suggesting that Humans need to flee the wilderness completely. It just seems odd that in a country as big as ours, with a relatively modest population, a person has a difficult time escaping civilizations foot print.

I paddled past a school of funny air breathing swimmers. I don't know what they were but I suspect many of them are going to be dead soon. Best-friend, Nature, is going to feed off the weak. I looked back at the people behind the bars of excess and wondered why, with the incredible intelligence we posses, do we make more offspring than Best-friend Nature can handle. Someone's gonna get hurt. On my way back to the Canoe launch it started to thunder and rain. I took my shirt off and enjoyed the feeling of being a Native in a beautiful land. I marveled at the lighting while holding an aluminum paddle.

Fun at Voxulution
September 6, 2007

Voxpop : Evolution and game theory

In Vox's post he criticizes evolutionary theorists use of game theory as a means to describe evolution. I do agree with Vox that many people who are enthusiastic of evolution do so in inappropriate (and I'm sure I've been a culprit) ways and game theory is most likely one of them. However, in Vox's post the Christian blindness can be seen in that he unconsciously assumes evolutionary theorists assume an agent behind the process that produces complex organisms. He also assumes typical Human arrogance in declaring that other animals are incapable of thinking.

Voxpost states - "The fact that Darwinists are making this assumption of rational action in the case of plants and animals instead of humans only makes their theories look even more absurd"

Voxcomment - "...I am aware that no Darwinist believes intelligence drives evolution, they believe Natural Selection does."

It's safe to say that since we have reached a point were we can virtually eliminate the pressures nature presents, we've reached the end of a long evolutionary chain. The puzzling question is why the majority of Humans aren't concerned with (hopefully) our future generations. I almost envy people who believe in heaven, what a burden it would remove from my mind.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 2:51 pm |

“are making the same mistake as the macroeconomists and game theoreticians in assuming perfectly rational decision makers.” - Vox

What is the meaning of “perfectly rational” here? I mean, is it logical and assuming a great knowledge on the subject, that people or groups will tend to make the same or similar decisions in a given situation (or make the same/similar assumptions).

I can understand how the outcome might be different than expectations, as economics is just one of the disciplines, and relying solely on that is kind of expecting a mechanic that specializes solely on tune-ups to state the likely performance of a vehicle, failing to take into account the tread wear, bearing greasing, torque, gear ratios, etc..

I told a friend of mine who specializes in economics, and is pretty good with currency trading (and would be rich if he would keep to his formula instead of being overly aggressive), the problems that would likely be encountered if the Fed raised rates during the summer of last year. He looked at me like I was mad, the reality of which is beside the point, and when I went through the other reasons why (outside of economics), he said it was logical but that he would have to disagree because he would stick with the economics. Low and behold, we are very near the risk of stagflation, and while the housing market wasn’t itself the bulk of the economy, the areas of lending, selling, and buying were strongly attached and could (have) provided for a set of predictable repercussions that were not predictable outside of pure economics (the beginning of a dynamic shift outside the scope of most existing generalized models, but which could have easily been incorporated).

If you are speaking of “rational” in the economic definition, then I would agree. In the bigger picture though, people are simply not all that mysterious or cognizant. You would figure that a people that, for a large part, are programmed through their experiences, might be a little more aware that the equivalent of a virus, backdoor, or hole might be part and parcel with their brain, or that reprogramming, oh, maybe for passivity or for a kill switch on action, might be present. The higher the IQ, the faster it can be processed, though the more subtle it must be.

David Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 7:17 pm |

David, could you elaborate on this, please? How is reprogramming accomplished? and the kill switch installed...?

Make me believe it and you have my vote.

Thanks
Stan | 08.31.07 - 7:35 pm |

I don’t have the skills to make anyone believe anything. Generally, I have the tendency to be able to make people not believe something, unless people hear what I said from someone else later, and then come back to tell me about this great thing they heard. Generally speaking, I should actually be writing that the NAU is a good thing, that it is better to sit at home and not get involved, and that communism is the way to go. But that is another matter, one I may have to ponder for its’ usefulness to get the things that need to be done, done.

Anyway Stan, first off, lets see if there are some basic premises we can agree on.

1. Do you believe that humans are in part biological?
2. That aside from any born instincts, people are largely a blank slate?
3. That parents, peers, and other things encountered shape not only what we are exposed to for comparison, but how we feel about or perceive something?
4. that two identical babies, one raised in China, and one in the US, may have two very opposing views by adulthood as to what is right and wrong, as well as what society and system is best to live under, maybe even as to what happiness means or how it is achieved?

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 8:18 pm |

Yeah, I don't know DC. Advertising, marketing et al sound like they're working with a rational population en masse, but when they're trying to sell beer, lottery tickets or porn, they're just targeting the lowest common denominator. Bread and circuses is an old formula. Encouraging people to make irrational purchasing decisions, by definition, is not rational.
jer_the_bear | 08.31.07 - 8:20 pm |

I just answered my iPhone. It was Bill Gates. He told me that I was unaware of iPressure and I would be iSsimilated. Vox you are 33% right: "perfectly rational decision makers."

Buying bread and making bread are three different things.

I like blue; I'll vote for you DC ;)
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 8:39 pm |

Encouraging people to make irrational purchasing decisions, by definition, is not rational. jer_the_bear 08.31.07 - 8:20 pm
Rational, in terms of their best interest, I agree wholeheartedly. I see rational as a thought process that leads to predictable behavior or tendencies. That is, the person understands, but does not necessarily make the wisest choice, only a logical one based on the conditioning. The marketing affects the thought process, bringing in other variables, whereby it may not necessarily predict specific instances for all cases, but may work on a more generalized level.

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 8:45 pm |

"I like blue; I'll vote for you DC ;)"

Except on Fridays Robert, because pans are round.

And in case you were wondering, you are different, just like everybody else. (just love that quote).

Communal assertion of individuality is lovely. Is anyone else willing to conform to being rebellious or participate in responsive spontaneity?

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 8:53 pm |

You've got it all wrong DC. You've lost my vote. The quote ""I am unique, just like everyone else."""
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 9:03 pm |

Gravatar Not trying to be malicious or anything tonight, just in a slightly jovial and light mood.

Anyway, most everything around you has been marketed, from the car and house desirable square footage, right down to the paperclip and push-pin, or at least where you buy them from. How effective is generating name recognition in all of this? (rhetorical question)

Anyway, are the four posits I have, well, er, posited “reasonable” assumptions (not just to Stan, as he may be busy or not, as I often am for days now)?

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 9:06 pm |

I can see the similarities in the invisible hand of evolution and the partially visible hand of the free market. I just think evolutionary biologists carry the theory way too far and into areas it isn't relevant.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 9:07 pm |

DC,

1. All biological to start with. (no immortal or pre-existant "soul". A human as constituted IS a "soul".)

"I'm a SOUL, Man." - Bleus Freres.

2. Brain shape is important. Neurotic people can change the shape of their brain with willpower by focusing on resisting a neurotic impulse and overcoming it.

3. Yes, except only negatively for people with Asperger's Syndrome.

4. Not if they are twins. Twins have a unique statistical probability to be twinlike and Geminiacle.
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 9:23 pm |

Even among beer, the effects can be interesting. This one brand had been sitting there on one of the shelves for several months, with cases stacked in stock and doing nothing (I had been involved with the business only sparingly). Once I became more involved, I had the beer moved down one shelf to just at or below eye level of someone 5’6”-5’11”, which is where it had been several years before, back when it was a good seller. For the first week, no one touched it. The next week, stock of it was empty by ordering time, and it has moved quite well since. One shelf up, and it might have well as not existed. One shelf down and it is gone.

Because people don’t tend to pay great attention to things they do often, they rely more on patterned behavior. Placement requires taking into account the psychological impact of the placement. We simply have things we don’t want to spend a lot of time thinking in great detail about every time, especially for things that are repetitive in nature, and so understanding “behavior on auto-pilot” is important.

Being on “auto-pilot” also increases potential for suggestibility. Why else do you think illusionists often induce distraction in their acts? So they can direct the focus of your attention away from where they would like you to be on auto-pilot.

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 9:23 pm |

I agree with 1,2 and half of 4.

3. "That parents, peers, and other things encountered shape not only what we are exposed to for comparison, but how we feel about or perceive something?"

3 and 3.5 bother me.

3: The ego and superego interact with each other. Therefor no outside source needs to be involved for feelings to be developed. certainly there can be a substantial amount of influence. But influence and cause are not the same thing.

3.5: Though I know that two different cultures can produce different opinions on right and wrong there are morals that transcend culture. The confusing and heavily philosophic issues of right and wrong are subject dependent. There is no such thing as the right "color", but there are universally right principles. Self ownership being the most important.

I know that many Eastern cultures and religions embrace the concept of "group thought" but it crumbles under the scrutiny of logic. Granted a City can be analogous to the mind: each neuron representing an individual resident in the community creating a "common good." But in reality a single neuron can not think independently, every human can.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 9:26 pm |

I think it only works in terms of generating extra interest within the general population.

Many resist the brainwash, or ignore or forget it.

Marketers don't care about them, they are strickly concerned with the willing hearers.

And this way they grow rich. You don't need to reach everybody, just enough to make it pay.

This is not rocket surgery. (apologies to he or she I cannot recall on another or this thread)
.
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 9:28 pm |

Bone Head, for a baby (1), generally in terms of after birth?
On (2), among a general population?
So, (3) is what you would expect of the norm?
(4) your response is better even in results of identical twins, in terms of patterns of behavior.I worded (4) poorly, as each assumption was supposed to build on another. That means that, aside from genetic tendencies in behavior (instincts). The first was whether or not someone agrees there is a biological component (identifies pure social cognitives), the second removed the biology (identifies pure naturalists), the third focuses on those close to us and society, and the fourth was supposed to be with those close to us stripped away (raised in, but not specifically based on parents).

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 9:51 pm |

DC, sir,On rerereading your #4, I should of course said "especially" instead of "not if".

Certainly a miniscule error, but OH, what the cost.
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 10:13 pm |

Ok, on 3, you take more or less a Freudian approach. This basically breaks things down between desire, external rules, and the general arbiter when dealing with what is experienced. The ego is the arbiter, and the superego are the external rules. Id is the desire. According to Freudian thought, the arbiter does interact with the external/learned rules which are supposed to be in conflict with the born/internal desires. By this approach, parents, peers, and society would provide the basis for the superego. So I take it you mean the id and the ego interact? This is not a hypothetical on whether or not one can do without external experience, but whether or not the external has an impact. Freud would conclude “yes,” because the conflict brings about a set of emotions that would be less likely to be experienced had the superego not been present during an event.On 3.5, is the “group thought” enough to keep them on their path as a group, aside from a one on one logical conversation?

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 10:17 pm |

“not if” was just as good Bone Head. I just wanted to let you know I understood and agreed with the natural/instinctual portion having a definite impact on overall behavior.David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 10:26 pm |

So Robert, does this suffice to make (3) and (4) reasonably agreeable, so as to move closer to me explanation on reprogramming and the kill switch? Basically they are designed to se if we agree that a large part of who we are comes from outside us, and that different experiences may have a profound impact on who we turn out to be, up to maybe 40% of the reason for behavior, which is where a bulk of psychologists would place it today, and with up to about 40% being a result of biological encoding.David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 10:35 pm |

I shouldn't have used the Frued reference. I don't even understand my id and my dickmind. Consciousness and subconscious better fit the explanation. Neuroscientists don't yet (and I think never will) fully understand consciousness. However, there is do doubt that there is an internal dialog in our mind. Dialog requires "two" and within these two sides our our mind we can form our own opinions and desires in regard to the market place.

You have a certain amount of legitimacy claiming that the environment (marketers) provide our options, thus provide the available spectrum. This implies an infinite amount of marketable items though. That simply isn't the case. No two paintings are the same but all paintings are paintings. What causes me to like a painting (that has no established value) and my neighbor to like another, will never be understood from a market perspective.

DC - "is the 'group thought' enough to keep them on their path as a group"

I don't think groups can have "a path" without artificial constructs such as Dogma or Fascist tenets. The only reason an individual can have "a path" is because they are "internally totalitarian."
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 10:37 pm |

If I had to make an uneducated superguesstimate.

1% genetic (unless there's an inherited mental illness)

+/- 99% comes from outside us

The important thing to note is that individuals have significant control on what "different experiences [we] may have" Certainly we have no choice in regards to gravity or much effect on the economy individually speaking. That's why marketers market iMind as the coolest of coolosity. That increases the "outside" power factor.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 10:52 pm |

Artificial constructs are what I’m getting at, not naturally occurring (based on instinct). Quite a few people support a Parliamentarian system (most likely those raised with one), quite a few prefer a Constitutional Republic (the same). Pepsi is big up north in the US, while Coke-a-cola is big in the south (I know, there are Mountain Dewer’s and such, but generally). Is there something fundamentally biologically different in all these groups, or are they similar enough biologically that environment plays a significant role? At one time, people did not drink many sodas, though they were available, and now it is common to drink one without special time or occasion. Was there a genetic change, or a social change in behavior? This is distantly related to the reprogramming and the kill switch (means preventing behavior from traveling in a direction, not causing someone to go on a killing spree), only in a much longer term mannerI’ll have to get back to this in the morning.

David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell |  | 08.31.07 - 11:08 pm |

Decisions are made in the mind. Mind is not genetic. Marketers (and religion) strive to turn off the mind. Because if they are successful the flock give up their power of choice.

Don't be fooled by the determinist argument though. To submit will is an act of will.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 11:20 pm |

What is this psychiatrist bull, DC?That is totally innapropriate and counter-productive.

Did you get an anonymous contribution?
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 11:52 pm |

Mind you
September 11, 2007

Dualism is an ectoplasmic orgasm. In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the belief that mind and body are two distinct separate things. It's the belief that the mind is not dependent on the brain for it's existence. It's difficult for even me, a die hard sci-fi fan, to imagine my "essence" being downloaded into a computer main frame so my mind can continue it's existence. For those who think that their dreams are real and they have a reservation in almighties kingdom, it's easy to imagine their mind as a mystical blue uploadable aura. Go Go Ghost busters!

I don't quite understand the "need" to believe in the spirit. There certainly isn't any empirical reason to do so. It's one of those leap of faith things. The belief can easily be seen as a natural extension of the desire of self preservation programmed into every thinking animal. All it takes is the capacity for imagination and sky castles, virgin orgies and infinite family reunions could cause a person to actually anticipate the closing of the curtains. But for a realist such as myself, thinking about the curtain call reduces the amount of thinking time I know I have on stage. Why squander my life on promises from people who's greatest wisdom is, "because I said he said so in my head, now get ready for your dunk, we're gonna take away your mediocrity and make you born again, special like... Booga Booga."

The antithesis of body and mind dualism is materialistic monism, the belief that there is only one type of stuff. There seems to be a great deal of word play in this mole arena, because stuff automatically references matter. Energy, in the E=MC2 sense, is certainly "stuff". I assume thinkers who parade the monists title are well aware of this and conclude that there is one type of stuff that can be chopped into two substuffs and those substuffs come in a variety of flavors. I'll digest that with great satisfaction because there is plenty of empirical evidence for that universal conclusion. I, in that sense, am a Natural materialist. But strict Monist materialism is a few bricks short of a shit house.

Numbers and Words are the first things that pop in my mind which violate the monist materialistic belief. Both of these things are not the symbols or sounds that form them but the association they have to the materialistic, abstract or obtuse things they represent. Granted they only symbolize elements, actions, objects, qualities and quantities of such, relations in time, quantities or qualities of subjectivities or arbitrary defined actions. Not to mention non representational communications that many works of art assume. At any rate or mass, there are things that aren't made out of stuff. The reductionist could demand we reduce those metathings to the thing they are dependent on. The empirical end of this is the atom or photon. Obviously reducing our existence to a single atom or neuron firing is just as ludicrous as widdling our self down to a non existent soul. I'm not arguing against that the self is dependent on the mind or that the mind is dependent on the brain. What I argue is that We make what is, far more than what can be seen under an electron microscope.

The materialists demand that we are nothing more than a collection of atoms and a string of firing neurons. While that certainly is what we are physically composed of, self awareness is far more than "simple" consciousness or a brain state. Patters are analogous to what we are in the fact that they don't have a "body" of their own and don't exist until rendered and continue to exist as fact even after they're dissolved even into the abyss of total chaos. Unlike a tick-tax-toe rendering of a pattern made out of apples or oranges, who's existence is not dependent on the substrate, we are dependent on the molecules individual uniqueness for our patterns. While every healthy human is born with the capacity for self awareness, it is not something that is automatically fully manifested and quite frankly, it's truth can be corrupted with delusion.

I don't actually believe there is an explanation of self awareness. And the "feedback loop" of the materialists is so sterile it's analogy kills the mystical beauty of the god like quality. I've been thinking of a way to describe "it" with a metaphor all day and the maestro and hu's orchestra seems to be the best as of yet:

At conception our parents build the walls of the concert hall. As we grow we populate the hall with carpet, chairs, ceiling fans and lighting but still are an empty shell of a thing. When the first brain wave is initiated the maestro pops into existence naked sitting in the pit. The moment of the second brain wave pulses and the hall is flooded with air enabling sound. The first mental cry the maestro points in the pit and creates an instrument section. When we're born the auditorium is filled with an audience, not other maestros, but rather the external world. As the maestro instructs the instrument sections what to do, the audience responds, most typically producing milk. As the maestro grows hu adds more and more sections until finally hu has a bono-fide orchestra. Then something truly magical happens, the maestro polishes hu's sheet music enough to see hu's image. Hu passes the mirror around to his orchestra and observes, making judgments about the sheet music and develops intention on future music. At this point hu can hear other music coming from adjacent halls with their own maestros. An other miraculous thing happens when hu becomes skilled enough with hu's mirror. The walls of the hall collapse and reveal millions of other orchestras. Unfortunately their are billions of halls built up concealing wonderfully unique tunes. The orchestra gets intrigued and the maestro stage dives and is virtually carried into the private halls of others to see why the walls are still up in so many halls. Inside the walled halls a horrific state is discovered. The mirrors of these poor saps is painted over, concealing the beautifulness of self reflection. Some of the paintings are childish renditions of other maestros, but the vast majority are of something even more hideous. They are paintings of atonal viruses, most notably Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad.

But of course we're just atoms. I just had an ectoplasmic orgasm boo yeah!

I’ve been trying to understand why so many intelligent articulate people in this world refuse to be open minded. I’m not referring to the “matrix universe” level of open mindedness, but rather open to the point of evaluating one’s assumptions. I suppose that’s what separates raw intelligence from wisdom. There is obviously a poison in society that is causing rampant blindness. My first thoughts are of the obvious, Faithfact, Telereality and McI’mclickin’it, but there must be something I’m not seeing, something more to it.

I’ve just let my mind run it’s abstract free flow. I don’t know exactly were I developed the skill but a pet theory about individual blindness kerneled in the frontal lobe. Humans envision themselves as a static thing. It’s an understandable concept to attach to , because an identity by it’s very definition is static. A chair today was a chair yesterday and will be a chair tomorrow. So perhaps there is a hardwired element in our brains which predisposes a person to latch onto to their current beliefs as eternal. But that is counter to healthy rational mentality. We need not constantly self debate that the sky it up there, but if it starts falling we best reevaluate what we think.

The following is a post lifted from an Active duty Soldier of the United States of America, who goes by the handle “Shore-Leave Organization of the Islamic Conference”. He did a critique of my favorite personal defense weapon, the benchmade push dagger. He’s obviously unaware that I was one pen stroke away from joining the Army two years ago. I’m not sure whether I’m just really good at manipulating people into making them look like fools or if he’s actually as blind as he appears to be. I’ve cut down the comments slightly to make it a quicker read. Enjoy!

Shore-Leave OIC said... Benchmade? More like Bitchmade!

Well today was certainly a surprise, a while back Kønig Hasemörder recommend a product to me, specifically 2.5” bladed push dagger from the folks at Benchmade. After an interesting argument and a series of valid points I folded like a card table and my curiosity got the best of me, the tune of $68.69 (with shipping and handling via FedEx, no tax, and an NRA discount).

My immediate impression of knife was “what the fuck”. In all seriousness I’m pretty picky about products that I paid legal tender for, weapons are certainly no exception. The first thing I noticed was the rubber coated handle which I thought was “odd” because the stock photo was a bare-bones metal handle. It’s really annoying to pay money for something and then get something else. Moving right along I then noticed that said knife was coated black and not a natural stainless steel as pictured on the website that sold me it, hey no biggie. A Google search revealed it was in fact black; maybe PersonalSecurityZone just uses one hell of a lens flare….

The sheath “looked” sturdy and seemed it had good retention capabilities. I really liked the fact I could put it around my dog tags, on a belt, rig it up on my gear, or just stick it in my boot. I was a bit concerned about the quality of the steel used for the nuts and bolts on the clip as it seemed it would take to rust very well. On the flip slide it wouldn’t break off like some plastic clips but rust has a tendency to spread and screw up clothing. If I’m wearing this under my shirt on my dog tags, I would definitely be concerned when operating in a temperate environment where sweat and humidity do a number to every and all things metal. Good to see someone’s thinking over there at Benchmade, oh wait their not…

Okay, now back to that rubber coated handle. Did the folks at Benchmade pay an 11 year old Chinese boy to dip this in a bucket of hot rubber and then finish it off with a lighter? In all due respect, that is what it looks like. Granted this rubber coating provides a nice non-slip surface area it doesn’t look nearly as professional or well made as the Cold Steel push dagger (for half the price with a 3.5” blade…) Oh snap, did I just plug the competition! Reminds me of a joke, “How do you know when your product sucks? When its compared to another product at half the price and STILL blows!”

The sheath itself seemed okay but it was a bitch to yank it out. I thought there was some quick release mechanism, nope, you just need to yank on it. Yea, I’m going to be yanking on this blade under my moisture whicking shirt that is under my ACUs that is under my LBV. Riiight… Too bad Benchmade didn’t include a medic kit with this badboy because that is all that is missing after you inadvertently slash an artery by trying to remove it. If this was a sheath for a normal knife I wouldn’t be bitching but people buy push daggers because they need to conceal them. A HALF ASS DESCENT quick release sheath isn’t that hard to come up with. Who the fuck is their target audience? Acne ridden cosplay minors, airsoft players, ARFCOM members, or the legions of armchair commandos that over populated the net? Its important to note that my wife (yes, the shore-leave OIC is in fact taken; sorry ladies) also couldn’t pull the dagger from its sheath. Maybe because it’s new, maybe because it sucks so hard. Whatever the reason don’t purchase this dagger for the little lady in the hopes of self protection unless you plan on sharpening the sheath itself.

The blade itself seemed legit; once again Benchmade is keeping with its intent not to be labeled an overachiever. I would have thought a double edged blade on a push dagger was given but hey, this is Benchmade we’re talking about folks, not ColdSteel.

The knife is probably worth a good $45 dollars yet it retails for about $80. However I’m not done with my review yet, the folks at PersonalSecurityZone.com deserve special attention for their stellar service. This is the first and last time I will be dealing with them unless it is in regards to a refund. They had this knife at the cheapest price and not surprisingly they also had the worst service. I had paid $11.50 for FedEx delivery yet never received a tracking number but only an automated bill that didn’t have my NRA discount included. Nice….

Well today I get a knock at the door and it’s the UPS man! That’s right folks, the U-fucking-PS man just showed up with a small box that had NO RETURN ADDRESS. I open it up and there is my Benchmade knife (I’m surprised it was in a package) packed in brown wrapping paper. The packing list was signed “Ghostdog” which to this day I have no fucking idea who or what “Ghostdog” is. Maybe “Ghostdog” put a rubber coated handle on my push dagger, if so “Thanks Ghostdog! Next time hire a professional to do it.” Or maybe, just maybe “Ghostdog” was the dipshit that sent my package by UPS and not FedEx with no tracking number. But wait, there’s more! This package required a signature or else it could not be released, I suppose it was pure fate that told my ass to take a long lunch today or else I would have missed my parcel thanks to “Ghostdog”. Luckily “Ghostdog” did remember to input that amazing NRA discount of five bucks but somehow forgot to put it in the bill. Perhaps that NRA discount didn’t apply with FedEx shipping. Maybe there was some fine print that said, “By the way, if you use the NRA discount we will send you the most beat-up product we can find in my mom’s basement, er I mean warehouse and ship it via UPS whenever my brother gives me a ride downtown, oh I mean the “delivery” guy picks it up.”

All in all I give Benchmade a 2.5 out of 5 for this product considering its price. Drop it down to $45 bucks (about the cold steel price) and we’ll talk. As for PersonalSecurityZone, I hope they have some personal security against lawyers because I want my fucking $11.50 for FedEx shipping back!

P.S. Kønig Hasemörder you SO fucking owe me a ColdSteel push dagger now!
Posted by Shore-Leave OIC

Kønig Hasemörder said...

Ghostdog, sweet.

I don't know about the rubberized handle. Mine is bare metal but then again I supported my local merchant and had the advantage of holding it before I bought it. It does require some strength to remove the knife from the sheath but in a stressful situation I don't think I'd have any problem. I've practiced drawing the weapon and have become rather good at it having it in hand in under a second.

I'm actually surprised you didn't notice the one real difficency with the design. The retention is rather firm, which I like because I have it one my person 16/7, but the metal clip is on backwards. Out of the box the clip's opening is susuptable to the force of removing it. Turn it around and the U part of the clip receives the opposing force of removal.

It's funny that you would think about wearing this chunky knife around your neck. That's were I think ice pick weapons belong. By the way, my first push dagger was a cold steel with a flimsy small tang, poorly designed round rubber handle and a blade that rusted on the first drop of sweat. The benchmade is 440c stainless steel and won't be rusting anytime soon.

As far as the edge is concerned it seems you have the same mindset as my green beret father. What is with you visually weighted macho men? I graduated from culinary school in 94 and sharpened, honed and held knives for 12 years strait. I know a little something about cutting pathetic meat, moderate cartilage and the more substantial vegetable fibers. Single edge blades are just as sharp and effective as double. Sure, they don't have the blood channel, anti healing design of the bayonet, but hey, a hole is a hole.

Perhaps this is more what your looking for. I don't owe you shit. ;)
September 10, 2007 6:21 PM

thimscool said...

LMAO
September 10, 2007 6:31 PM

Shore-Leave OIC said...

Hardy hardy har!

No, I wear it around my neck. I usually have three to four weapons on me 24/7. The primary defense being either a .40S&W CZ75 compact or a Sig Revolution TTT .45ACP Followed by a knife for cutting boxes and stuff, (any cheap $5 dollar knife) and then a CRKT M16 knife I reviewed earlier. The Benchmade would be worn under my shirt as a "last ditch" weapon. Cause...ya never know.

I prefer double edged as I've had knives snap on me before. And knives don't just "snap" they through shards everywhere. A double edged knife is thicker, and takes less force to snap.

No offense, but that is the LAST time I take knife advice from a cook! Its one thing to cut a slab of meat on a table, its another thing cut someone who is CONSCIOUS and FULLY AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. They tend to "get all hostile" and "loose it!" And its in your best interest to end things as quickly and violently as possible. In my experience of being in the military and vast hunting years. Chances of a blade hitting the ground, concrete, or being bent in bone since it got "stuck" are just realities.

As for supporting my "local merchant". Yea, well when US citizens start supporting their soldiers I'll start buying from my "local" merchant. These "local" merchants always have a hard-on for soldiers and are more than happy to rip them off. I have had to brief soldiers to be wary of anyone in a 10km radius of a military installation and these guys are flat out predatory. I usually avoid them like the plague and when people ask what I do that is the LAST thing I mention for fear of getting a bad deal. Everyone has to survive, myself included. I'll go with quality and cost.

As for the design, I would never put this on my belt. Where is the advantage in that? Seriously, if your going to put something on your belt don't put some little push dagger, put a real weapon. As this weapon was DESIGNED to be a backup weapons (not a primary weapon in your case) and is small, it makes it an ideal canidate for concealment. The whole point of having a small push dagger is that no one knows you have one, unless your searched. And I don't wear baggy/loose fitting clothes, and my shirt is usually tucked in. So I don't hang anything (cell phones, ipod, anything) off my belt. Hell, I usually carry my keys, wallet in my left hand and my right hand is always empty. If anything "happens" I drop everything in my left hand and go for the pistol. But that's just me.

As for ice-pick weapons. Seriously, pick up hunting. Use a bow or if your a real BAD-ASS a bowie knife. After you stalk a deer and stab it and it runs away for 2KM (or just never stops running) you'll realize how useless those weapons are for primary defense. BTW: a deer is a man-sized target. Now try a bow, you might be better, not try a rifle. Even with a rifle, sometimes they just take off.

I know for a fact it takes a good 3 shots on average to down a human target. Ain't no way in HELL I'm going to rely on a ICE PICK for self-defense. A push dagger is as low as I go.

As for the Cold Steel daggers, do you mean their first generation or their second generation? I saw their first generation and it looked like crap, their second generation looked better.

As for your rusting knife...did you oil it? Do you oil any of your knives? I usually oil mine every two ro three days. From personal experience, no matter how high quality the steel human sweat and the environment WILL RUST it eventually if you don't oil it. A good 3-in-1 oil does the trick.

The latest incarnation of the safe keeper uses a 4116 steel, which probably holds an edge better. Usually steel that holds a good edge (or is preferred for firearms) tends to get tarnished easily if you don't care of it. Unless you put a good coat on it, but that works for firearms, blades always have an exposed edge so you need to keep it oiled properly.

Your father isn't macho, he isn't trying to be macho, he is a product of his level of training. In the same way many military guys don't try to fit some "image" of badasses-ness, that is just a product. We don't go to the gym every day and shoot to "be cool" and be some "awesome tough guy" that shit is a BY-PRODUCT. The macho lameasses are the ones who do that but are actually an accountant or the manager of a Wal-Mart, they're the posers..not us. We have our preferences and train like we do so we DON'T DIE! God knows if I worked as an accountant I would NEVER go to the gym and drink every day!

And yes a hole is a hole, but unless its a hole to the head, it takes A LOT OF FUCKING HOLES to stop someone much less kill them.

By the way, I just realized something. How in the fuck did you get your ColdSteel knife tip screwed up? I buy cheap $5 bargin bin knives to cut stuff, and descent knife is only used ONCE and then discarded. I don't use any real knife for anything other than what is was designed to do. IE stab people unless its some emergency situation and I need to pull some McGyver shit. Who the fuck buys a knife just to cut boxes and open envelopes, that is what KEYS are for!
September 10, 2007 6:46 PM

Kønig Hasemörder said...

I didn't screw up the tip of the cold steel dagger, it just pocked with rust for no other reason than it's made out of shit metal. I carry this as my "backup" or duty knife.

I haven't used or oiled my Benchmade. It simply doesn't rust. Just like my Henckel chef knifes I didn't oil for 12 years cutting acidic fruits and dead meat. Iron rusts, that's what nickel is for.

The thing I've noticed about weapon heads is not that your not necessarily outwardly macho but you spend a good deal of your life drolling over golden saber hollow points.

I don't expect to ever have to use my knife for self defense. If you use the best weapon you have, your mind, you'd be more likely to get hit by lightening than have to fight. The reason I have a "backup" as a primary, is because the advantage of having something over nothing is worth wearing a weapon like a piece of jewelry.

When I become a target, or the world goes to complete shit, I'll start wearing a 1911 or perhaps a Desert Eagle. But until then, I'll enjoy being light on my feet.
I was joking about the ice pick. One would be more likely to kill themself wearing that around the neck, than fight of a raging dear.
September 10, 2007 7:15 PM

Shore-Leave OIC said...

Actually, I think the whole "hollow point" things is stupid, and I've already done a post about that. I shoot plain jane full metal jacket ammo (From Wal-Mart, in the bulk pack)

I don't swoon over weapons, I respect them but am very discriminating. When I first joined the military I didn't really care and thought a lot of the older guys were stupid...I learned a lot.
September 10, 2007 8:07 PM

thimscool said...

Then share some wisdom one post down...
September 10, 2007 8:18 PM

Kønig Hasemörder said...

I have a slight love of the bang. Growing up one of my chores was reloading 12 gauge shells. I loaded about 800 a month.

I'm well aware of the NRA arguments for guns, seeing as a 2000 pound wheeled death machine is just as dangerous on the street yadda yadda yadda. However cars are designed for locomotion, not killing.

I have seen the psychological effect having something that can "take an arm off at 40 yards" does to a person. It ceases to be about protection and becomes a means to manifest ego. The gun becomes a significant part of a persons personality, just like the blade has become part of me. I even paint with a knife. The gansta's in New Orleans laugh at a .32 and my dad calls my push dagger a toy. Something is horribly wrong.

I know that criminals "don't get gun permits" but the belief that the answer is to "arm every man woman and child to make society safer" is a symptom of a sick society. If every American who spent a the majority of their life preparing to kill a phantom attacker "because they refuse to be a victim" spent that energy working on the core problem, ignorance, we wouldn't even need seat belts.

You're a strange Nazi. You are so articulate and intelligent, but your philosophy and attitude make me sick. "Happiness is a warm gun."

If you haven't noticed I'm a strong explicit atheist. I asked my Christian father what he thought heaven was like. He said it's different for each person. For him it's a field with a dear walking out and he has his snipper rifle and shoots the dear. Then another dear walks out and he shoots it. And then another, and another. Ad infinity. 0_o

It's time to stop evaluating the curve of the magnifying glass, put it down and leave the ants alone. What truly disturbs me about my observation of weapon heads is the anticipation of use. If you anticipate "every situation" you just might cause one.
September 10, 2007 8:37 PM

Shore-Leave OIC said...

I think the opposite, people who don't anticipate things usually end up in them. If I anticipate starving in the wilderness, I bring some protein bars, a GPS, extra water, and maybe even a dog. If I am off slightly then I realize I'm stupid and get back on track. The difference is the guy who doesn't prepare, things begin to SNOWBALL and he may even die.

When I drive I am always scanning the road and sometimes tell my passengers to STFU so that I will avoid a "potential" accident. My friends and family think I'm paranoid about bad drivers. Yet my sister has been in FIVE accidents and my wife has been in TWO and narrowly escaped death because I WAS PAYING ATTENTION and slammed on her foot with my foot to brake and swerved the car.

Prepared people often don't find themselves in bad situations, and when those situations do arise they are a bump in the road.

As for real world self defense issues, maybe its confidence from knowing you can arm yourself and not wait for an armed response by someone else (shifting responsibility) but I think every responsible citizen should be responsible for their own safety. This isn't limited to self-defense. You should have gas in your car, a retirement plan, a way to defend yourself, some emergency cash on hand ( or as they say 2 months salary), a cellphone, a few cans of crap in case something happens, insurance on your car, insurance on your life in case you pass away, etc

A gun is no different. The difference is some people just focus in on "gun" and then they freak out and opinions start sprouting up everywhere like mold. How much safer would the world be if everyone everywhere was armed? The Nazis probably wouldn't have even killed one non-aryan person and they're takeover would have turned into a civil-war/stalemate with no genocide.

Almost every genocide in mankind was preceded by an attempt to disarm everyone first. The samurai executed thousands of Christians but the FIRST step was banning swords and arrows for all but the Samurai class. The first thing Hitler did was ban guns.

Mao once said "Power eminates from the power of a gun" Truer words have not been said, and unfortuantely as civilized as we think we all are in this world, bad people do continue to do bad things. It doesn't matter if your a christian or an athiest "evil" does exist and some people DO get off by rape, torture, mutilation, humiliation, slavery, genocide, etc. And by get off, yes I mean that literally.

I don't know what makes them tick and I don't really care but I won't be one of their victims.

I eat healthy and exercise for the same reason I have firearms, to protect myself and my standard of living. But unlike some people I encourage EVERYONE to at least try my way of thinking. I am very worried about anyone who attempts to shift my power and responsibility of self-defense to the state.

The government could not prevent the violence/rapes in the Superdome in hurrican katrina, so why the fuck will I surrender my right to defend my and my family? I don't think so. Maybe one day we will meet some utopian Star Trek bullshit but as of right now on "planet earth" not some ivory tower, I'm going to need a .45ACP.

I don't know why criminals do what they do but I know they've been doing it since before the first civilization was formed, and they will be doing it long after you and I are dead. Why take a fucking chance?

As for a .32, well a .32 is better than nothing. I wouldn't laugh at it, but honestly...you ever consider getting something else? Its not a cock competition its just reality. I'm not nearly as "hardcore" as some gun nuts, and many consider my "liberal" or "level headed" when it comes to guns. Do you practice with your .32. Honestly, my advice, if you don't shoot it once a month, get rid of it as it is more of a liability (in untrained hands) than an assets. Its a good idea to KEEP reciepts from when you go to the range in case you have to prove in court, you DID practice and not just some whacked out nut job who bought a gun and put it under his bead. It wouldn't be that hard for the prosecution to convince a jury of your "peers" you were irresponsible in gun ownership as you never practiced with it. Its like having a car and never driving, then one day you do and someone dies. Yea...you don't look good....

Now do anticipate its use, I sure as hell hope I never have to use my weapons (again). Its not some glory cool experience, and something we can ALL do without, but the opposite of having it like being hacked to death by Iraq militia or having your head sawed off with a blunt (but stainless steel!) kitchen knife, or having your family gang-raped then slaughtered. Fuck it, I'd deal with the guilt.

Of course will that happen (or in some cases happen again) probably not (unless I get deployed again) but hell, I will probably never get in a car accident and I've never been in one so I might as well cancel my car insurance and stop wearing my seat belt right?

You can't get rid of ignorance, unfortunately. its a part of being human...we ain't robots...
September 10, 2007 9:02 PM

Shore-Leave OIC said...

The difference between me and you is that I understand how you think but it doesn't make me sick, though misguided I do admire it to some degree. I'm not saying my way of thinking is "superior" to yours, but I hope despite the fact people like you don't like guns and want a better world, at least acknowledge the realities we deal with on a day to day basis.

Kønig Hasemörder said...

I like guns. I just don't like the idea of people wearing them to the grocery store. If shopping is that dangerous, I'd rather live in a police state than having john smith pointing and shooting. And if the police state was headed by Hitler, I'd rather be dead.

I don't own a gun for several reasons I can't disclose on a blog but mostly because I don't have a car to go to the range. I felt it was useless to have one in house. Had I the money enjoy shooting, I would have a 1911 Wilson Combat and a Belgian Browning over and under skeet gun. But until then I'll live with my Katana in the bedroom.

"You can't get rid of ignorance, unfortunately. its a part of being human."

That's what makes me sick. You state that as fact. It is manifestly not, ignorance in America is willed. However, with a defeatist attitude like that society has already made it's decision.
September 10, 2007 9:30 PM

Shore-Leave OIC said...

It is a fact that ignorance is a part of the human psyche, not just America. You can't know EVERYTHING, it is simply not possible, that is why mankind works in "groups" or "teams". The baker, the artist, the warrior, the whore, the teacher, the scientist, etc all work together because individually if we all just tried to know EVERYTHING and not be ignorant then we would fuck up and get eaten by a bear or something.

Instead we live in society and are most difficult problems is what to order at Starbucks while not holding up the entire line at 8:00am.

The fact is we are ignorant. We can't know how to fly a jet, load up a 747 Jumbo jet, land the bitch, get off, design a logistical system to take us to our mom's house. No, we rely on other people or "subject matter experts" for that.

Now by default there will be some problems, like chef's telling soldiers what is the best knife to use, or soccer mom's voting on gun rights, or catholic priest telling us what is and is not okay to do sexually with another willing adult. This very conversation is proof of that. You have no military experience, and probably have never had your life REALLY threatened yet based on your readings/opinions feel validated in your thoughts.

I'm not saying we should all just surrender our opinions and thoughts to supposed subject matter experts, but the reality is we all can't know everything. Ignorance will always exist to a certain degree. We can hope to limit that but we aren't all going to become "mini-Gods" who know everything. We may become "mini-Gods" who THINK we know everything...which is far more dangerous...

As for wearing a gun to grocery store, I don't wear one in because I think the grocery store is unsafe. I carry it with me everywhere I go just like my wallet, ID, sunglasses, cellphone. The difference is a gun is designed to kill so people get skiddish because you have a weapon in the produce isle. Nevermind the fact I could probably kill 90% of the people I meet with a choke-hold, making absolutely no noise within SECONDS, the gun that gives a ear shattering BANG that alerts everyone is more deadly...whatever...

I'd rather have John Smith pointing and shooting than a cop. I've SEEN police shoot, and I've seen people in the military shoot and its SCARY ! You must think cops and soldiers all love guns and shoot every day, the opposite may be more true. I have been to the range with active law-enforcement that routinely MISSED at 50 yards but you TRUST them over some dude who loves guns and shoots every weekend? Just because you got a badge and gun doesn't mean your competent. The same is true for soldiers. The common man is afraid of everyone being armed because they will just be shooting "willy-nilly". Yet they conviently glaze over the fact most law-enforcement statistics reveal that police officers usually miss and chances of being hit by a stray bullet from a cop is MUCH higher than that from a civilian. Nevermind the fact police have the power to kick in someone's door and start blasting away, unlike John Smith. And police officers never make the mistake and KICK IN THE WRONG DOOR and KILL THE WRONG PEOPLE....do they?

At least I know John Smith isn't kicking in my door with a 12 guage unless he's gone plumb psycho. As opposed the Sheriffs office that "made a mistake".

And what is really pathetic is saying "if Hitler was head of state I'd kill myself". Wow, yet you claim americans are ignorant...interesting.

If Hitler was head in state, while your busy suck-starting a 20-guage, I will do my best to change things. And I don't mean by marches or feeding the children, I mean guerilla tacts. Hell someone has to fight, and it sure as hell ain't the "We are all ignorant so I'm going to blow my brains out" emo types. Yea, I might be caught, yea I might get killed but then again I might actually overthrow the bastard or make him think twice about maltreating citizens.

All it takes for evil to prevail is good men to do nothing (or suck start a 12-guage whatever comes first)

Saying society is ignorant isn't some defeatist attitude its reality. If my computer crashes then I'm looking for the skinny asian kid nextdoor, I'm not going to waste my time screwing around with it. And if he needs his car fixed or a hurricane hits and ne needs to survive then I help him out. The point is he's igonorant and so am I in some things. But we are AWARE of it, as opposed to being blissfully ignorant AND arrogant in thinking "we can do all things"

And damn, you sure do get sick a lot. Guns are just tools, they can be used for oppression, fighting oppression, self defense, murder, genocide,rape, hunting, or settling family disputes (kidding). The point is they are tools, and its the user who gives them intent. They aren't intrinsically "evil". Its like plastic surgery, I think its bad but I'm not dumb enough to think plastic surgery shouldn't be allowed, it was designed to help people that we're heavily disfigured either by birth or a horrible accident. yet now its main purpose is giving air-heads a bigger (but less sensitive) breast. That doesn't make it "stupid", just the users.

As for Wilson Combat 1911...damn you got some deep pockets. I think they have some nice pistols but I'm not spending that kind of money for one. A rifle, MAYBE, a pistol...nigga please!
September 10, 2007 10:04 PM

Kønig Hasemörder said...

"the fact most law-enforcement statistics reveal"

There are lies, damn lies and statistics - Mark Twain

My claim that 'ignorance in America is willed.' was not intended (obviously) to mean that we can individually know everything. And I wasn't even referring to specific knowledge, I was referring to principle truths. Truths that humans have been capable of achieving for millenniums. If they were realized by all we wouldn't have one nuke on the planet. Nukes are just big guns ya' know.

The reason I pointed out our United State is that we have the most wealth and security on the planet, yet the vast population live in a constant state of fear.

I know that I'm not a "mini-god" and if a hitlerish dictator (other than bush) took control of the country, I know that my little gorillas would be exterminated like cockroaches achomlishing nothing. I'm using the best defensive weapon I have, the pen.

I would survive in a nightmare of fascism because I would morph into a good little 20 gauge cock sucking Christian and start writing with invisible ink. I know heading for the hills are a fiction, so I would just snuff it if I couldn't bare to adapt. I'm just a part of society and if society choses that path, I have no choice but to accept it.

The point is, I know that the "team" is how society will succeed. My job is opening enough eyes, and have their eyes open other eyes, to make the world realize there is only one team. Star Trek Federated bullshit I know, but the Human Race will ether sink or swim, and the choice is today.

So keep reviewing your tools, carrying your gun around, casually, wild west style, and add to the paranoia that's causing this mess. Or better yet join the police force because they need all the help they can get.

There's terrorists in them thar' hills. Better hide in the Bush.
September 10, 2007 10:48 PM

Shore-Leave OIC said...

Well I don't believe its the "terrorist" at all, and I t