Tag Archive | bullshit

How Coinbase is Saving the Crypto Market

People like to talk shit about Coinbase. And, in a lot of ways, I get it. They certainly didn’t make it easy for people to retrieve their Bitcoin Cash (much less Bitcoin Gold–which may not be retrievable at all), but at least they’ve done better on that front than Jaxx. But there’s more to it than that. There’s also some elitism, which I also get. I have the same elitism, as a tech person, toward Apple users in general, but especially people with iPhones. I refused to watch Rick & Morty for a long time, simply because it was popular. And people who played Final Fantasy XI absolutely hated World of Warcraft players. There’s this whole “Our thing is more complex and cool than your thing. Our thing is for the hardcore, freaking noobs!” aspect to it. Then there’s the fact that Coinbase holds onto your private keys, but the only people who care about this also know how easy it is to get around–simply send the cryptos to another wallet.

A lot of these types would deny that Coinbase is doing anything good, despite how they are attempting to stand up to the IRS to protect their users from invasion by government goons. The government, predictably, doesn’t like that it has no idea who has crypto and who doesn’t, and the best way to find out that info is to break into Coinbase’s vault, steal their records, and create a database of known crypto users to watch. They’re actively attempting to do this, and Coinbase is attempting to stop it. If I was CEO, I would be preparing to close my U.S. operations and permanently wipe all our data before the U.S. government could get their hands on it. Coinbase is also attempting to bring in huge investors–people who would be dropping millions at a time on crypto purchases, and Coinbase has a phenomenal track record of security and protection.

But there’s one other thing they do that they’re often criticized for, when, in reality, it’s the best thing that they do:

Coinbase is notoriously unwilling to put new coins on its store.

This draws the ire of people who love Ethereum and the seventy-six million different bullshit Ethereum tokens available. I could create an Ethereum token right now if I cared to, and it costs almost nothing to do. Ethereum is a good idea, but there’s no gatekeeper to it, and anyone with a half-baked idea can create an Ethereum token, get some momentum going for it, and land it under dApps in Coinomi’s Ethereum wallet. If that wasn’t enough, there are thousands of entire cryptocurrencies that use their own blockchain and programming, some of them ridiculously niche and with less-than-half-baked concepts behind them.

Take Potcoin, for example. It’s a standard proof-of-stake coin long after Blackcoin proved that Proof of Stake is viable. So what is it? It’s a cryptocurrency that is essentially riding on the fact that it has “pot” in the name to be successful. It wants to be the primary payment method for the legal marijuana industry.

That’s stupid, and the exact opposite of what currencies are supposed to do. An Ethereum token would have been more suitable for this, but no. They went and created a currency. I don’t like the token idea anyway. I’ve long ripped into gaming companies like Microsoft and Nintendo for making you buy 800 Microsoft Points to buy a $10 game, instead of just buying the $10 game. They do this because they sell Microsoft Points in uneven packs. Maybe 1000 or 2000. The goal is for the person to have some “points” left over that are too small in quantity to use, forcing them to either pay more money to bring them up to a usable quantity (there’s nothing on the Microsoft Store for 100 points, after all), or to abandon the remainders as lost forever. This is an insidious way of charging people an extra $2 or $3 here or there, without their realizing it and without their noticing it. It’s a way of nickel and diming customers to death, and gaming companies are really nickel and diming their customers these days, with pre-orders, season passes, digital deluxe editions, Complete Editions, Definitive Editions, Collections, remakes, rereleases, and shitloads of DLC, not all of which is even covered by the season pass that players stupidly pay $30 for. But anyway.

So what they want to do, in effect, is bring that business model to the marijuana industry. There’s no other way to put it. That’s precisely what they want to do. They want to create “tokens” that customers have to use to buy pot. And since it’s Proof of Stake and they’re certainly holding half of that stake, every single purchase gets them more tokens–not to mention often leaving customers with quantities of tokens that can’t be used, just like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo do. We’ve been down this game before. I play the browser-based game Tribal Wars, and it does exactly the same thing. Due to selling some in-game resources, I ended up with 5 Premium Points that were utterly unusable. This is by design. It is a principle that is built into such systems. They don’t care if you have 0.0002 tokens that you will never, ever be able to use. Actually, they do care, and they want you to end up in that position. Because that’s free money for them.

There are tons of these currencies. Potcoin is just the most obvious example, by trying to frame itself as a token when it’s defined as a currency, setting such a horrifically stupid role for itself, and calling itself “potcoin” on the hope that the stoner crypto people will go “Hur hurr hurr, I want to hold some potcoin! yeah! Pot is awesome!”

There remain to this day people who think the Tool song “The Pot” is about marijuana. In fact, it’s a reference to “the pot calling the kettle black.” Maynard did this on purpose, of course, using lyrics like “You must have been high” throughout the song. For whatever reason, “pot” is a word that gets people to love the thing, presumably still in that high school mentality where it’s cool to be dumb and nothing is cooler than pot.

Let me just whip up Coinomi and look at random coins that I know nothing about:

  • Bitsend
  • Belacoin
  • Britcoin
  • Canada eCoin
  • Cannacoin (with a pot leaf as its logo, naturally–good, we certainly needed two marijuana coins)
  • Digibyte
  • Digitalcoin
  • EDRCoin
  • Feathercoin
  • GCRCoin
  • Hempcoin (ooh, THREE of them!…

You know, finding the third mariuana cryptocurrency just proves my point better than anything I could write, and I don’t think I’m even running the latest version of Coinomi on the phone I’m looking at. This is a disaster waiting to happen. It is classic market oversaturation. We need only look to 1983 and the video game crash of the same year to see exactly how this plays out.

If I cited your coin as a shitcoin above and you feel that this is in error, reach out to me at aria@anarchistshemale.com, and I’ll interview you for my new show, No Gods, No Masters, and we can clear the air. However, the odds are against you. However much you might think otherwise, chances are that yours is a shitcoin. I excuse Blackcoin only because it’s the world’s first 100% Proof of Stake coin, and it has been around now for nearly 4 years. I’ll be surprised if half of these are still here four years from now.

Video game makers and console manufacturers of the 80s did nothing to protect their hardware or their software, which I’m okay with them doing as long as there are no laws against piracy. They have every right to attempt to protect their products from being copied. But we have every right to attempt to bypass that protection. Anyway, what followed was predictable. People began releasing clones of clones of clones of clones of inferior games, and the market was flooded with Pak-Man, Tax Man, Pac-Man, Capman, APacman, and so on, and, in a lot of cases, consumers didn’t know the difference. Like an average person looking at Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitsend, Bitcoinplus, Bitcoin Gold, and Bitcore. It confuses them, and I have to think some of this is intentional.

A flood of overhyped, bullshit games called E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial finally broke the camel’s back, but it was a long series of abuses and shitty products that led up to that. Consumers had simply had enough by the time Atari showed its own abject disdain for consumers by releasing that ungodly abomination as a completed game. By that point, they’d already been ripped off by Protector, which was a ripoff of Helper Jet, which was a ripoff of Laser Ship, was a ripoff of Defender. The consumer had already lost hundreds buying shitty games, and the overhyped E.T. was simply the last one–pretty much because it was so hyped (much like Bitcoin is becoming).

Everyday I see ads for “Don’t buy Bitcoin! Look at these 5 cryptos that are certain to pass Bitcoin!!!!!!11!11” bullshit. Have you been to Novacoin lately? They’re closing, but there seemed like thousands of freaking coins on that site, almost all of them junk. You could even see people in the chatroom call them out for being junk and scams. Novacoin and Coinomi’s standards are way too low, evidently.

Coinbase, thank goodness, is acting as the Nintendo of cryptocurrencies. They have tight and rigid standards for cryptos and whether they will or won’t add them, and we should all be on our knees thanking them for this. If Joe Plumber decides he wants to see what “all that thar Bittlecoon stuff is about,” he’s going to google it, and he’ll almost certainly end up on Coinbase. There, he will be introduced to three safe, secure, reliable, non-scam coins: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin, in a safe and relatively risk-free environment. He won’t be flooded with a hundred different cryptocurrencies and left feeling like an idiot who picks one at random because he doesn’t want to feel like an idiot and wants to feel like he knows what he’s doing. He’ll see three.

Odds are, he won’t ever hear the words “Hempcoin” or “Belacoin” or “Cannacoin,” and thank God for that. Because most of these shitcoins are going to go under within a year or two, and do you know what would happen if the masses of people poured their money into these shitcoins, and then had the shitcoins vanish?

That’s right: a crash. And an enormous one.

In fact, due to Coinomi, Jaxx, Novacoin, Kraken, etc.’s looser standards, a crash is inevitable. Coinbase is merely delaying it. They can’t prevent it entirely, not when so many people want to create shitcoins that serve no purpose except to scam people out of money and then fade into oblivion because they never had more than a half-baked idea in the first place.

I’m not saying people who genuinely believe in Hempcoin shouldn’t be able to get it, and shouldn’t be able to store it in a wallet. Obviously, I’m not saying that. But I’m saying until your shitcoin has truly proven itself–I’d say that 2 years of survival should be the bare minimum requirement–you should be stuck using a coin-specific wallet.

Oh, look. Orangecoin no longer exists. I’m so surprised.

Buying shitcoins like Orangecoin and Hempcoin simply shouldn’t be so easy that stupid and careless people can do it accidentally. Careless and stupid people exist. We know they do. And if we don’t want government to step in and protect them from the consequences of being careless and stupid, then it’s on us to do so. It’s on Coinbase, Coinomi, Kraken, Novacoin, and Jaxx to do, and Coinbase is the only one stepping up to do it. I’m not saying bail people out. And I’m damned sure not saying let government get involved. In fact, I want you people (whoever is out there making bullshit currencies and bullshit ethereum tokens) to stop doing it so that the government doesn’t get involved. They will. They’ve done it before, man. And “Wah! We lost our money because we couldn’t be bothered to do any research before dropping our life savings into something!” has always been the excuse used for government power grabs. You think they won’t crush Coinbase if they get a good enough excuse? This is stuff that we can’t afford, in the long-run, to allow to happen.

We have to stop this. We have to prevent the crash. This means you, jackasses who made Britcoin, jackasses who made Putincoin, jackasses who made three separate marijuana coins. If you don’t have the self-restraint to not serve out bullshit, then Coinomi, Jaxx, et al. will have to step up and stop you. We need them to, and we need you to go away. And we need to be thankful that Coinbase’s extreme reluctance to add new coins is keeping cryptos accessible and relatively safe for the masses. Because if the ordinary person was presented with Coinomi’s massive list of coins the first time they went to purchase, we’d already have experienced the crash by now.

 

Economic Self-Interest

So the Nobel Prize in economics was recently awarded to Thaler, who showed that economic actors (i.e., “people”) don’t always act rationally, or in their best interests. While I have not read his award-winning work, that isn’t even important, because there are two underlying assumptions that don’t hold up, and that must be true for the hypothesis to be true: first, that rational and irrational behavior are different things, and second that “best interests” can be definitively measured.

Without going further, everyone should by now be identifying the scientific woo in the assertion. As I’ve written about before, rationality and irrationality are two sides of the same coin–that which we value, we value for emotional reasons, yet it is only rational to care (emotion-based) about our values. That’s rather circuitous, so let me explain with an example. Let’s say that I love chocolate milk, and that I’d be willing to pay $5 for a bottle of Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup if only one remained at the store and I was competing with someone else for it. It is only rational that I put my desires first, and therefore only rational that I seek out and attempt to acquire the chocolate syrup. But why should I care about having chocolate syrup, and why should I care whether I am happy (with my desires fulfilled) or unhappy (with my desires unfulfilled)? Why should I care whether I am happy and acquired the chocolate syrup, or unhappy without the chocolate syrup?

We have a strong tendency to separate the two things, but they cannot be separated. There is no rational reason that I would care whether I am happy or sad–only emotional ones. Yet it is only rational that, if my emotional state matters to me, then I would attempt to keep my emotional state positive. If I care, then it is only rational that I do things that satisfy that concern, but there is no rational reason that I should care except that I care, and that, since I care, it only makes sense for me to do things to satisfy that concern. See? It’s all circular. Rationality and irrationality are woven together, inseparable; no one ever “acts rationally” and no one ever “acts irrationally.” They perpetually act both rationally and irrationally.

Suppose I run into a burning building to rescue a cat. Many people would say that I had behaved irrationally. Yet others would say that, because I care deeply about cats (no, really, I do, and I would rush into a burning building to save one), it is only rational that I would do everything in my power to save them. Yet there is no rational reason that I should care about cats–I care about them for emotional reasons, hence the use of the word “care.” Yet is it not irrational for an untrained person to rush into a burning building for any reason? Is it not irrationality–emotion–my love for cats–that inspired my behavior, even though it’s got an overwhelming likelihood of being against my best interests (survival)? And, if so, why should my survival be considered a rational goal?

On the surface, it would certainly appear that it is only rational for a person to want to keep themselves alive, but is it? No. Such a want–a desire–is motivated entirely by emotional concerns: a fear of death, a love of life, whatever. There is no rational reason to want to continue living, but look what we are doing–we are calling it irrational to rush into a burning building because it could lead to death. We are assuming that it is rational to want to continue living, but that assumption is flawed; there are only emotional reasons. So we are not using “rationality” in its accurate, true sense when we ascribe it as a value to certain actions; we are labeling a broad range of actions with “self-preservation” as the ideal goal–a goal that we put as the ideal only for emotional reasons.

For what rational reason does an individual, group, or species conclude that their survival and procreation are valuable? There isn’t one, and that’s the assumption upon which his idea is built–that there is. There is absolutely no rational reason that I should care whether I live or die, whether humanity lives or dies, or whether the entire freaking planet lives or dies. Why? Positive and negative statements are value statements, and they are made according to unknown, subjective, individual-specific criteria and weighed for emotional reasons, not rational ones.

Before anyone can say that actors occasionally act rationally or irrationally, they must define what these words mean. Apparently, “rationally” in this context means “in their best interests.” According to whom? And by what criteria? Plenty of people would say that habitual drug users are acting against their best interest by continuing to do methamphetamine, but are they? Who is to say that the short-term high of meth isn’t a sufficient reward for them to outweigh the longterm damage? Who is to say what is in their best interests and what is not? Who in the world has the omniscience to make such a statement, and then to present it as science? This guy won a Nobel Prize for “demonstrating” that Person A occasionally acts against Person A’s best interests.

What?

What in the bloody hell are we considering to be in Person A’s best interests? Economic stability? Amassing untold wealth? Getting lots of pussy? And then why are we considering those things to be in their best interests? And even if we could somehow come to a universally agreed upon criteria of what is and isn’t in someone’s best interests, this doesn’t even begin to answer the question of whether they’re acting in their long-term best interests, but against their short-term best interests (as I do each time I buy cryptocurrency). How in the world can we ever attempt to say scientifically that Person A has acted against their short-term best interests and against their long-term interests, according to this gargantuan list of factors and concerns that we have by fiat determined to be “best”?

And this guy won a Nobel Prize for this.

In actuality, what Thaler has proven is that “By the criteria of what I consider to be ‘best,’ people occasionally do things that will not yield the results of what I consider ‘best.'” It doesn’t matter if his criteria is economic stability, productivity, long-term survival, or anything else–why in the world should his values, or even the majority’s values, dictate that another person has behaved irrationally? No, Thaler. You have demonstrated that people occasionally do things that you feel are not in those people’s best interests. That’s all you’ve demonstrated, and that, as science, is meaningless and useless.

If you define their “best interests” in the way that you prefer, then it’s no surprise that you’ll find people occasionally act against the “best interests” that you’ve defined, because not everyone is trying to achieve whatever goals you have outlined; not everyone cares about those same things. It’s not in my economic and financial best interests to take time out of my workday to write this article, but I care about whether science is actually, you know, scientific. Is it rational that I care about that? Well… It’s no more rational than your estimation of what is and isn’t in other people’s best interests.

Slavktivism or Activism?

There sometimes comes a time when the voices of internet activists are so loud that they begin to effect an actual change in the real world. There sometimes comes a time when enough people shouting, “We aren’t happy!” prompts other people to ask, “So what do you want us to do about it?”

It’s true that my activism takes place primarily on the Internet. There are a few reasons for this, but it’s mostly a matter of timing, and I’ve been working through the last six months to transition that activism into the real world. Even so, I don’t think that internet activism is automatically slacktivism, because I can point to at least five people whose ties to libertarian thought originated with my Facebook posts. Five, of course, is a drop in the bucket, but I would consider the time spent writing to be well used if I’d introduced even one person to libertarian philosophy.

Something I’ve written about before is continuing to happen, though, and Arvin Vohra gives is a clear case of it within the Libertarian Party. I’ve frequently said that Black Lives Matter enjoyed the national spotlight for nearly two years and yet didn’t accomplish a single thing except to make people aware that they weren’t happy. No policies were changed, and no police were found guilty. You’d be forgiven for thinking that we hadn’t just seen interstates throughout the nation shut down by protests. It’s a curious thing that protesters could command that level of attention and organization, yet accomplish absolutely nothing.

It’s slacktivism.

The activist has goals, and usually has at least some idea of how to get from where we are to that destination. The slacktivist has no goals, and instead has only emotions. “Everyone should be treated equally!” isn’t a goal, after all–it’s an emotional statement that could lead one to formulate a goal. “The military should be dismantled entirely” is a goal, albeit one that is hard to sell to the masses. It’s an actual action with an actual outcome, not a loose guide.

Considering Arvin Vohra, the emotional statement is “You shouldn’t say negative things about this group!” while a concrete action would be “Arvin should be removed from office!”

At a glance, I’d say that the difference between activism and slacktivism is that the slacktivist wants to tell other people what to do, while the activist wants to do things that have a desired outcome. The slacktivist proposes mandates of other people’s actions, knowing that they can’t be enforced, while the activist cares little about what other people are doing because the activist is working personally for the change they want to see. The slacktivist says, “You do this.” The activist says, “I’m going to do this.”

The goal of the slacktivist is nothing better than ensuring that everyone knows how unhappy they are; the activist doesn’t really have time to wax at length about their emotional reactions to various stimuli. In Buddhist terms, the slacktivist says, “I am suffering,” while the activist says, “There is suffering.”

Everyone has goals, though–even the slacktivist. However, the slacktivist just wants everyone to know that they aren’t happy. Slacktivism obviously isn’t limited to the internet, but the internet has made it much easier for Random Joe to spread his discontent, so it’s going to be more common on the Internet. How many pointless, ineffectual petitions are there on Change.Org? Tens of thousands? That’s slacktivism in a nutshell.

Why, there’s even a petition there to remove Arvin.

When the slacktivist sets out, their goal is to make sure other people know they are unhappy, and their method is to tell everyone that they aren’t happy. They want nothing beyond that, and if their voices become so loud that it seems they could actually achieve something beyond that, they’ll strangely back off. The child doesn’t want the parent to do anything except acknowledge that the child is throwing a tantrum.

It came as no surprise to me, to see a motion put forward to remove Arvin, and to immediately have the masses of people calling for his head to say, “Oh, hold on, let’s not be hasty here!” The same thing happened with Comey just a few weeks ago–mere months ago, liberals were calling for his head, but as soon as something real happened, they flipped entirely to the other side.

It reminds me of when I ran for class President my senior year, and proceeded to Ralph Nader the crap out of it. I didn’t want to win, and it’s a tremendously good thing that I didn’t. But, strangely, that didn’t stop me from running and campaigning. I didn’t win, but I split the white vote (in a school that had a very slight white majority, and it’s a matter of record that most people voted along racial lines–yes, even the black kids) enough that the black girl who had run and lost each year actually won the election. All that said, I didn’t want to win, and I didn’t even really want to spoil the vote. But that didn’t stop me. I guess I just wanted to see if I could. I don’t know. I was an idiot high schooler who dropped out a month later.

The platitudologists among us would probably say that the slacktivists truly want to accomplish things, but they are more paralyzed by a fear of success than anything else, and that could work as an explanation of this strange behavior, but I don’t think that “fear” is the right word. They’re not afraid of success; they’re just not aiming for the goal that most people assume, and that they even express to be their goal.

They say they want Arvin removed, and I know of many people who said that, right up until a motion was made. The removal of Arvin Vohra was not their goal; however, the threat of removing Arvin Vohra was among their methods for achieving their goal. They just wanted everyone to know they weren’t happy, to give them attention and acknowledge their discontent, and to at least pretend to give a shit what they feel. Toward that end, they did two things: they bitched, and they made what they thought were mostly empty threats. Like if I said I was going to nuke Washington D.C. (Hello, NSA/CIA!) if Trump didn’t step down, that would be an idle threat that no one would take seriously. But what if some rabble-rouser who shared my sentiments agreed and sent me a nuke?

Uh-oh. I’d suddenly be in a pretty awkward position (not to mention–in Gitmo) of having to find some kind of way to avoid admitting that I was totally full of shit. To that end, I’d backpedal from my previous hard-line stance, and would probably say, “You’ve gotta give Trump a chance to comply…”

Just like people backpedaled on Vohra and, now that they metaphorically have nukes, are suggesting that he must first be given a chance.

“Full of shit” indeed.

They didn’t want to remove Arvin. They just wanted to threaten to, as a way of forcing people to take their incessant whining seriously. Without that threat, they have nothing, and can easily be dismissed. “I’m not happy!” by itself is a lulz-worthy whine. “I’m not happy! Fix it or I’m gonna…” can be a potentially serious threat.

I say we should call them on their bluff, and call them on their bullshit.

Bill Nye is Anti-Science

When I first noticed that people were using the descriptor “intelligent” not to denote people who seemed to have higher-than-average levels of intelligence, but to mark allies in political agreement, I posted that something was wrong and that it was going to get worse:

Intelligence has become the new deity.

“If you believe what I believe, then you are smart. If you are smart, then you will believe what I believe.”

An outward thing from which a person derives their own net worth–the problem is that the “outward thing” is actually an inward thing. In true Dunning-Kruger fashion, people judge their own intelligence by their own ideas, and since they always believe their own ideas to be correct, they always judge themselves to be intelligent.

I’m sure we’ve all run into this. At some point, someone has surely said something to you that was similar to, “You seem really smart… You should read this” or “… You should watch this video.” It carries with it the most dangerous of subtleties: “If you are actually smart, then you’d agree with me. Maybe you don’t have the information that I have. Here’s that information. If you still don’t agree, then I was wrong about you being smart.”

In fact, I’ve been called an “idiot” probably more than anyone I’ve ever met, and this insult has never been thrown at me in any context other than political disagreement. No one could ever possibly mistake me for an idiot. Whether I’m correct or incorrect is unrelated to that. In reality, if I say something and someone thinks I’m an idiot for it, then the much more likely answer is that they simply didn’t understand what I said in the first place.

Intelligence isn’t a prerequisite of being right, and neither is being right an indicator of intelligence. Some of the greatest minds in human history were wrong about any number of things. Being correct is a factor of knowledge and nothing else. Even someone with an IQ of 250 will be wrong about any number of things, simply because we lack a lot of information, and their unnaturally high IQ will do nothing to prevent them from being wrong.

Once more, it’s all about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is one of the most breathtaking psychological breakthroughs in human history. A person judges their own understanding of who is and isn’t intelligent relative to their own intelligence. I pointed out yesterday that we judge value systems relative to our own value systems–all of this is obvious, and the ties to Nietzsche’s philosophy and Austrian economics are equally obvious. We judge the value systems of other cultures by our own value system, and compare them relative to our own; ours are our own, so we like ours, and the more different the other systems are to ours, the more we dislike them. It’s impossible to escape from this, because my love for liberty-oriented value systems forms the basis that I use to assess the value of other systems. It’s also the case with intelligence: my only gauge for assessing other people’s intelligence is my own intelligence.

Several “celebrated scientists” have been exhibiting exactly the behavior that Murray Rothbard and others wrote about. They have become pimps of their scientific credibility in the employ of the state and the status quo. In fact, they have sacrificed their right to call themselves scientists and are about as anti-science as any group of people could be.

These guys.

Modern priests

What is this illustrious word “science?” What does it mean? What does it entail? If it is to be anything more than just a cheap and gaudy rubberstamp that we apply to whatever ideology we happen to believe, then it must have an actual meaning–which, ironically, is a statement that any scientist would agree with. Definitions are important, because they form the basis of the words that we use to understand and communicate the world. A simple Google search gives us:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I can’t help but wonder if that definition makes Stephen Hawking, Bill Nye, and Neili deGrasse Tyson blush and feel ashamed. It should.

Of course, my argument against them is part of the problem, isn’t it? I have no problem recognizing that. In the vein of any actual scientist, I see my own bias and absolutely insane demands of these human beings, that they must apply the scientific method in all areas of their lives, and that they aren’t allowed to deviate from it. In fact, it is I who is accusing them of heresy, isn’t it? They have violated my religion of Science by disgracing its methods, much like a Christian violating Christianity by disgracing the teachings of Christ.

My problem with them is that they should apply the Scientific Method and don’t.

This combines with the masses’ misunderstanding that they do apply the Scientific Method.

In effect, I’m demanding of them what the masses of people think they are already doing. “Surely we can trust Neil Tyson’s statements about art and science funding! He’s a scientist!” Of course, it was not terribly long ago that Neil Tyson asked his many, many Twitter followers if they truly wanted to live in a world without art, framing all of reality as a false dichotomy built on the idea that if the government doesn’t do something, then it can’t be done. The obvious problems with this stupidity don’t need to be pointed out–didn’t I just buy tickets to see a musical concert? The government didn’t buy those tickets.

Bill Nye went on CNN and made the statement that the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund the sciences, and made mention of Article I, Section 8. It’s true that this is the section that enumerates Congressional power, but nothing else that Nye said is remotely true, as the passage that Nye quotes leaves off highly significant data. What do we call a “scientist” who discards a large part of the data because it isn’t convenient to his hypothesis?

“Formerly employed,” perhaps.

“Not a scientist.” Yes, that’s another option.

In fact, the section of the Constitution to which Bill Nye refers explicitly enumerates Congressional power without ambiguity, and the full passage asserts that Congress may promote the arts and sciences by securing patents for the respective authors and inventors. It is authorization to issue patents, not authorization to issue money. There’s no way that Nye could have accidentally read the first part of the sentence and not the second part. This was, we must conclude, an intentional ploy to convince the people who take him at his word as a reliable source that the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund scientific research. In the interest of scientific integrity, I will provide the evidence to support my contention:

Congress shall have the power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

So this is two “celebrated scientists” who have been thoroughly disloyal to the precepts of science–the Scientific Method, the Bible of Science. Since so few people are calling them out on their heresy, allow me to do so:

Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, you have betrayed your church, and you should both repent and make restitution. This restitution should come in the form of public apologies on no less than six occasions throughout the next six weeks–two in written, two in aural, and two in video form. That shall be your penance.

I may sound like I’m joking, and I am, to a degree. I don’t expect Nye and Tyson to ever back down from their arrogant betrayal of the scientific method and wanton displays of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, much less to ever issue a single apology for the stupid shit they have said. However, I’m serious about my loyalty to the scientific method, to reason, and to evidence, and I’m serious that clearly these three men cannot say the same.

What of Hawking? Well, Hawking has repeatedly waxed at length about the evils of capitalism and how only world government can save us from its oppressive destruction. Never mind that anyone who has taken even a single introductory college-level economics course can attest to the scientific fact that we do not have capitalism anywhere on planet Earth. So I’m calling out Hawking on clearly never studying economics, yet routinely attempting to talk about economics as though he has any idea what in the hell he’s talking about. Clearly, he doesn’t, and any first-year college student could confirm that.

So to these three heretical priests, I say:

Repent! The end is Nye.

What we’re seeing is a more of an revival than a renaissance, as the precepts of science have been tossed in the trash with reckless abandon. What else can we conclude, when “celebrated scientists” make claims that they either know to be false, trusting that the masses will believe them, or are simply too ignorant on the subject to know whether their claim is false at all?

Yet this hasn’t stopped the masses–the precise characteristics which makes them “the masses,” after all, is that they aren’t interested in independently discovering truth and will blindly follow whatever ideology is handed down to them from “trusted authorities”–from swallowing all of it, with Tyson’s demonstrably false, fallacious, and erroneous spiel seeing tens of thousands of retweets by people who have no desire to think the matter through for themselves.

Trust has been placed in these three people, by the masses of people, who, again, are defined “as the masses” precisely by their lack of interest in pursuing these matters intellectually, and these three people have utterly betrayed that trust. Yet the masses don’t know it, do they? No, because the masses aren’t interested in scrutinizing the words of their favorite priests. For the masses, these poisoned, fallacious ideas enter the mind unchallenged, and there they embed themselves; the masses never stop to ponder the false dichotomy that Tyson has proposed, or what credentials Stephen Hawking might have to discuss economics rather than cosmology.

And I’m as qualified to call myself a scientist as Bill Nye.

I haven’t researched this recently, and seem to recall Nye having a Master’s, but maybe not.

In fact, if a “scientist” is someone who liberally applies the scientific method to questions, then I’m infinitely more qualified. Bill Nye has the advantage in that this actor and performer managed to get a kids’ show where he cheaply purchased credibility among the masses and became a trusted authority figure. Indeed, I find myself wondering whether Bill Nye was purposely planted there when we were kids precisely for this purpose–precisely for using him to peddle statism and the status quo once we became adults. It wouldn’t be the most extravagantly dangerous thing the state ever did. After all, they took control of the entire education apparatus and have been using it to manipulate the masses for 60 years. Now those people raised by the state education are adults and in charge, and the idea of dismantling that apparatus is met with knee-jerk angry reactions; the idea is rejected without consideration.

Give me their minds through their formative years, and by the time they’re adults I can have them convinced of anything. I can have them saying it’s okay to kill people who disagree with them, that people of one race deserve to be annihilated or enslaved, that it’s okay to steal things if they want those things… The mind of a child is not critical. By the time they are able to think critically, the ideas I plant will already be firmly in their minds, forming the very lens through which they view the world.

We have rarely been in more danger of a religious sentiment overtaking reason, and Nye, Tyson, Kaku, and Hawking are leading the charge. “Science” isn’t a set of beliefs that one must adhere to or be a heretic. I’ve seen “pro-science” people do the metaphorical equivalent of burning people at the stake for dare challenging one of the items in their set of beliefs, and I’m sure you’ve seen the same. “Science” is a methodology. Anyone who demands that you acquiesce to a set of beliefs and ideas that they have put forward is peddling religion, not science.

If they can’t present evidence, if they can’t present a reasonable argument, and if they can’t prove their position, based on all available evidence, is sound, then they are unworthy of trust. If they ignore huge amounts of information simply because it’s inconvenient to their hypothesis, then they are engaging in cherry-picking, another hallmark of religion, rather than science.

Neo-Cons Didn’t Corrupt Trump

I must confess that I’m pleased to see the general condemnation from Trump supporters of the attack against Syria, motivated primarily by incredulity over the absurd claim that Assad, to better fight a war that he’d nearly won, saw fit to do something that would certainly drag the West into the war and thereby assure his defeat. The whole thing stinks, for several reasons. I suppose first among those is that Assad surrendered all of his chemical weapons to Russia, as overseen by the United States and United Nations. This would mean that any chemical weapons since constructed couldn’t have been made by Assad’s forces, who were being monitored by the UN as part of the agreement that John Kerry accidentally forged with Assad.

It’s also alarming that we, the United States, killed 230 civilians, and no one retaliated against us for the atrocity. We escaped unpunished, and that we murdered 230 civilians is an undisputed fact. Meanwhile, Assad allegedly kills about a hundred civilians, and we hypocritically take it upon ourselves to punish him, thereby handing an endangered city directly over to Isis.

It should be a cause for concern that McCain, Hillary, CNN, NBC, and others who have long demonized Trump are applauding his actions. If McCain gives you the thumbs up, then you’re doing it wrong.

Now Rex Tillerson has openly stated that our goal for Syria is regime change.

I never expected better of Trump, but, for unknown reasons, a lot of people did. We knew that Hillary would put us on this path, and I’ll admit that Trump was a bit of a wild card–based on what he said, I don’t blame the people who fell for his seeming policy of non-interventionism at least in Syria, but he backpedaled, lied, and contradicted himself so much during his campaign that anyone who took anything he said seriously might be a little touched in the head.

Yet here we are, preparing to go down exactly the same road that Hillary would have led us down, although we might have gotten here a few weeks sooner under President Hillary Clinton. It’s hard to say, honestly. Trump hasn’t even been President for three months, and he’s already getting us into a war to topple a Middle Eastern regime. One would expect the tragedy that is the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught us better, but we seem to have a remarkable inability to admit when we’re wrong. As long as we can’t admit that we screwed up, we can’t learn from the screw-up.

The similarities between Syria and Iraq are too much to ignore, especially given that ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. This is an organization that first appeared in 1999 in Iraq, but was unable to generate any momentum, especially with the world’s most famous terrorist bin Laden being part of Al Queda. A competing terrorist group just wasn’t going to get much coverage, as Boko Haram learned a few years ago, around the time that Al Queda fell. Remember them? They were going to replace Al Queda in the west’s zeitgeist of organized terror perpetrated by the government against its own citizens, but they failed to inspire us to give a shit.

It’s no coincidence that the vacuum of power we created when we deposed Saddam Hussein and then vacated the region allowed Isis to come forward and fight against the western-friendly government we had installed. When rebels began fighting against Assad in Syria, we “humanitarians” that we are took it upon ourselves to arm the rebels and help them, while Russia and Putin attempted to crush the rebellion. It’s probable that if we hadn’t gotten involved–much as we had during the Iran-Contra affair–then Russia wouldn’t have gotten involved.

Anyway, this new vacuum of power allowed ISIL–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant–to spill over into Syria, at which point its name was changed, although “Levant” was always a reference to eastern portions of Syria, if my memory serves me correctly. I do have a good memory, but it’s honestly hard to keep track of all this shit that we’ve done and caused.

Suddenly that civil war between Assad and governmental forces with Russia’s backing against rebel forces with our backing had a new combatant, which had grown powerful in the chaotic Iraq and seized the confusion in Syria to establish footholds there.

It’s comforting, for what little it is worth, to see Trump supporters criticizing Trump for his actions, and Infowars has finally taken Trump’s dick out of their mouths long enough to criticize the attack against Syria for playing right into Isis’s hands by further destabilizing the region, weakening Assad, and allowing them to take more territory. They rightly point out that it’s absolutely absurd to think that Assad–who publicly surrendered his chemical weapons while the entire world was watching–would have used chemical weapons in a war that he had all but won, considering that he knew the reaction it would have and considering that even Putin, gremlin though he is made out to be, condemns the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

However, these people contend that Trump has been “corrupted” by the Neo-Cons in his cabinet.

The cabinet that Trump himself appointed.

It’s an argument that is truly facepalm worthy. Trump appointed the very Neo-Cons who are now supposedly corrupting him. This means he wanted them to be where they are, and he wanted them to influence him. People he personally selected are advising him. It’s not like he inherited his advisors and cabinet from Obama and George W. Bush. It’s not like the cabinet came with the job, and he was totally unable to remove the CFR members and Goldman-Sachs executives. Quite the opposite–those people left with Obama, and the entire idea of “draining the swamp” was that Trump would refrain from bringing a bunch of CFR globalists, Goldman-Sachs executives, and neo-cons back into power. Yet instead of draining the swamp, Trump brought those people right back in and gave them jobs.

He didn’t get corrupted by them. He brought them in to advise him, and they gave him the advice that he clearly wanted and expected from them when he appointed them. It’s not like he appointed Ron Paul as his Defense Secretary, and Ron was assassinated with Trump receiving a letter that read in letters cut out from newspapers and magazines, “The next will die, too, unless it’s one of Cheney’s friends.”

It’s like if I went out with a bunch of friends to get ecstasy and have a good time, and someone said that those friends “corrupted me” when I was caught buying MDMA. It’s a blatant denial of responsibility. Trump chose those people, knowing who they were and what they represented. They didn’t corrupt him. They did exactly what he knew they would do when he chose them.

Trump wasn’t corrupted by the Neo-Cons in his staff. He wasn’t corrupted by the Deep State. He wasn’t unduly influenced by the CFR globalists in his cabinet. He hand-selected those people. Trump is to blame for this. He picked those advisors and cabinet members. He appointed these people.

So now Trump supporters have this idea of their savior being corrupted against his will and cajoled into taking actions that he doesn’t want to take by evil, corrupting Neo-Cons. It would be funny if this wasn’t what they evidently think. The swamp didn’t corrupt Trump while he was desperately trying to drain it. Trump dived headlong into the swamp the first chance he got, and that was his choice. He’s not the non-interventionist that people think he is, and he’s not the anti-establishment president that people think he is. He fooled such people, and it’s time they admitted that.

Stop making excuses for him. He marketed himself as a quasi-sorta-but-not-really-non-interventionist, although he did say some things that did lean a little bit in that direction, and he marketed himself as an outsider, someone who would fight the system and drain the swamp. Continuing to deny the fact that he lied to you and played you is not going to avoid war with Syria. He’s not being manipulated and [neo]conned by his cabinet. He’s doing exactly what he wants to do, and following the advice of people he appointed to give him exactly the advice they gave him.

Tool Fans Part 2

Part 1 is floating around somewhere on the Internet, on one of my old blogs somewhere. I don’t know. You can find it if you’re really interested.

After leaving a party because some idiot decided that it would be a good idea to get his gun out of his truck and start shooting–in city limits after dark–I came home and started listening to live A Perfect Circle performances. Since I’m not going to be able to see them while they’re on tour, that’s the best I can do. And I can’t even get started on how much it fucking sucks that I’m not going to be able to see play what is literally one of the greatest and most underrated bands of our time, with indisputably one of the best composers [Billy Howerdel] at the helm. There is no band that has influenced me half as much as Billy Howerdel, though David Gilmour of Pink Floyd is certainly second. But you can hear APC in almost everything I write. Not being able to see them is beyond heartbreaking, to the extent that when someone told me they had tickets, it was extremely difficult to resist the urge to hang up on them for the unbridled insensitivity. It’s hard to state the importance that music has in my life, but nowhere is that importance better exemplified than with A Perfect Circle. Severely underrated, but songs like “Orestes” and “Gravity” are some of the best things a person can listen to.

Go ahead. Listen to Orestes. I’ll wait.

A fucking masterpiece, right?

I mean… What do you even say? The only reason it’s better in the studio version is that the singer was rested up and was able to hit the last chorus an octave higher, which is just… god.

My introduction to Tool came through A Perfect Circle. By happenstance one morning, I saw the music video to A Perfect Circle’s Judith, and I was blown away. It was incredible. It was raw, edgy, and profane, and the lyrics masterfully drove it home. Everything about it captured undistilled emotion and threw it right into your face. When I later heard Schism, I thought that it was A Perfect Circle, and it took me a while to separate the two bands and figure out what was going on. It didn’t help that this was right in the middle of Tool’s dispute with their record company, which led to speculation that A Perfect Circle and Tool were exactly the same band, but with a different name because their record company wouldn’t let them do another album or something. You know how rumors go.

Eventually, I pieced it together, and stumbled across Tool and the album Lateralus. I liked it, but it was no A Perfect Circle. Many people still consider it heresy to say, but there’s absolutely no doubt: Billy Howerdel is a better composer than any of the members of Tool. Perhaps the weakest link in Tool is Adam Jones; I’d love to see what Billy Howerdel, Justin Chancellor, Danny Carey, and Maynard could do together. There was a time that Adam Jones, the guitarist, had a lot of original and clever ideas, and I’m getting to that.

From Lateralus, I went backward and bought Ænima, which I easily fell in love with. Lateralus became largely a thing of the past. “Reflection” was probably my favorite song on Lateralus, but it had nothing on “Third Eye” or “Forty-Six & Two.” There was something qualitatively different between Aenima and Lateralus, but I don’t mean in regard to sound quality, though instrument clarity was multitudes better. It was readily apparent that Tool was no longer an underground band; Aenima had given them the resources to release a studio album with some of the greatest instrument clarity you’ll ever hear. That’s no exaggeration–just check out “The Grudge” for an example of what I mean, or even “Schism” if you’re not sick of it already.

It was more than that, though. It was a gigantic tonal shift, from songs that were about things… to songs that weren’t really about anything. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Shadows o’er the desert, cast
by the unrepentant crow,
whose callow cries are first and last,
and ring loud from sand to snow.

That’s meaningless bullshit. It sounds very profound. It sounds like it is dripping with meaning and symbolism, but… it isn’t. Any line discussing “shadow” is going to sound symbolic, and throw a desert on top of it, and you’ve got Easy Symbolism For Idiots 101. The next line is my favorite, though: “…by the unrepentant crow.”

What?!

It’s a fucking bird. For what does it have to be repentant?

“…first and last” is an obvious and transparent allusion to the Alpha and the Omega. Is it meaningful? No. I just put it there because it has a pseudo-spiritualistic meaning. It’s nonsense. The cries are first and last? What does that mean? The callow cries? It means nothing, and it means nothing. It just sounds deep. It sounds like it has a lot of meaning to it, a lot of powerful meaning to it, but it’s just bullshit.

Here’s a legitimate scientific study on bullshit. I would suggest everyone who still calls themselves a “Tool fan” to read it. Here’s the first example of bullshit presented by the actually legitimate scientific paper: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.” It sounds so profound and so meaningful, doesn’t it? But it’s bullshit. At best, it means “You have to try to do stuff for stuff to happen.” That’s hardly a profound thought. One of the biggest indicators of bullshit, actually, is something that I’ve talked a lot about: pretentiousness. Anarchists are really bad about it, surpassed only by voluntaryists. Saying something with three and four syllable words when it could be said more briefly and simplistically is usually an indicator of bullshit, and the scientific study backs me up on that.

The real version: “You have to try to do stuff for stuff to happen.”

The Bullshit version: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.”

Same meaning, but one is obfuscated severely and made to sound a lot more meaningful than it really is. The same is true of the eye-rolling poetry I wrote above: it’s bullshit without meaning, but it sounds meaningful. But, as is the case with bullshit, if it conveys anything at all, then what it conveys will be an extremely simple idea, or it won’t convey anything.

So what does this have to do with Tool? Well, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the band.

To be fair to Tool, though, they don’t really go overboard with it. I actually think Tool finds a pretty good balance between bullshit and underlying meaning; usually when they reference something, there is a reason for it, like how the story of Cain and Abel is referenced in “Right in Two” to discuss how humanity divides everything and fights over it petulantly. The song contains some truly profound and meaningful lines, but they also aren’t obfuscated: “Repugnant is the creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here” is pretty clear.

So it’s not really Tool’s fault that this has happened. It’s the fault of people who are so desperate to find meaning in their lives that they make some truly bizarre, nonsensical connections. We’re talking about the people who rearrange the songs from the album Lateralus into the Fibonacci Sequence–or so they say. Somehow, they manage to start this collection–which they call, and I’m not making this up, “The Holy Gift”–with the sixth and seventh songs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the Fibonacci Sequence applied to Lateralus would include very little of the album and would be:

1. The Grudge
1. The Grudge
2. Eon Blue Apocalypse
3. The Patient
5. Schism
8. Ticks & Leeches
13. Faaip de Oaid or whatever

But, of course, that isn’t what they did, is it? No, somehow they “applied the Fibonacci Sequence” and came up with this tracklist:

6. Parabol
7. Parabola
5. Schism
8. Ticks & Leeches
4. Mantra
9. Lateralus
13. Faaip de Oaid
1. The Grudge
12. Triad
2. Eon Blue Apocalypse
3. The Patient
10. Disposition

I wonder what Fibonacci Sequence they’re using. The only part that makes any sense at all is 1. The Grudge followed by 12. Triad, but then the next song must be 3. The Patient. That would be a neat way of preventing The Grudge from being listed twice, but there’s no way to get 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 in the lineup. I’m sure they have some lengthy ass document somewhere where a lot of really bored people came up with all kinds of Moon Logic reasoning to explain how they manage to come up with this listing, but we can also find a Moon Logic document on the Internet that shows how the Jews were like totes 4 real responsible for 9/11 and how, seriously, British MPs are shapeshifting Silurians. Once we throw logic out the window, fucking anything goes, including starting the Fibonacci Sequence–which is an actual thing with an actual numeric sequence that most certainly does not start with a 6–with a 6.

Perhaps they meant that it’s based on Phi.

Look, it’s not a coincidence that I have Phi tattooed on my body twice–once as the Greek letter and once as the Golden Shape, nor is it a coincidence that I have Pi tattooed on me. I understand that the universe is a tribute to mathematical function, including human beings. The ratio of your shoulder-to-elbow to shoulder-to-fingertip? 1 to 1.6. The ratio of your head-to-waist to your head-to-feet? 1 to 1.6. Phi. The Golden Ratio. 1:1.6. The Golden Spiral, found all throughout the universe, from spiral galaxies to sunflowers.

So I totally get a person’s fascination and admiration for these things, so much so that I have them tattooed on me. I am marveled and awed by the beautifully woven form of the universe, that the same ratio that dictates the pattern of growth for sunflowers dictates the spirals of a galaxy. It’s nothing short of incredible and breathtaking. But I stop short at attributing any spiritual significance to it. It simply is. I don’t know why, and I don’t see much value in speculating. It’s worth pointing out that Pi is every bit as ubiquitous through the universe as is Phi; Pi is not limited to being the proportion of a circle’s diameter to its circumference. Like Phi, it shows itself throughout our entire universe. And that is why I have them tattooed on me.

But then people start going “Tree of Life” and shit, I have to roll my eyes. There is no need to take something clear and scientific and taint it with spiritual bullshit. Phi is a remarkable proportion found throughout the universe, from conch shells and sunflowers to galaxies. This fact stands on its own. It doesn’t need anyone’s help making it more special by calling it a “manifestation of the divine within us all” and shit like that. It simply is, and it is amazing. It doesn’t need anyone’s help to be appreciated. It’s there for all to see.

Believe it or not, all of this still has to do with Tool. Lunatics aside, there is a lot of beauty and meaning in Tool’s music and in their lyrics. Like Phi and Pi, Tool doesn’t need people’s help; the music stands on its own, without people attributing a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit to it. We don’t need conversations about Anasaki and chakras to appreciate the beauty and majesty of Phi. In fact, such things only distract from what is there, from what is clearly visible to anyone who cares to look. As a musician, I think I would honestly be insulted if people said, “Yeah, that riff is great, but what’s really great is how this lead interacts with it to form a tribute to an ancient Tibetan prayer that resonates with the black hole at the center of the galaxy!”

And people do say shit like that about Tool’s music… I ended up clicking *sigh* “The Holy Gift – Full Album” wondering if it was Tool’s new album that has been “on the way” for like 8 years. I thought it was odd that Tool would call an album that, but I clicked it anyway, and it didn’t take long scrolling through the comments before I found someone who said–and I’m not kidding–“Every song here is a tribute to God.”

Honestly, it gives me a headache just thinking about it. If Maynard James Keenan believes anything, it’s overwhelmingly more likely to be that we are all gods. The same guy who wrote a song that contained the lyrics “Fuck your god! Your lord, your Christ–he did this! Took what you had and left you this way, and still you pray, you never stray, you never taste of the fruit, and you never thought to question why?” is absolutely, definitely not writing “tributes to God” of any sort.

Worse yet, it’s all an act, and the band themselves told people that. Maynard has never stopped telling people that. The entire reason there hasn’t been more Tool albums is that he hates Tool fans. He seizes every opportunity to bash them for exactly this shit. They found out that Maynard put the Fibonacci Sequence in the lyrics to Lateralus:

Black
Then
White are
All I see
In my infancy
Red and yellow then came to be…

…and they immediately concluded that other “mystical” things must be hidden throughout. Tool cultivates this on purpose, of course. It’s how they’re marketing themselves, and it’s clearly successful–probably too successful, given what Tool fans have done with it. And people praised that short passage as brilliant! No kidding. Like it’s hard to do.

This
Is
Simple
So easy
To do that I’d bet
Anyone else could do it, too.

You want to talk about brilliant? Talk about the musicians who actually write their lyrics in such a way that they actually have meaning backward, with things like “new moon” becoming “noo mewn.” It’s always slanted when such a thing happens, but many musicians have done it. That is hard. I think it was Barry White who hid a “fuck you” to someone in one of his songs if played backward. But scattering a single sentence along certainly syllabic patterns? That’s trivial to anyone who has ever studied poetry.

But because it’s there, Tool fans took it and ran with it, and “The Holy Gift” is the result, with these… people… stating without the slightest trace of irony that these songs are “tributes to God.” Let’s look at some of Tool’s other tributes, shall we?

Prison Sex

Got your head down, and your hands bound,
And your eyes closed–you look so precious, won’t you
Won’t you come forth, just a bit closer,
Just enough so I can smell you?
I need you to feel this
I can’t stand to burn too long
Release in sodomy
I am your witness that blood and flesh can be trusted…
I have found some kind of temporary sanity
In this shit, blood, and cum on my hands…

Ah, positively dripping with prayers to God, isn’t it? No. It’s a song about a dominant relationship, and a particularly vicious one at that, since it so strongly implies unwillingness on the part of the victim and how the victim goes on to pay it forward: “Do unto others what has been done to me…” It’s a great song, believe it or not, and it actually has meaning. It’s conveyed in grotesque and vivid terms, but it’s about victimization, sodomy, prison sex, and victims becoming abusers while dying inside and finding peace with their abuse–Stockholm Syndrome-ish.

Maynard’s Dick

Kinda like the way you’re breathing
Kinda like the way you keep looking away
Would you like to climb on
Climb on my six inches and go down on Maynard’s dick
Took you out in the back of the toolshed
Put it right on top of your forehead
Took you out in the back of the toolshed
Now you know what you’re fuckin with… Maynard’s dick!

Again, just dripping with symbolism, right? No, it’s a fun song about fucking the singer’s dick.

Stinkfist

But I’ll keep digging till I feel something
Elbow deep inside the borderline
It may hurt a little, but it’s something you’ll get used to
Shoulder deep within the borderline
Relax, turn around and take my hand

Once more, it’s a song about fisting. That’s all it’s about. It’s not a metaphor for modern society, it’s not an allusion to materialism. It’s about anal fisting. And, need I remind you, this is the same fucking band who apparently is writing albums that are “tributes to God.”

4 Degrees

Locked inside you, like calm beneath castles
Is a treasure that no one has been to
Let’s go digging. Let’s go digging.
Bring it out and take it back
You won’t do what you’d like to do.
Lay back and let me show you another way.
I’ll kill what you want me to,
take what’s left and eat it.
Take all or nothing.
Life’s just too short to push it away.
Take it all.
Take it all in.
All the way in.
Let it go.
Let it go in.

Yes, yet another song about anal sex. Why anal sex? Well, look at the name–4 Degrees. Have Tool fans never wondered why it’s called that? It’s called that because the anal cavity is four degrees warmer than the vaginal cavity. It’s literally about taking someone’s anal virginity, cajoling them repeatedly to “take it all, take it all in.” This is the band that is now writing songs that are tributes to God?

No, you idiots. You were played. Tool marketed to you, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. We have only to look to the aptly named “Hooker With a Penis” to see why.

Hooker With a Penis

All you know about me is what I’ve sold you,
Dumb fuck, I sold out long before you ever heard my name.
I sold my soul to make a record, dip shit, and you bought one.

All you read and wear or see and hear on TV
Is a product begging for your fatass dirty dollar
So… shut up and buy my new record
Send more money.
Fuck you, buddy.

Maynard spelled it out, clear as day, for people, and they still missed it. The entire spiritualistic, higher meaning “get in touch with the divine in you” mysticism bullshit is an act. It is how they’re marketing themselves, and, holy shit, has it worked. We’ve got people talking about how “Reflection,” which has wonderful and profound lyrics, is actually an allusion to Narcissus and Greek Mythology. It’s nothing of the sort! It’s a song about ego. “Reflection” stands perfectly well all on its own without people adding nonsensical bullshit to it, and that is why it bothers me.

Because I do like Tool. A lot of their lyrics are really insightful, really meaningful, and reasonably profound, and the music–though it’s getting increasingly predictable and repetitious–is still good. But it’s good on its own merits, without this nonsense added to it, and by adding all that nonsense to it people are missing and overlooking the good shit that is actually there. They end up focusing on the tree of life and dedicating all their time to studying that nonsense instead of simply marveling and enjoying the ubiquity of Phi throughout the universe. So intent upon seeing higher meanings and deeper insights, they are completely missing the meanings and insights that are there, and they’re being absolutely insufferable while they’re at it.

It’s like if I said, “The sun is beautiful because it gives life to Earth, shines brightly, and warms us all,” and someone came along and said, “Nuh-uh! Idiot! The sun is beautiful because it’s a manifestation of the divine and is reaching out to you to convince you of your oneness with it! Dumbass! You just can’t see the bigger picture!”

It’s like… But the sun is literally right there, literally giving life, literally shining brightly, and literally warming us. It doesn’t need that bullshit you said to be beautiful. It’s beautiful all by itself. You’re just cheapening it with that bullshit.

“Right in Two” is a beautiful song about human divisiveness, bloodthirstiness, tribalism, and war. “Silly monkeys, give them thumbs, they make a club, and beat a brother down… How they survive so misguided is a mystery…” “Ticks & Leeches” is probably about Tool fans, to be honest. Even with its pretentious, meaningless symbolism about ones, tens, and Saturn, “The Grudge” still has a good meaning behind it: holding grudges is bad. In fact, most of the symbolism in Tool’s songs that is mystical or astrological in origin comes closer to being Big Lipped Alligator Moments than anything, and they rarely have anything at all to do with the song. Sure, it’s pretty obvious Maynard is talking about Saturn moving into a first astrological house or the tenth astrological house and wrecking shit, but what does that actually have to do with the rest of the song? Nothing. It’s just there for people to squee over and motivate them to go looking for deeper meaning, not realizing that they were just marketed to.

Because of that, Tool stopped being a band that I can really get on board with. They’re not marketing to me any longer. They’re marketing to that larger audience: people smart enough to see the symbolism, but too stupid to see through it. And I’m not particularly happy to say that, but it simply is what it is. I shouldn’t have to point out to anyone that randomly bringing up Saturn and ones and tens doesn’t add depth to a song that is otherwise about letting go of grudges. No, I’m not missing the brilliance of the symbolism; the meaning simply isn’t there.

It has spilled into A Perfect Circle, too. As much as I love the song “By and Down,” primarily because it’s the only new APC song we’ve had in like 14 years, most of its symbolism is meaningless. It’s so very, very different from “Orestes” and “The Noose.” “And not to pull your halo down, around your neck and tug you off your cloud, but I’m more than just a little curious how you’re planning to go about making your amends to the dead.” Clear, concise, and meaningful. It’s conveying a lot more than what the words alone indicate. Contrasted to “Pied piper, float on down the river, bloated carcass crippled ‘neath the weight of adoration. Moving in and out of the shadows, it’s no easy mission holding on to how I pictured you,” it’s pretty clear that the references to the piper don’t actually add anything to the song. In fact, the song probably would have been stronger without them, but what do I know? I’m not a millionaire like Maynard surely is by now.

Marketing geniuses, for sure.

 

JonTron, YouTube, & Bandwagons

I want to start this off my commending Jon Jafari for having the courage to express his opinions in an environment that is increasingly hostile to any amount of dissent. With universities throughout the country playing host to vicious riots and attacks against people who were invited to speak, and with DDoS attacks regularly taking place against any popular person who dares voice a criticism of something else, it has become difficult to openly say what you think. This is, in fact, why the media missed the mark so much on the 2016 Election. Criticism around the clock from every corner of the web and media attacked Trump supporters, washing them all as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic, to the point that many people were reluctant to express their support for him. But then they were able to voice their opinion through the ballot, where there was no more judgment, no ostracizing, and no hostility.

I’ve had people criticize me for daring to criticize another transgender person. That’s how deep and pervasive the groupthink has become–the allegation was, seriously, that I was not allowed to express a negative statement about another transgender person, because I’m transgender, and that means my individuality, my thoughts, and my mind don’t belong to me–they belong to my tribe. I became a heretic simply for expressing my opinion.

The Internet is largely the domain of the same people who riot on college campuses. Partially due to observable biases that see right-wing figures blocked for hate speech while left-wing figures can rant all they want, social media increasingly leans to the left. This is exacerbated by the reality that anyone who expresses their opinion invites themselves to be ripped to shreds. Combined, we’ve ended up with a very loud leftist bent on the Internet and a meek, intimidated right that is only beginning to speak again.

Nowhere was this more apparent than with my since-deleted video criticizing the Liberal Redneck. One person after the next came and attacked me, simply because I dared criticized a leftist who was, purportedly, “speaking for me.” This hearkens back to the tribal mindset I mentioned earlier–I was being told to shut up and be silent, to let the tribe speak for me, and I was ostracized when I refused to allow my voice to be cut off and stolen by a group with whom I disagree. The attacks were so constant and so persistent that I did something I never thought I’d do: I deleted the video that caused the ruckus. The only things that remain of it are my follow-ups about tribalism and the Us and Them mentality that demands I sheepishly abide what the tribe says on my behalf, whether I agree with it or not.

For someone like me, even voicing an opinion at all can, much of the time, result in attacks. I once commented on a video of a woman overreacting that someone smacked her with a newspaper by saying, “This is how liberals acted every time Trump opened his mouth.” The first reply to that was from a Trump supporter who criticized me for being transgender. People on the right will relentlessly attack me for being transgender, regardless of how unrelated to the discussion it is. Meanwhile, people on the left will relentlessly attack me for not being a Democrat.

It’s easy to stand on video today and say, “I support gay rights.” It’s not only easy; it’s passe. It’s expected, especially in places notoriously dominated by millennials, like YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit. There’s no battle there, no controversy there. It’s little more than virtue signaling at this point. Remember the episode of South Park where Stan and Cartman drove a boat into the dam and broke it? At the end of the episode, Stan musters his courage and confesses that he broke the dam. Then the rest of the crowd decides that Stan means it in a metaphorical sense, and the assembled people begin stating one after the other, “I broke the dam.”

Finally, Cartman, laughing a bit, steps forward and confesses, “I broke the dam.”

That is what it is to be a modern progressive in a university, in a city, or on the Internet. It’s a safe, uncontested position, where on is bolstered on all sides by people who agree, because people who have the courage to disagree are either silenced and told to go along with the majority, or are condemned and, increasingly, outright attacked violently. It takes no courage to be a Mississippian high schooler standing up and saying that he believes in Jesus, either, because that’s the prevailing opinion.

Caitlyn Jenner made a huge stink last year about going to use the women’s restroom at Trump Tower, after Trump had stated that transgender people could use whatever restroom they wanted in his building. It took no courage to do that. She wanted to be like Rosa Parks, except Caitlyn would only ride the bus if she knew the bus driver would let her sit wherever she wanted. The courageous act would have been going to South Carolina or Mississippi and doing it there. It takes no courage or bravery to jump onto a bandwagon that everyone else has jumped on.

During the 2016 Election, I unfollowed a number of YouTube personalities for proclaiming quite inexplicably things like “I’m interested in politics, and I’m going to discuss it! If you don’t like it, unfollow me!” I unfollowed them because it was bullshit. There was nothing courageous about being yet another YouTube personality jumping on the Sanders bandwagon without being able to give a single, cogent reason that Sanders made a good candidate, and neither was there anything courageous about proclaiming “I’m with her!” once Hillary stole the nomination. And now that the election is over, all those people who were “interested in politics” have gone back to cosplaying or whatever they do, having fully confused their eagerness to jump on a bandwagon with genuine interest and awareness of a complex subject.

I like Jon Jafari’s videos. That’s why I’m aware of his existence in the first place. The only video of his that I don’t like is the one about the Dungeons & Dragons movie, and that’s only because it hits so near to home for me, because my grandmother did think that shit, and was convinced of that shit by our pastor. Jon’s a hilarious guy, and he’s the only person I’ve ever watched who made me genuinely ask, “How does he come up with this shit?!” while laughing hysterically. I don’t particularly care about his politics, because he’s just a guy who makes stuff that I like. That doesn’t place his opinions in any place higher than my own opinions, just as I disagree with David Gilmour of Pink Floyd on several things, and even with John McAfee on a few.

I like Mark Dice’s videos–most of them, at least. There’s almost nothing that I agree with Mark Dice about.

I like Jim Sterling’s videos, and he is commonly called a SJW. I don’t think he’s one, because he is perfectly reasonable, and the mark of the SJW is that they are completely unreasonable. I disagree with him on a number of things, but that doesn’t stop me from liking him and enjoying his videos. Considering Jim intentionally encourages a Cult of Personality type of thing, that’s particularly humorous, but The Jimquisition is all in good fun. Even though he says “Thank god for me,” I think he’d probably be a little concerned and probably a lot disturbed to learn if there is a little kid out there who says each night before going to bed, “And thank you, God, for Jim Sterling” with sincerity.

What I’m saying is that we should all break this cult of personality thing, but it looks like it’s actually going to take off and become worse, with Oprah announcing her intention to run for office in 2020. All of his knowledge of physics in the world wouldn’t make Neil deGrasse Tyson a good administrator, and neither would it make him any more likely to hold sound policies. Being funny as hell shouldn’t give Jon’s opinions any more validity in anyone’s eyes–he’s still just some guy expressing an opinion.

But it does, and now condemnation pours in from all over the Internet on this funny guy who dared express his opinion because that opinion wasn’t the bandwagon, trendy opinion of the day.

I happen to think Jon is wrong. There’s no such thing as immigrant. There’s just an animal exercising their natural right to move from a place with fewer resources to a place with greater abundance. Just as the birds have the natural, innate, and unalienable right to fly south during the winter, so does a human have the natural, innate, and unalienable right to go any-damn-where they want, as long as they don’t trespass on another person’s property. But while people can own property and claim resources–a claim that stands prima facie and can be disputed formally, but, if not overturned formally and with civility, cannot be undermined without the initiation of force, violence, or coercion–a nation isn’t a real thing, either, and so a nation can’t claim resources.

Jon said that a nation is either sovereign or it isn’t. That’s an incorrect way of viewing the world, as it places tremendous value and weight in imaginary, artificial human constructs. Nations aren’t sovereign because nations aren’t real. They’re categorical constructs meant to simplify classification, and the tribal nature of our species had made them far more trouble then they’re worth, because instead of being just handy labels to convey characteristics quickly and easily, they become delineations that we’re willing to fight, torture, kill, and maim over. “How dare you hail from a different tribe? You are wicked!” becomes the norm, instead of, “Oh, you hail from Europe? So you’re more likely to have this, that, and the other characteristic. Neat.”

But I do commend Jon, even though I don’t agree with him, for having the courage to go against the grain. A lot of people would adamantly deny that the Internet, particularly, has a strong bias to the left, but that’s to be expected. People in the south insist that there’s no social pressure to be a Christian, too, but there most certainly is. I’ll leave once more with this video by TheraminTrees on conformity, and how the social pressure to conform and jump on the bandwagon compels us more than we think. At the very least, people should have the proper context for viewing Jon’s statements–he’s just another person–and should neither take him as a gift to the alt-right or an enemy of the left, and he definitely shouldn’t become Public Enemy Number One just because he dared speak his opinion.

 

When Scientists Become Pimps

Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye–

I’m looking at you.

I see you; I see what you’re doing, and it needs to stop. Your scientific credibility isn’t a whore for you to pimp you to lend weight to your political positions. There is no correlation between physics and immigration, yet that hasn’t stopped Michio Kaku from coming out and discussing how Trump is wrong about immigration*. The headline for the article? Why, of course! “This celebrated scientist says Trump is wrong!”

And? This celebrated scientist knows no more about immigration than any layperson who has read a few articles or books on the subject. But because he is a “celebrated” physicist, as there’s no such thing as some generic “scientist” except as a catch-all term for people who study a hard science, the media and the public treat his political position as though it has scientific weight behind it, as though being able to say “I’m a celebrated physicist” makes his statements about economics, government regulation, or immigration any more worthy of being accepted.

While obviously, Kaku, Hawking, Tyson, and Nye–and others, of course–it’s not your fault that the media chooses to treat your words in this way, but you know they do, and you know the public does. You know that if you say something about economics or the evils of capitalism–as Hawking has done–that your words will be taken to be truth as a given, and from there will become popular arguments for or against whatever it is you’re advocating. In this way, you have sacrificed your integrity. You have turned your scientific credibility into a whore, to be pimped out at your leisure in support of whatever Popular Opinion of the Day you think will help you sell books.

Don’t bullshit me, man.

There’s a reason that virtually every popular YouTube personality through 2016 came out in support of Bernie Sanders, and the reason isn’t particularly hard to see. Hell, half of those YouTube personalities couldn’t give a single, solitary reason, when confronted, why they supported Sanders. Yet they supported him anyway. Why? Because it was the popular thing to do. They’d have lost subscribers for coming out in support of Hillary or Trump–Stein and Johnson became more or less neutral. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, where your words circulate the most, are overwhelmingly dominated by younger millennials, the same people who cast their lot in with Sanders whether they had any articulated reason to or not.

You’re doing the same crap. It doesn’t matter to me if you can pseudo-rationalize your positions, but I’m willing to bet that most of you can’t. Why? Because “scientists” today, as a class, have totally forgotten what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is, and seem to think that being an expert in physics makes one an expert in economics, politics, and the nature of the state. This, of course, despite the fact that all hard sciences are increasingly specialized, and a scientist in one larger field–say, “physics”–may be only marginally less ignorant than a layperson on some subfield–say, “plasma physics.”

Oh, here’s a shock for you: Bill Nye is pro choice. Well, I’ll be! Who would ever have guessed?

And while I’m pro-choice, too, I’m not out there pimping what little scientific credibility I had–because, let’s face it, Bill Nye is an engineer without an abundance of credibility to pimp out–to cast my lot in with a political side in the hopes of rekindling or enhancing my popularity. When I say something about abortion, I give fair treatment to the other side, and provide a logically consistent explanation for my position. I don’t say, “Hi, I’m Bill Nye the Science Guy. Here are some scientific facts interwoven with arbitrarily defined concepts presented as scientific facts, which combine into a pro-choice position. Good luck separating the arbitrarily defined concepts from the actual science, because I’m going to present this information in such a way as to make them indistinguishable to a layperson. Why? Because I’m Bill Nye the Fucking Science Guy, and if there’s anything worth pimping out for popularity and fame, it’s scientific credibility.”

You remind me of the left-wing media. And I’m curious, actually, whether the four of you would even admit that the dominant media outlets lean hard to the left, with the sole exception of Fox, which leans hard to the right. John Stossel recently wrote about his time at ABC, and reported that he was the only one who was stated to lean any direction; everyone else insisted they didn’t lean at all. Except they did–they leaned hard to the left, and they continue to. But that sort of bias is common–we know people don’t generally see or acknowledge their own biases. My father doesn’t think Fox News leans to the right. A colleague of mine thinks that Fox News is probably “as close to fair and balanced” as any media outlet is. They’re wrong, of course. Fox is right-wing. There’s nothing fair and balanced about any of it.

I would be fucking floored if the four of you didn’t honestly believe yourselves to be neutral politically. But you aren’t. You’ve jumped on the left-wing bandwagon. You’ve engaged in too much “What does my gut tell me about this?” thinking. You’ve mistaken your emotions for rational positions. And even if, by some freak chance, you do end up saying something that isn’t demonstrably false, you end up being right for the wrong reasons, which is only a little better than being wrong for the right reasons.

So here’s what you guys should do–I mean, assuming your scientific credibility and integrity are important to you. You should use some of that fame and popularity you’ve acquired by jumping on leftist bandwagons to remind people that, when discussing areas outside of your expertise, you are no more or less knowledgeable or insightful than any other layperson. You should take the time to remind the public that education and intelligence aren’t necessarily the same thing, and that holding a doctorate doesn’t mean you’re one of the smartest human beings alive.

Maybe you’ve studied some of these matters. That would be fantastic–but it would also show in your words and actions. For example, we know that Hawking hasn’t studied capitalism; he doesn’t even seem to know what capitalism is. However, this has not stopped him from repeatedly waxing on about the evils of capitalism and how it will bring about the destruction of humanity.

But no. He’s not biased at all. That’s totally not an alarmist, radically leftist position based on gut feelings, assumptions, and ignorance. How could he be biased? How could he be an alarmist, radical leftist basing his statements on gut feelings, assumptions, and ignorance? He’s Stephen Hawking! He’s a scientist! Surely he knows what he’s talking about!

* And yes, I agree–Trump is wrong about immigration. But the reason Trump is wrong about “immigration” is that “immigration” is an arbitrarily-defined concept based around arbitrarily-defined borders that don’t exist in the real world and that serve only to divide people. Borders are human inventions; they aren’t real. We simply treat them like they’re real, and they end up doing tons of damage. Trump is wrong about “immigration” because there’s no such thing as an immigrant; there’s only a human being who decided to exercise his innate right to travel.

 

Rep. Nunes, *You* Voted For the Patriot Act, You Dumbass

Representative Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee apparently are outraged that Flynn, who recently had to step down because of the content of leaked phone calls, had his phone calls recorded in the first place.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is conducting a review of Russian activities to influence the election. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

Perhaps the House Intelligence Committee has forgotten, but they passed, and then renewed, legislation that allowed warrantless wire taps on the American People. This is bizarre. The House of Representatives literally passed the abhorrent legislation that allowed this to happen in the first place.

This is so strange. It’s almost as though we’ve stepped into a world where politicians admit that the terrible laws they pass aren’t supposed to apply to them. This is basically an admittance of that, isn’t it? How could the House Intelligence Committee possibly not know that the Patriot Act destroyed the Fourth Amendment and set up the framework for this to happen?

This should be a warning to all of Sanders’ supporters particularly, because he has certainly done this, too–like when his campaign sued to keep people from using one of their images. As always, socialism is for the peasants, not the rulers, and laws are for the peasants, not the rulers.

There’s not much more to say about this. It’s stupid. Instead of serving as a catalyst for the Patriot Act to finally be repealed, they’ll likely just amend it to protect certain people. Nunes and the other Intelligence Committee members are probably wondering how many of their own phone calls are sitting on hard drives at the FBI.

The FBI was essentially given the authority to record phone calls, read emails, and intercept text messages without warrants because Congress–including the House of Representatives. In fact, Nunes himself was there and voted “Yea” in May 2006.

So… What the fuck?

No, really. What the fuck?!

There’s No Such Thing As the Popular Vote

It certainly hasn’t been a smooth ride, but it looks like the people–specifically, Democrats–are going to have to move out of the Bargaining Stage, since there are no bargains left to be made. I want to also credit them for mostly skipping over denial, because there weren’t very many people who really took the #NotMyPresident crap earnestly. I suspect that Denial is always the shortest stage of grief, at least when it comes to politics and elections, because people woke up on November 9th and there wasn’t really any way to live in denial. Denial requires people to enable it, and no one was willing to do that. Of course, we could make the argument–and I would make the argument–that anger and bargaining are both encapsulated by “Denial,” so the Denial Stage is actually three parts: abject denial, anger, bargaining. I would also contend that “depression” is part of the acceptance phase, but none of that is really important; it just occurred to me that anger and bargaining are part of denial–last ditch efforts to escape the consequences, to deny the outcome.

So the Electoral College voted and, to the surprise of no one with a brain and experience in politics and the ability to look at the issue rationally, Trump has been named the next President of the United States. That’s pretty much it for the denial, though, isn’t it? There are no tricks left up the denier’s sleeve, no cards left to be played, and no more opportunities to overturn the results of the fifty state elections. Jill Stein’s recounts were a total bust, only verifying the outcome in the one state that actually had a recount, and all of the anti-Russian propaganda has amounted to nothing.

It’s fascinating that so much attention was paid not just on the Electoral College but on the people themselves. One day Democrats argue that the Electoral College should be abolished, that it isn’t democratic, and that it’s not right. Then the next they’re lining up and begging the Electoral College to curtail the will of the people they represent. All of this confusion comes from the misunderstanding Democrats have, not realizing that we are fifty individual republics and there is no national popular vote; there are fifty elections on Election Day–one in each state–and the outcome of those elections determine who those states give their votes to. The people of Mississippi didn’t vote for the President. The State of Mississippi did, and the People of Mississippi simply told the state who to give its votes to.

Not as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics has so much focus been put on the Electoral College, not even in 2000. Both articles I’ve seen on the subject tonight express a sort of disappointment, saying things like “Trump clears the final hurdle…” and “Trump completes the final lap…” as though there was ever any doubt. The election is over, and it has been over since 2:00 AM on November 9th. Everything that has happened since in the mainstream media–all of the anti-Trump stuff anyway–has been a form of denial, up to and including the absolutely preposterous notion that there was ever any chance at all that the Electoral College might fail to install Trump.

This is the first time in my life that I’ve even bothered to look at what the Electors’ results were; even though I fully expected them to be what they were–though I didn’t expect any Republicans to defect*–but that really speaks to how sensationalized and extravagant the media and Democrats have been, that even though I knew beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the electors would elect Trump, I still went to see the results. I can only imagine how people less grounded in reality–like the Democrats who have accepted the swill that Trump is a tool of Putin–feel right now, their hopes again dashed on the rocks.

But none of this is really what I want to talk about. I want to talk about this fully insane article from the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-electoral-college-is-poised-to-pick-trump-despite-push-to-dump-him/2016/12/19/75265c16-c58f-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.aa42daef7342

Donald Trump clinched the presidency Monday as members of the electoral college cast ballots declaring him the victor, a perfunctory conclusion to the most stunning presidential contest in modern history.

Trump became the winner Monday afternoon after electors from Texas cast ballots and put him over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Results will be officially announced Jan. 6 in a special joint session of Congress.

While Democrat Hillary Clinton amassed a nearly 3 million-vote lead in the popular vote, Trump won the state-by-state electoral map, making him president-elect. That political dichotomy sparked special scrutiny and intense lobbying of electors by Trump’s opponents in recent weeks, including mass protests. It also drew outsize attention to the usually overlooked, constitutionally obligated gatherings of 538 electors in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Sorry, but I do have to call you out on this. See, Washington Post, I went to your article from the Electoral College votes in 2012, and… Oh. You don’t have such an article. You didn’t write an article when the electors voted in 2008 or 2012, because the process is pretty automatic, isn’t it? It’s a formality.

Anyway, the reason I bolded that part is that it’s kinda sore-loser-ish, isn’t it? First of all, stop saying “the popular vote.” There is not, and never has been, any such thing as “the popular vote.” When you speak of this, you are cultivating and spreading a myth and a lie. Hillary Clinton absolutely does not “lead in the popular vote” because there is no “the popular vote.” There were fifty popular votes. By a large margin, Donald Trump won most of the popular votes. Popular votes. As in–plural. Because there is no “the.”

The mostly symbolic calls for an electoral college rejection of Trump grew after revelations of a CIA assessment that Russian hacking could have boosted his campaign, which in the view of many Trump critics raised doubts about his legitimacy.

You just can’t help it, can you? I compared this to your article from where Obama defeated Romney in 2012. For it to be fair, you would have had to have mentioned the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya, because I’ve figured it out, Washington Post and Democrats. This whole “Trump is a Russian puppet!” thing–it’s just your Birther Movement. Don’t pretend like it’s more than that, or that it’s more dignified than that. This is you demanding to see Trump’s long-form birth certificate. However, you didn’t mention the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya in your article celebrating Obama’s victory.

And why did you say Obama won? Well, obviously, for very positive reasons. Let’s take a look at your language:

  • “reassembling the political coalition that boosted…”
  • “remaking himself from a hopeful uniter into a fighter…”
  • “scored a decisive victory…”
  • “capped a night of gains…”
  • “run as a symbol of limitless hope…”
  • “Obama’s promises had won…”
  • “had promised to fight the hardest…”

Wow! One might say you had your lips to his ass so fully that you were tonguing his large intestine.

For curiosity’s sake, let’s compare that to your language about Trump’s victory on November 9.

  • “Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first female president…” [C’mon. Seriously?]
  • “Trump, a 70-year-old celebrity businessman who had never before run for office, is poised to become the oldest president ever elected to a first term. ” [Just had to take that whole sentence.] [Age Discrimination–you liberals aren’t fans of that, right?]
  • “After running a divisive campaign…”
  • “With Trump’s ascension to the White House, the nationalist wave that has swept capitals around the world — including in Britain, which voted to break from the European Union this year — came crashing onto U.S. shores.” [Again, just… wow.] [“Came crashing” is obviously heavily loaded language]

In fact, I’m going to stop here a moment to reflect on the horrifically biased language, because word choice is exceedingly important–it’s what gives away the bias. Hillary, you see, was on a quest. Quick, what do you think of when you hear the word “quest?” Unless you’re a World of Warcraft player, you think of an honorable, just mission undertaken to do something good and righteous. Trump is a “celebrity businessman.” Quite a contrast to Hillary’s quest.

Obama “capped a night of gains.” Powerful, positive language. Trump “came crashing onto U.S. shores.”

The primary reason I care isn’t that I like Trump. I don’t. I care because lots and lots of people don’t see the bias, and generally believe the Washington Post is neutral. You can’t claim neutrality while using language like “run as a symbol of limitless hope” for a Democrat, language like “quest to become the first female President” for a democrat, and stacking it against “built his campaign around the single contention…” [Romney] and “came crashing onto U.S. shores.” [Trump]

Moving on.

Trump has dismissed the intelligence community’s analysis of Russia’s role in the election and has boasted, including on Monday, of a “historic” electoral landslide. But his 305-to-232 win over Clinton ranks just 46th out of 58 electoral college margins.

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. The intelligence community’s analysis? There has been no such analysis.

You mean this one?

I realize you guys are the experts at this, but isn’t this, you know… bullshit?

His detractors called on electors to buck the president-elect in favor of Clinton — or Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, or another Republican such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Yes, and you denialists enabled that delusion by pandering to those detractors and giving the false hope that there was ever any chance in hell that this was a possibility. I don’t mean to say that it was a “one in a million” chance or that it was “really long odds.” There was no chance; there were no odds. It was an impossibility, and you guys knew it. You knew most of these states have laws in place preventing it, and that most of the electors would be replaced if they wouldn’t vote for the person they were supposed to.

But not even once did any mainstream media outlet mention that little detail. I read the news everyday, and a lot of those are liberal outlets, and I never once saw any of these liberal sites mention the fact that most of these electors have alternates standing by and ready to go if the first elector doesn’t vote for the person they’re supposed to vote for. That’s a pretty big detail, but I never saw it mentioned. If it was mentioned, it certainly wasn’t stated nearly enough, and why not? Because that little fact nips the whole delusion in the bud and renders it absolutely impossible.

Across the country, critics of the president-elect braved cold temperatures and rallied outside state capitol buildings in hopes that electors might act as an emergency brake on Trump.

More examples in shockingly biased language. “Braved cold temperatures… rallied outside… hopes that electors… act as an emergency brake…”

And how does it convey the message about Republicans immediately after that sentence?

In Pennsylvania, which voted for a Republican president for the first time since 1988, a few hundred shell-shocked Democrats protested in Harrisburg while all 20 electors backed Trump. In Utah, protesters booed and shouted “Shame on you” as the state’s six electors cast votes for Trump in a capitol building conference room in Salt Lake City.

  • “shell-shocked Democrats…”
  • “booed and shouted…”
  • “‘Shame on you'”

I know what you’re thinking. “They’re just reporting what happened!” Yes, and that’s the problem–the language with which they are reporting it is extremely biased. Allow me to rewrite this <sigh> two sentence “paragraph” without all the loaded language:

In Pennsylvania, which voted for a Republican president for the first time since 1988, Democrat detractors continued protesting while all 20 electors backed Trump. In Utah, protestors jeered as the state’s electors cast their votes from Trump.

See? That is just reporting what happened. I’m not a big fan of “jeered,” to be honest, and if I was a journalist I would spend the time to look for a more neutral word, as “jeered” sounds negative to me. Why is that? The use of “jeered” paints the protestors as snarling, grimacing, unhappy people–which, by all accounts, is exactly right. “…booed” and “shouted” have the same effect, of course, unless you agree with those people, in which case it doesn’t sound so negative.

Ooh! I especially love this:

In Florida, a crucial swing state where Trump defeated Clinton by about a percentage point, Trump won all 29 electoral votes.

I’ll fill that out for you. I’ll fill you in on what the Washington Post actually meant.

In Florida, Trump defeated Clinton by one measly percentage point. One freaking point. But even though he won by only a single point, Trump gets all 29 electoral votes, which is bullshit and unfair. At the very least, Clinton should have gotten 14 of them. Fuck you, white America, you racist, misogynistic pieces of sh–

Okay, maybe not that last part.

What’s the point of even bringing up this info about Trump’s victory in Florida, the margin of his victory, and the distribution of electoral votes? Specifically to make you think what I said. Really, I mean that–they said that, and they put it the way they put it, precisely to make you think what I just said. It’s called manipulation, and there is a reason they spend billions upon billions of dollars each year learning the best ways to manipulate public opinion. Look how subtle it is!

They don’t have to state it. They just have to tell you the facts in the right way.

Again, I can hear you. “But that’s all they did! They just stated the facts!”

But they didn’t. Here. I’ll state the facts.

Due to his narrow victory in Florida, Trump claims its 29 electoral votes.

See? That is what the facts look like. The other stuff–that’s called “slant.”

And they are good at it. Man, are they good at it. It’s all about context, phrasing, and word choice–calling attention to the right facts at the right time and using the right words to convey it.

Some held signs, including one that read, “Resist Putin’s Puppet.”

Pictured: signs with EXACTLY as much truth, credibility, and decency as the sign that called Trump Putin’s puppet.

I mean, if you’re going to hold up a stupid sign, you might as well go all the way, and hold up the most stupid sign you can find, right? “Resist Putin’s Puppet,” are you freaking kidding me? It’s no surprise this idiot was out protesting the electors and evidently believing that there was even a remote chance that the electors wouldn’t elect Trump: clearly, this person is woefully out of touch with reality.

It’s probably because he gets his news from the Washington Post.

* On that note, congratulations Ron Paul, on securing an electoral college vote!