Why Easter Matters

Don’t get me wrong. I am not one of those people who believes in Christian supremacy. I am okay with Judaism, I had maybe one Muslim friend in college, I have known Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. This is not about how Christianity is the only right way, and everyone is doomed to hellfire. Let’s toss that one out right away.

Nor is it about that we must all become Christians to live upright righteous moral lives. I wanna toss this out too. Let me tell a bit about myself. I’m odd. I don’t bother saying otherwise. Roughly half of my life nowadays, I shave my face, neck, arms, upper chest (lower doesn’t need), legs, and pretty much whatever else smooth, apply makeup, and go to work in heels and everything else. I’m genderfluid. No, I do not want a sex change, and yes that is my real hair. I also spend an inordinate amount of time game programming and writing, and not nearly enough dating. I wrote my own religious text, designed two video games, and I am currently designing my own D&D style game called New Gaia. I live at home with my parents. My life is a mess. But one thing I know is that Jesus doesn’t need us to all live under morality, or even to become Christians. Remember, Jesus was a Jew, trying only to reform Judaism. Not make a cult.

Nor is it about how atheism is a horrible belief system. I’m gonna toss that out too. Almost, I will however talk about something that troubles me, though. The “free thinker” mentality.

Statistically, being an atheist does not make you a free thinker. Oh, sure, you see these huge amounts of Christians in surveys. But, when it actually comes down to it, most of these fall into two categories: secular Christians and nominal Christians. Nominal means “in name only”, the point being that maybe they were raised in the church as a child, and maybe they attend for Christmas and Easter. Next, let’s include some regular attendants here, even ones that come across as super-religious. These people, however, are our secular Christians. Ultimately, they are like the old Jews (today’s Jews are better than this, we mean the Pharisees). The morality, the letter of the law, is all important. Being a nice person. But God doesn’t do “nice person discounts”, what God cares about is neither reputation, nor the appearance of kindness (I’ve met some real pieces of work who were all about teaching their kids politeness), God cares about grace, and the truth. Looked at it this way, an atheist is not a free thinker at all, they are following along with mainstream secular society. A society that cares about how much one makes, being a good enough person, following along with what is politically popular. This is the majority opinion, not a free thought.

But I’m also not here to talk statistics. What is the title again? Why Easter Matters.

First, however, I’m gonna go off track, yet again. Why does Jesus matter? Is it because Christianity matters? No, Christianity was religion that started by his followers, not by Jesus, who mainly wanted them to share a way to a better life. It kinda went off the rails by having a bunch of people basically redefine it (most notably the Catholics). As far as I am concerned, you could be a Jew or a Hindu or a Shinto or an Alawite, and still be following Jesus. Jesus matters, because of why he appeared in history. This was a time when Israel was ruled by the state of Rome, and by the chief priests and Pharisees. So, a theocracy that basically delineated one’s entire life according to arbitrary laws, and an authoritarian polytheistic (yet largely secular) regime.

Why does Easter matter? And yes, I know I have gone on tangents, but hopefully some of you have heard so far. Let me give a scenario for the next 20 years. You’ll probably think it sounds too science fiction, but you don’t understand what I’ve already been seeing in the works.

In 20 years, you, an atheist, who have consistently voted for your leaders. Atheism has another issue, when you don’t see a higher power as the source of authority in your life, you basically venerate leaders and great people. As a result, we have voted for the strongest and those who promised the most. One by one, they led the nation to what they wanted, and as a result the nation is now a mix of theocracy and liberal totalitarian statism. Essentially, Sweden today, but 100 times more so. All people are carefully watched by the internet, by cameras everywhere, even examining their eyes for possible oddity in their personality and having them brought in for questioning about possibly thinking (nvm, doing, even having an idea) the wrong way about something. They tell you that if you don’t work hard enough, you can be punished. They tell you if you happened to be born as an undesirable thing, like say a privileged white male, you can be punished. And heaven help you, if you say something politically incorrect.

Did you notice? This is the same climate as Jesus was born in. A theocracy with secular authoritarian underpinnings. Where people are slaves, and are threatened with death at every turn. This isn’t “free thinking” this mentality led to slavery. But then something weird happens. You see, a group of people decide that they aren’t taking their daily fluoride pills. They aren’t having their retinal personality scan. They don’t seem to care that cameras everywhere reporting on their possibly “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” behavior (to quote today’s meaningless parlance that seems to have nothing to do with the actual meaning of those words), they are living their lives on their terms and actually having fun. They are dating, and doing all kinds of unpopular fun things. Stop having fun! We need to arrest these subversives now. So they round them all up, to shoot them by firing squad. Only… they can’t be killed. At all. They try poison next. No effect. They try blowing them up, and it’s like their body is super-solid. They nuke the town. These people break out, and continue to do their thing. Nothing this state can do can make them afraid anymore.

We see Christianity as a threat because we see it as an end to freedom. But actually, God’s “rule” is not rule at all. The real threat is the state. The state that wants to kill our happiness with fear and with taxes. Who wants to cover the reality of the resurrection.

We hear a load about the passion, but we tend not to focus on this version of the resurrection as a whole story.

Quote:

The Death of Jesus
(Psalm 22:1-31; Mark 15:33-41; Luke 23:44-49; John 19:28-30)
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,e lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?”f
47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He is calling Elijah.” 48One of them quickly ran and brought a sponge. He filled it with vinegar, put it on a reed, and held it up for Jesus to drink.
49But the others said, “Leave Him alone. Let us see if Elijah comes to save Him.”
50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.
54When the centurion and those with him guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and said, “Truly this was the Son of God.”
55And many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to minister to Him. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
The Burial of Jesus
(Isaiah 53:9-12; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42)
57When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who himself was a disciple of Jesus. 58He went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut into the rock. Then he rolled a great stone across the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.
The Guards at the Tomb
62The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and Pharisees assembled before Pilate. 63“Sir,” they said, “we remember that while He was alive that deceiver said ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64So give the order that the tomb be secured until the third day. Otherwise, His disciples may come and steal Him away and tell the people He has risen from the dead. And this last deception would be worse than the first.”
65“You have a guard,” Pilate said. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66So they went and secured the tomb by sealing the stone and posting the guard. The Resurrection
(Psalm 16:1-11; Psalm 49:1-20; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-9)
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
2Suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4The guards trembled in fear of him and became like dead men.
5But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; He has risen, just as He said! Come, see the place where He lay.a 7Then go quickly and tell His disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him.’ See, I have told you.”
8So they hurried away from the tomb in fear and great joy, and ran to tell His disciples. 9Suddenlyb Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” They came to Him, grasped His feet, and worshiped Him. 10“Do not be afraid,” said Jesus. “Go, tell My brothers to go to Galilee. There they will see Me.”
The Report of the Guards
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole His body while we were asleep.’ 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”
15So the guards took the money and did as they were instructed. And this account has been circulated among the Jews to this very day.

This is why Easter is important. Not because Jesus comes again to end your freedom. But because Jesus comes end to end those who will take your freedom. Those who will resort to lying to keep you enslaved.

Advertisements

Clinton is Deplorable

To be honest, I haven’t heard much of either Trump or Clinton speak. I haven’t wanted to, as I only voted to start with because of reasons I detailed out in the previous blog. Well, since to my knowledge literally nobody reads my blogs, I don’t suppose you would mind.

That said, pretty much the point where the campaign in general hit a new low was when Clinton called half of Trump supporters a basket of deplorables or “racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.” Excuse me, Mrs. Clinton, but you don’t know anything.
Let’s talk about these labels for a second. Racist means to think less of certain races, and assign stereotypes to them. As in “All blacks are drunks, all Hispanics are lazy, etc.” Sexist means to think less of a certain gender, or (similarly) assign stereotypes. A good example of sexism is gender normative behavior, believing that just because a person is a man, they are automatically stronger than a woman, or a woman knows more about fashion. The other two refer to a “fear of” homosexual/lesbian/bi lifestyle, or foreigners, respectively.

Right off the bat, we run into a problem beyond that blanket generalization of that statement. Let me clarify. Yes, there are members of the KKK among Trump’s supporters. But there are also blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. I have met some of them online, including legal Hispanic immigrants By making a statement that you, as a black/hispanic/whatever should naturally vote for her, because otherwise you are lumped into those “deplorables”, effectively what you are saying is this, “Blacks/hispanics/racial minorities are liberal” and that those who don’t fit this mold are somehow race traitors. This IS racism.
The same is true of sexism and transsexism. I have actually been branded as going against my group because as a transgender, I supposedly should be voting liberal, rather than what I know in my heart to be true. I’m sorry, but I can’t look at my people being slaughtered in a nightclub and go “okay, we need more gun control and to allow more immigrants.” NO! If the people in this club had pistols for defense, the moment this guy draws his, ten guns would be trained on him until he dropped his weapon. ANd no, we do not need more immigrants. Explain to me how typecasting people like this isn’t sexism? Answer: you can’t.

Yes, there are fringe racists or sexists among Trump’s voters. But this isn’t the whole story.

http://www.trump.news/2016-09-21-mainstream-media-shocked-to-learn-trump-supporters-are-extremely-diverse.html

Concerning homophobia, I am LGBT myself. I find this grossly belittling, she has basically told me “you don’t exist as a person,” since she has concluded in her mind that half (at least, since half probably is a generalized statement and not a true 50%) of those here are homophobes. Nevermind that Trump has done some good for the LGBT community, obviously if you’re a Trump supporter, naturally you are homophobic.

I’m going to talk in fact about these last two as whole, and discuss what is behind this smokescreen of name-calling, what is really at stake here. There are actually two categories of LGBT people: the “everyday LGBT” and the “LGBT activist”. The everyday LGBT person is like me, they go to work, they carry on their life in private, and frankly they are themselves largely not caring what other people think This person basically is a person living their life authentically.
Now, on the other hand, we have the LGBT activist. These people often attended gender studies courses in college, get upset when they are “misgendered”, or are “triggered” due to relatively minor incidents. Some of them are lawyers, political protestors, or straight-up unemployed because actually they spend more time and cause more trouble than they actually work. Am I homophobic? Not generally. Am I afraid of these people? Definitely yes. They are driving my country into a place I don’t want it to go, where nobody can say or do anything without being worried that someone will decide they need “sensitivity training” (brainwashing). These are the very people who have accused me of being a traitor, and have made civil rights groups to “help” out LGBT people.
Let’s talk about these groups for a second. They make their money by treating people as “poor unfortunate souls” to quote Ursula. The original civil rights model was concerning blacks. Initially there were two major black leaders, Booker T Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. Washington told blacks to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, to work hard, and this would show their value as people. In America, people largely listened instead to DuBois. DuBois helped set up many of the civil rights organizations that exist today. The result? Are all blacks healthy, productive, and employed? Not hardly. Back in the days where I was collecting foodstamps, I saw a disproportionate amount of blacks in the social services office. This is not a racist statement btw, but an observation of what little good civil rights groups have actually done. Rather than being for protection, and encouraging autonomy, these groups have become a patronizing system where members are kept dependent on help. This is socialism in a nutshell, when all groups are struggling and dependent on the state, and the groups that are supposed to be helping are actually just singling them out. You want to talk about racism? Here it is, the idea that blacks or other groups “need” help. This is the future that these LGBT activists want, as many of them probably are more activist than they are real LGBTs.

Xenophobia? America has plenty of legal immigrants. They work, they follow the rules, and they run successful businesses. They bring their culture with them, without trying to politicize their groups. This is same as the everyday LGBT person listed above, they are themselves without trying to make everything about their issues. These legal immigrants celebrate their culture during their own time, or in some cases, such as restaurant owners, they are share their culture with others. On the other hand, illegal immigrants aren’t here to follow the laws. They, by definition, are not here legally. They expect legal amnesty, free healthcare, and a number of government perks, but oh wait… they didn’t earn any of this! Not only that, I don’t even have free healthcare. My parents currently pay, in exchange for work on my part, but I’ve looked at my healthcare and it basically covers nothing until I pay off an absurd amount (the deductible in the tens of thousands). If I got sick, I would be in a world of hurt. They loudly declare the 14th amendment as if it is some sort of protection for them. But it isn’t. Here’s the text.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Summaries of this law sometimes try to abridge this to suit their needs, as in here.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/general-immigration/legal-rights-of-illegal-immigrants.html

Did you see? They ellipsised (…) out the part that said “born or naturalized in the United States” to try to push the idea that every person, regardless of whether or not they are an actual citizen, get due process. No, they don’t. These people basically cheapen the value of all the effort legitimate immigrants made to be a part of this country, and then have the gall to demand a fair trial. Deportation laws state that if you have committed a crime while you are being naturalized, you can be deported. The crime here is already committed! They came in without permission. It is not “xenophobic” to assume that immigrants should have earned their way in like everyone else.

So, let’s talk about Clinton. Typecasting women, blacks, hispanics, etc, etc, etc as either voting for her or being “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic” while this statement is all kinds of prejudiced. Pushing socialist agenda, while twisting the definition of what homophobia is. And quietly selling out this country to hostile foreign countries, while legitimate immigrants and born citizens are treated like garbage. This is deplorable.

Dear Clinton Voters: Please Read

In my experience, I used to believe that I was sort of middle of the road. I believed in civil rights (especially LGBT rights) and the environment, I was sorta neutral about welfare and social security (it seemed to make sense for older people and the other for people who couldn’t work), and I was pro-business and anti-government overrun. It seemed like an okay stance to have, something the was a good mix between extremes. However, I have come to realize what I thought was true about at least one of the parties was actually dead wrong.

Bottom line, you can’t actually trust either party. There are politicians that claim to be pro-lgbt or pro-women, who nonetheless publish rape fantasies about women. If you want to vote intelligently you have to do some research into the actual actions of the candidate.

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-essay/

http://gawker.com/remember-when-hillary-clinton-was-against-gay-marriage-1714147439

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288807-trump-to-appeal-to-lgbt-community-in-convention-speech

Donald Trump Says Transgender Beauty Queen Can Compete In Miss Universe Pageant

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-caitlyn-jenner-bathroom-tower/story?id=38566263

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/15/republicans-just-overtook-dems-gay-rights/

And I’m sure some people will see this and still deny what they saw. Guess what? Looking at observed facts and filtering them without question is a sign you may have been brainwashed.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Michelle-Malkin-liberals-brainwashed-republicans/2015/06/01/id/648104/

Let’s start with some facts. These are not facts that will agree with the newspapers. This is what I have seen.

1. Most of the people coming out of college today (which is almost mandatory to be hired for an entry level job, despite the fact that it lands you in debt which you have almost no hope of paying, given the fact that most college training is not actually used) are effectively screwed. They have an entitled mentality from seeing college as another place to party. They either move back home with parents (fine, I did it) and mooch (not quite as fine, if you are going to stay do some work and earn your keep), no prospect of being hired because college didn’t teach them any practical skills (let’s assume they got in on a minority scholarship, then proceeded to take classes like Russian Literature or Creative Writing without any desire to become a writer), and a mentality that the reason that they aren’t being hired has NOTHING to with the fact that their employable skills are garbage, their attitude sucks (see entitled above), and they are expecting to be employed regular hours in a sub-par economy. No, to their mentality (which has been influenced by careful brainwashing… see link above) these potential employers are just rich fat cats who have loads of money and just don’t want to “share.” This person is going to support liberal causes because they see the conservative as the party of these “hoarders.”

2. Right off the bat, let’s explain an inherent problem of this theory. You see, I’ve worked at Walmart and Amazon. Amazon was an archetypal big factory, with some strong anti-union policies (we had a staged “vote” on whether they would unionize or not), and some very strange security (I’m not gonna tell you half of the weirdness about that place). They were a business that made no bones about the fact that their employees were expendable, but the thing is, they hired a huge amount of people and paid them fairly well for a 10 hour entry level job. They also had a shopping center nearby that appeared to be well-supported by the company (since the customer didn’t shop locally and the employee who made quotas had money to burn on shopping). Oh yes, and Amazon has no profits.

http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works

Walmart on he other hand, was exclusive in its hiring and extremely cheap in its payment of employees. They also competed heavily with local businesses making areas into a husk that had a fraction of its income. Oh yes, and they worked a food stamps loophole, paying their employees enough that they had to depend on SNAP and then taking advantage of this fact.

Walmart’s Food Stamp Scam Explained in One Easy Chart

Money at the end of each day is shipped to the Waltons (Bentonville, Ohio although they live in tax free areas), draining money from the local economy. And like any good parasite, when everyone had almost no money, they moved on.
You can read more about Walmart in “How Walmart is Ruining America and the World (And what you can do about it.)” Books about Amazon will tell you how its CEO Bezos is basically a psychopath, but not about how it hurts small towns. Both of these jobs were good training, and I’m glad I had them. But they also demonstrated two completely different value systems, one being “serving the community” while you rob it, and one actually involved helping people out in the area by keeping them employed while having a no-nonsense attitude about work. Work isn’t about “sharing” wealth. Working is not about handouts, it is about (a) serving the company, or (b) serving the community, depending on whether you are a part of a big business or a local one. Collecting a check when you did little for either is not how it works, because the company is not set up for your personal bank account.
2b. There is another problem. The small local business. They are not avoiding hiring because they are fat cats, they are not hiring because they generally haven’t the money. You see, these taxes on the rich don’t even scratch the income of people like the Waltons, but they make it hard for the “rich” property holders to employ. Suppose I make $100k a year (versus Walmarts millions at least). This sounds impressive on paper, but let’s convert this wage to hourly.

http://www.calculators.org/savings/wage-conversion.php

Then let’s factor in the expense of living in a nice neighborhood, plus taxes,and security, and alot of other crap. To start with, if your employees are paid $10 and hour, you are making only roughly 5x their salary.
The after taxes (the bracket you are at is roughly $18,481.25 plus somewhere between 28% of your total for being over the last bracket, which unless I screwed up somewhere reduces this big amount by half)

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/401k-deduction-calculator-taxes.aspx

Employees expect you to be “rich”. Mmmm, how is that working? What, you can’t afford to employ me? You must be one of those rich robber barons. And not a retired old person hiring for a few days a week.

3. I hope you noticed the dynamic of Amazon and Walmart. Because this is the same dynamic of conservative and liberal groups everywhere. One practices favoritism, pays barely a living wage, and the other hires as many people as possible, and works them hard but compensates well. This is the same.
3b. Let’s talk about this wonderful idea of social security. Sounds like a good idea, right? Free money. You get it when you’re old, to help you when you are retired. Sounds great, huh? So charitable? Now let’s get into the truth of the matter. On every paycheck, I pay roughly $16. This is 16x that of my federal income, or 4x either Medicare or VA Tax. Maybe if I earn more it will be closer to the others, but currently I’m paying a lot compared to my actual taxes. But it’s all good once you get older, right? Uhhh, not really. As I learned in civics class (about the point, I began to be completely cynical about the government), this fund is routinely dipped into to pay expenses.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s

This is you money which, last I checked you could conceivably invest ($16 twice a month should be about $384 a year, over 30 years if I put it into investment, might make up to 1% interest (you have to search for a good place to invest). This is just for my wages. If I had the money to do as I pleased with, I could spend it on a vacation 10 or 15 years from now. Not a great one mind you, but considering I took a road trip of the country on roughly $1500, not terrible. Or I could wait 30 years, and hope that they don’t raise the minimum age again, so I’m too old to do anything with this money but pay medical bills. Thanks Uncle Sam, I really wanted to give a chunk of my income to pay for a service I may not even live long enough to use!
3c. Same with medicine. Despite claims that we have the “world’s best medicine” it isn’t even close. There are basically four types of medical payment.
(1) Pre-insurance: This was the model prior to the notion that medical insurance is a “right”. People paid what they had, and yes, some people could lose their shirts on expensive medicine. However, as Adam Smith will tell you, price is governed by supply and demand. If something is rare, it will be priced high. But if its price exceeds what people can reasonably pay, demand will go down, and with it, price.
(2) Insurance: Unfortunately, insurance changes the dynamic. This allows supply and demand to be ignored, which is why housing, schooling, cars, and medicine have all overshot inflation, they are allowed to be bought on credit.
(3) Bureaucratic: This is Obamacare, which is sacred cow to the liberal agenda. However, under my parent’s plan after this law, I am required to own insurance. However, it paid 0% of my psychologist visit, meaning as a transgender person, I cannot afford to get therapy (I used the last session begging my therapist to let me change my gender by writing a note). Simple fact, when you cover everyone, people with better plans wind up paying more for less. Plus, because doctors and insurance agents want their money, the idea that they are being forced to charge less makes them charge more instead. We currently have not the best, but the worst insurance. I’m sure you doubt me. No worries, I’ll show you my insurance card. How the deductible or whatever that I have to pay before they cover anything is 5 digits.
(4) Socialized medicine: Interesting fact, I wound up researching Canada and Japan. They have higher taxes on medicine, but the insurance is much better. Either 1 or 4 wold be fine. But since #1 allows me to just not have insurance (I don’t go to the doctor anyway, having sat around half-naked too many times in cold germ-infested areas), this is a better option. Especially since socialized medicine is too much like the Social Security that I may never live long enough to use.
If you wanted affordable healthcare, you do away with insurance. Stop expensive procedures like chemo and mammograms. Teach people that it isn’t about germs but health. Suddenly costs will dip because everyone is healthy again.

So what did I learn about the liberal party? I mean, surely, if I vote for them, they will be generous and help with my LGBT rights. They’re being charitable. Right? Wrong.

First off, I had these rights already. They were what was known as natural rights. Before the major stuff going around where Obama “granted” rights to LGBT people, I had a perfectly legitimate right to enter the bathroom of my choice. This was thanks to state rights granted by private groups. The same was true of my right to change my gender on my ID. These rights were being secured quietly by individuals, like Nicole Maines in Maine (strange coincidence, named like the state). It was already a granted right. Obama publicized the issue. This did nothing to protect the rights of transgender people. Instead, it exposed them to the news coverage, which triggered backlash. In effect, LGBT were getting extra press they didn’t need. Compare this to Japan, where being effeminate was seen as “kawaii” and several famous people became convincing members of the opposite sex, thanks to a better diet and effective medicine. For the most part,they have actually succeeded in acceptance. In the US, despite our claims of tolerance, we have largely done the opposite. Why?

Because “diversity” is a type of covert prejudice. When you point out who Muslims or blacks or women or transgender people are a “special group” what you are actually doing is singling them out for mistreatment.

LGBT rights are not, and should be a political issue. This is the basic ability to live and work as my chosen gender, and not have someone tell me who I can and can’t marry. We can spend massive amounts of money trying to enforce LGBT rights (that as I said, already existed), only to have homophobic bastards ticked off and ready to hurt us. Or we can protect the right life life by illegalizing “transgender panic” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense) and leave any marriage rights or bathroom rights to the buildings and churches that believe in human dignity.

So to sum up, the liberal party is adding a ton of privileges that won’t solve our fundamental problems (jobs, housing, marriage, and normalcy), we don’t need (I don’t want $25,000 because someone misgendered me) and are instead making us a target.

Not just that. Everyone of college age has been taught that the liberal party is a civil rights party and those mean old Christians (first, there is a difference between fundamentalist “Christians” and people who believe in loving your neighbor) who want to prevent gay wedding cakes or something are part of that OTHER party. Therefore, people tell me, if I am a real ally to transgender people, it should be my duty to vote for her. Nevermind that Bernie ignored an AIDS group that called on him. Nevermind that Clinton only recently had any opinion at all on LGBT people, and at certain points was actually opposed. I mean, that’s the core of this article. Liberal party is for the minority. Right?

Wrong. Again.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/22/dinesh-dsouza-secret-history-democratic-party.html

The Democratic party was originally the slave party, and at some point during the civil rights movement the parties appeared to switch sides. But lest we forget, Democrats were the big slaveholders in the South. Lest we forget, after the war, they were the members of the KKK.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/the-democratic-party-and-the-kkk-11769046/

You will not be taught history this way probably, because it has likely been revised with the names changed. You will probably think Abe Lincoln was a Democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

Nope. Whig, then Republican. But at some point they switched sides right? Well, they managed to convince people of that, but what if I told you, that’s not true, either?

Look again at diversity.
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/watch/racism.htm
As I say, it is a way to single people out. Then look at our diversity “quotas” of immigrants that are getting invited in. If you value women, LGBT people, the environment… these people don’t. Their countries throw acid on women, or rape them. Their countries stone LGBT people. And as for their environment, many of the lands these people live in appear to be deserts (I’m not sure if that’s their doing or not, though). If you are voting for Clinton on purpose, shame on you. This is for people reading though, that are voting on a mistaken belief that Hillary will help things. Any benefits will be short term. The long term is a return to slavery. No thanks, we had that in the civil war.

Before I go, though, I’m going to talk about something else. Before you automatically think “okay, I’m convinced, I’ll vote Republican,” one last gem of wisdom. Democratic and Republican aren’t parties, they are mindsets. The ideals of Republican are based on small government, self-destiny, and freedom from slavery. The ideals of the Democrat are big government, that social programs are needed, and at the very heart of it, a taker culture (one that bothers other people for what they have rather than minding one’s business). Here is the thing, though. A fundamentalist Republican Christian is the last two in name only. Christians are known by their love, which the homophobe doesn’t have, and Republicans were set up to prevent slavery (and mainly to mind one’s own business), so these candidates are neither. If our country is to thrive, it needs to throw away its slavery past, and stop dredging up racism, and it needs to treat people as people. People aren’t “minorities” that sounds like you are calling them “little people” or something. And is that is to happen, we have to stop having half-educated people that would actually agree to “end women’s suffrage.”

Didn’t Say Simon Says

I don’t know about your childhood, but perhaps you’ve played a kid’s game called Simon Says. Simon gives a command after first saying “Simon Says” and you have to follow it in this case, and disobey it if he didn’t say Simon Says. While this game is simple, it carries with it the message that there are times to obey a message, and times to disobey.

What am I getting at? Well, suppose I had some sort of identifier that it was actually me doing the writing, certain phrases I would use. Someone else tries to forge my handwriting and force me to write a false message, and I wouldn’t use this identifier, so they would know it wasn’t me.

Moving on. In the writing of the Qu’ran, the passages were not written in order by chronology, but by length of passage, so the text appears jumbled, with several instances of him speaking to people that seem out of context because the other parts are elsewhere. That said, another feature of the text is the practice of abrogation, that is, older passage are overwritten by newer ones. (The problem being, the average person reading through this, has no idea which passages are older or newer without doing a historical study)

More on this here
.

There are two problems with this:

First, the entire concept of abrogation means the Qu’ran is not a holy book, and not of divine origin. Why? Well, let me provide some background on myself. I am a writer, mainly of video games and the like, but I have at one point written a religious book known as the Mune Shinri (I have since changed my name and address, sorry, no autographs). This was a religious book on human religion, using the lessons of my own life. So whenever something I wrote turned out to be wrong, I rewrote it. This is okay, I never claimed this was God’s word. Humans make mistakes. The problem being, if something claims to be the infallible word of God, it cannot have these rewrites or its whole legitimacy is called into question.

However, we have a more serious problem. According to the history of the man himself, at one point, he pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah. The next day at the behest of Gabriel, he claims that the verses were whispered by the devil himself. So, we are looking at the text, and there is a sudden shift from peaceful texts about trading with Jews and Christians, to increasingly paranoid text about how the Jews and Christians are plotting together, from an accepted command to not do violence except in defensive warfare to a change in 626 AD where things changed to largely offensive war.

We weren’t around. How do we know that at some point, one of his relatives didn’t actually take over? In fact, since Muslims of the time were largely silent, he very well could have been killed much earlier than claimed for being too soft. Or that he was influenced by the devil (what most of us would consider either insanity, or simply allowing himself to be consumed by hatred or revenge)? In either case, this change would reflect itself in the text, would it not?

And it does.

(From the link above)

Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations.

Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed “Ultimatum” in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This “verse of the sword” abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]

There is something wrong with this. You see, unlike previous passages, it does not include the classical beginning. This tells me that (1) Muhammad had been ordered to write this passage by others of his family and he dropped the typical callsign to let people know that it wasn’t really him writing, or (2) it wasn’t him writing and the person who wrote this added it in here into the text before noticing that he always started (this would be like my sister trying to get my parents to write a letter of permission to go on a field trip, and doing it herself. Even if she forged their writing, the letter would be in the tone of a teenager rather than an adult, and clearly not written by my parents). There is another problem. This was written one year before his death (June 8, 632 AD), but at 626 they started declaring offensive wars. What writing was there in support of this in 626 AD?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/no_author/the-persecution-of-christians/

As it turns out, there wasn’t one. In 626, Muhammad wrote a text that in fact made it sinful to hurt other people of the book, making this extremist stance a violation of the original tenants of Islam. What then, are we to conclude from this? Islam was at some point hijacked. Muhammad, as flawed a human being as he was, did not advocate war, but his in-laws took over his followers and marched in direct conflict with his wishes (or killed him and claimed he died later).

Given this, we can conclude that this particular abrogation was likely falsely written, and has no validity. Since 2:190 does make it permissable to fight back, this is still permissable to defend, but the idea that jihad is an obligation is actually a heresy. Given this, any texts that this led to, are also falsely written. In short, because this part of the text was not written in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful, it could only have been written by the demons or by man.

Muslims need to stop fighting, and start cleaning house. To start looking seriously at the Qu’ran, and actually allowing it to reform. To unseat the extremist elements of their own faith before they proceed to spread their religion. If you aren’t sure whether all of your writings actually were inspired by God, you cannot share them with others without it being called into doubt.

Why I’m Likely Not Going To See Divergent: Ascendent

Maybe you haven’t heard. After Divergent: Allegiant, they’re supposedly scheduling a fourth movie, known as Ascendant. This will “complete” the series as it was intended to be told. However, I, and much of the population would be better off ending the series uncompleted.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the Divergent series, for the most part. However, having tried to wade through the print version of Allegiant, I came to one conclusion. It was a trainwreck. First off, the story was told as a single narrative from Tris, but now it switches back and forth between Tris and Tobias. Tris’s narrative, honestly, was part of what worked for the first two books, making the entire story jarring to read. That’s not the only thing that switches back and forth, either, it seems like there is a lot more travel between the area beyond the wall and the city of Chicago. Then we have switching back and forth between the faction and factionless sides, and it just seemed very disorganized and… well, stupid. We learn about the various colored formulas, the memory formula and the death formula. First, they try to wipe the memory of everyone, to start over because David, the leader of the camp outside, has to answer to his superiors for the war going on in Chicago.

Aside from not even mentioning the death formula, this is mostly what happened in the movie so far. But then (and my memory is kinda rusty from reading it about a year and a half ago, and then seeing the movie) I believe after stopping Tobias’s mom, they have another point where David tries again to take over the city. Already, this book is repetitive, lacking some of the novel aspects of the previous books. This is in fact an unnecessary story arc, because technically, having failed to clean up the city, his superiors could easily have demoted him, and since they weren’t that invested in the city, might have left it alone. Instead, we get into the worst part of the story.

Before I continue, we need to talk about the symbolic aspect of the books and movies. There is a sense of religion and transcendental reality all through the plot, with themes of resurrection and immortality pervading as well. In book and movie one, Tris awakens during a virtual reality sequence from a chemical formula, designed to test her caste affinity, by discovering she has the ability to detect when “this isn’t real” in regards to reality. This is part of what makes the series interesting, and I think it is a good metaphor for our own reality, to say nothing of being a very cool scene. The second movie, they deviate substantially from the book’s plot. In the book, Janine is trying to control Tris, and keeps doing control simulations (everything in the books is based on potions and formulas), and there is some deal where they try to sneak. In the movie, they decide (much like I did) that this is LAME, and instead shift the story to an ancient artifact being discovered, which requires someone qualifying for all of the factions, so Tris retakes her factions test. This is a massive deviation from the book, but the section works both from a plot and from a character perspective. We learn more about what makes Tris tick, even than from the book. Tris gets very far during this simulation, but due to the mental strain of the test, gets a massive seizure, and apparently dies. Like the third book (I’ll get to that later), we have a resurrection motif, and she tries this over again. We see her figuring out that this is an illusion, conquering her fear, telling the truth, passing the Abnegation part, and finally facing the Amity test. Contrary to what you would believe from the sound of Amity, this is not an easy test. Tris must conquer her impulse to fight back, or else the entire world falls apart around her and she dies from the fall. This scene reads very much like one conquering her reality and becoming transcendent (or Ascendant), and we could very much end here. Especially, now that we see the entire city becoming free, walking and climbing towards the outside. Sure, fine, end here. The third movie, they are once again trapped inside the walls of the city, but the main characters decide to take a climbing mission across the border. As I say, they meet David, and discover about the genetic manipulation of the past, and how Tris was the end result of an experiment to return to the true nature of humanity (a rather good metaphor here for the tendency of people to say “I’m only human” and limit themselves to single-faceted existence, when in fact they can become much greater). We have a rather cool scene where they gain new technology where they can control drones to defend themselves with shields and sense stuff. These are a sort of metaphor for the true power of humanity, what Spirit Science calls the Merkaba (an energy field using the power of the heart). We then have the main characters returning to their home, and retaking it from these thugs using the above abilities (“technology”), uniting their old home with the knowledge of the new world. From a metaphorical standpoint, we could end the story here, too.

Unfortunately, the book doesn’t end the story there. Rather than the memory gas wiping out everyone’s mind getting stopped by Tris and company, we have some deal where Tris has to stop David, and to do that she has to sneak into some room guarded by the death poison. Again, this is sort of transcendental spirituality at work. She overcomes the death poison, and takes the McGuffin behind it, only to just get shot down. Can you say broken aesop? We have a scene where she is quietly ushered out of the picture by her mom, and yay she’s dead. David gets stopped and the people of Chicago are free. But ummm, aren’t they already free? Isn’t the city already united at the end of the Allegiant movie? Why the hell do we need this sequence? We then are treated to a maxim about as trite as “Love means never having to say you’re sorry” telling the reader that all of us are damaged, but that it’s when we are together that we can heal the damage. Unfortunately, I really didn’t care about the whole pure/damaged arc, so this section seems like a waste of storytelling and killing off a character that didn’t need to be sacrificed to tell a stupid moral. If Ascendant promises a better ending than the book, cool. If not, it is better not to watch, and just end the story here. That said, I probably will anyway, because I’m a sucker for an action romance dystopia.      

 

Slow Food

Before I begin, read here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Food

In Italy, and to some extent, much of Europe, the was an effort to move away from the fast food trend. You will notice that traditional Italian-American food of even 10-15 years ago was more sauce, less oil, less cheese. And I suspect before people like Olive Garden bastardized Italian food in this country, this was more or less how things were. Of course, this was the 80s and 80s. The 40s and 50s were characterized by bland processed food that was equally bad.

The problem

Let’s talk about the word disease. Pick it apart. Dis-ease. The state of one’s body being at unease. Okay, now let’s talk about convenience food. Convenience food is designed “to save time” in cooking. But does it? Not really.

  1. Convenience food is inherently unhealthy, containing high amounts of salt, fat, and sugars.
  2. Convenience food is premade, and shipped across the country. The casseroles at convenience stores? They’re not homemade, they are prefab, and loaded with chemicals that would not be added if the cooks were to cook it themselves using local ingredients. The shipment cost impoverishes the country and raises the cost of food.
  3. Some of these ingredients are artificial, to the point where okay supposedly they are “natural” since (like everything) they were made using natural ingredients. But the body doesn’t know how to break down aspartame, high fructose corn syrup (or any other corn syrup incarnations; agave sugar is a false alternative, btw, as it is often cut with corn syrup), nitrates/nitrites, trans or interesterified fats or oils. As a result, these products mess with the metabolism in a big way. Many of them have been linked to obesity, diabetes, strokes/Alzheimer’s, and clotting of the arteries that causes heart problems. Or cancer.
  4. Logically, if there is a “fat tax” on employees, this means that people in poverty who buy convenience food to save money are then being robbed blind for their choice. They are working hard, and yet getting sicker and sicker. And the thing is, I’ve seen people in the working class with a gut. They work 10 or 14 hours of demanding physical labor, and yet with their junk food diet, they can’t seem to shake that belly.
  5. The above-mentioned medical problems represent time in the doctor, and away from work for major conditions. That is, whether from restaurants or supermarkets, the poor are systematically being preyed upon by what is effectively a class system. They spend more of their time and their money getting well, meaning that actually this food that was supposed to save them time and money in fact wasted it!

The solution

The solution for many Americans is twofold.

They need to change the rhythm of their life. Slow the fuck down. It is one thing to work hard. It is another to be forced to work over 8 hours on a regular basis, with no time off, weekends, or recreation time. It is another to have housing that is beyond reasonable needs, that has luxuries that the job doesn’t keep up with, without a load of extra hours. The body has a rhythm. 1/3 work, 1/3 free, 1/3 sleep. Now, some people like me, are more “artsy” and like to do more with free time (I program games and the like and some of this cuts into either work or sleep), but in the long run one would ideally have near ideal balance between these. Another major factor is commute. If you can’t hoof it, or spend an hour or more driving, this is loading stress onto your back and eating your free time. Plus, if you aren’t reimbursed for your commute, you are effectively losing wages.

The second is reclaiming time for meals. As much as possible, try to make lunch yourself in advance. Unfortunately, this is a pain in the ass. I mean really. Either eat sandwiches of some kind, pita and hummus, or take your chances with food that gets weird and you will have to reheat. I don’t trust fridges at any work area. They are cleaned out by staff, they are sometimes eaten by other employees, and I would rather either put the food in the car, or eat at home. Breakfast and dinner require time and planning, but here’s the thing, running out and buying a premade dinner is a special trip for effectively ONE meal. Example: Quaker produces a cup of mixed together stuff. I think they call it their Medley. This isn’t really reusable, and while the ingredients are fairly sound, it does have added sugar and salt. This means I have to buy seven of these for a week or stop somewhere. Alot of processed meat (think bacon) has the same issue, not resealable containers where you can’t just open the pack and have one piece. This adds preparation time, or encourages gluttony.

The diet

I could bring up issues all day but let’s do two simple principles.

  1. Eight hours a day (full-time) or part-time work that involves some physical activity. Completely sedentary is no go, because this means you schedule a special trip to the gym, cutting into your free time to stay in shape.
  2. A healthy, relaxing meal at the end of the day. A healthy relaxing meal at the start of the day. You probably can’t schedule lunch properly so just bring a bottle of water to drink.

Now, I will by no means imply that I am perfect. “Well you don’t…” yes I know. I eat tortilla chips and ramen like the rest of humanity. This does not mean I do not know good nutrition when I see it. Soooo, without further ado, the diet.

  1. Saturated fats are not your enemy. If you get meat fats from cooking, save it. Olive oil is good for sauteing and salads. Coconut oil and butter are good for pan cooking.
  2. Say no to deep fat frying. Frying is pretty much the top of the list of bad things. For one, you have no idea what the restaurant uses to fry, and it’s expensive for you to fry with healthy oils. Second, the batter breading method is bullshit. Not only does it waste most of the product on the trays but one time I tried to conserve the flour to make a gravy to go with the onion rings. It was a mess, and I found out the reason it’s so fattening (the flour is a fat sponge). Pan fry instead, since it  involves a shallow amount of oil. If you have something to fry, try grilling it instead. Fries for instance can be cooked in the oven. So can grilled cheese sandwich, which is actually better as it has a lighter, less greasy taste and better toast to the bread.
  3. Microwaving food is also crap. It breaks down the food into mush, or produces rubbery food. It is used by schools to make food “safe” when in actuality, every kitchen I’ve seen tells you “reheating food does not make unsafe food safe to eat” and that food is as done as the highest temperature it got. To say nothing of the radiation poisoning you get for this convenience.
  4. Boil, saute, grill, bake, steam, poach, braise. All of these are perfectly fine, have been tested approaches to cooking, and produced fine food.
  5. Whenever possible try to buy local, and as close to the original product as possible. Bake your own bread, not dough from corporate offices. If you want an eye-opener of what convenience food could be, read the Matched series. People no longer know how to cook so instead get deliveries from factories (which at age 80 poison their upper-class, and try to do away with lower classes long before that). I don’t believe this is the future of food, but human beings are admittedly less healthy when the process of cooking has been done, and additives have been administered.
  6. Use a crock pot, not a pressure cooker. Pressure cookers not only routinely produce poor quality food, this is exactly the issue.  Why is your work and your life on high speed? You can’t enjoy your rest time. Crock pots slow cook food, bringing out flavors with even simple ingredients. No only that, the food is soft, tender, never mushy or tough.

A few years ago, I was having health problems. I made a few simple changes. One of them was switching the microwave to oven/toaster oven to cook nacho chips. Not only did it not take very long (preheat + 4 minutes) but I got a higher quality food (crunchy vs soggy nachos). I maybe spent more time on it. So what? I felt better at the end of the day.

Time Isn’t Money

As long as I’ve worked, I’ve believed the old adage “time is money.” That how you spend your time in inherently valuable. For this reason, I always believed in hourly work. That doing work correctly offered its own rewards. Unfortunately, there are two  problems (and a half) with that.

For one, this system encourages dawdling. As in, if I were to make 3 hour job last 5 hours, I would be paid more. Likewise, if I did good work, and completed a five hour job in three hours, I would be basically cheating myself out of money. In this case, I would either ask for a raise or hope the boss will notice, and give me one. But I’m too shy and too polite to do the former (it’s not a character flaw to be soft-hearted, but it’s troublesome when you need to be assertive), and I can’t count on the boss to be decent enough to always do this. Besides which, they are trying to get a good value too. Which brings to another problem (but not quite the second), either I work hard and rip myself off of money I need for expenses, or the boss feels ripped off and fires me. I would actually prefer steady pay, and to work hard and fast so the job is done quickly, and I can go and do what I want to.

Which is the second problem. We, as humans, are wasting our lives. We are spending it on stuff that has no value. At Walmart, most of what I did was watch an area. I didn’t sell, customer service, or stocking, so much as sit and make sure stuff wasn’t getting stolen from a store. Okay, here’s the thing, in that store hours were a given, since there was no real way to finish early and head home (I mean, you could end maybe five minutes early (and were encouraged to, by the anti-overtime system), so money was basically guaranteed. But I usually wanted to head home. Or go shopping, or anything to actually have money that I could spend. As it was, because of pay by the hour, I was wasting their time and mine, and when my car broke down, and I had not enough money to pay (despite working 40 hours some weeks, I got paid every two weeks, and it averaged poorly), I basically had to quit. Here is the second issue: If time is money, and you work for someone else, this means that if they are wasting your time by making you believe that working longer pays more, you are being stolen from. Not strangely, this actually appears to the prevailing them of use and abuse that I have observed. When people work by time, for others, they pretty much spend their entire lives and are still poor.

On the other hand, my electrologist works by the job, and while time is involved, she gets a flat rate for her work. And I, since I revalued my system, am trying to work more toward a finished job pay. Essentially, I’d rather have a job that is worth $40, if I finish it in 8 hours, I’m ripping myself off, by wasting time. So I should try to get in done correctly in 1 hour. Of course, this system is currently not ideal, because I can’t really judge the value of my work, but here’s the key.

The value of our lives is not defined by the time we spend on it. Money is not, and should not be based around the concept of time. Instead, money is a shorthand for value. How valuable is my work to you? Am I doing something worthwhile? If my quality of work suffers, if I’m wasting my time, don’t give me as much. If I seem to be doing something meaningful, give me feedback through pay. I want to be done with jobs quicker, and have more time to spend with family and friends.There are not enough hours in the day to spend on scheduled time. But there are enough hours to spend on doing something worthwhile. It’s time that work remove time from the equation.

A New Earth

From Revelation 21:

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone. 2And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

3I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, “Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them.a 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”

Look at this world. Things seem okay, right? Well, they’re not. Supposedly the US has more freedom than other countries. Only, behind that claim we have a number of people being imprisoned by the prisons. In fact, we have a prison system designed to quickly coerce people into taking a plea bargain (which by the way, is a guilty plea, meaning even if circumstances later would prove them innocent, the fact that they are innocent until proven guilty, and plead guilty means they are guilty anyway). We have an education system that is set up to teach to tests, and rampant with cheating and plagiarism. We have a welfare system where millions are in poverty, and kept that way, because many of the rules insist that you lose benefits once you work over a certain number of hours. And we have a housing situation that is oppressive and cruel. But I will not talk about any of that, I will talk about what we need for a better world.

The Unite Nations proposed a five year plan in 2012. I will discuss what about it I agree with, what is wrong or insufficient, and then I will discuss my own plan.

I. Sustainable Development

II. Prevention (both of ailments and disasters)

III. Building a safer and more secure world by innovating on our core business.

IV. Supporting nations in transition.

V. Working with and for women and young people.

Unfortunately, this appears to tackle the problems as symptoms, without identifying the fact that countries are different, and have different customs. Let’s start with the last first. Ideally, yes, we would want to set infrastructure in place to prevent women from being abused, support groups to help those battered, and legal action over not just physical abuse, but other types as well. Yes, we want women to have dreams, and be able to achieve them. But what about a country like Ukraine? The country has specific gender roles for each. While our American sensibilities would say outright that this is wrong, the bigger temptation would be to wipe away what makes other cultures unique, and by “supporting nations in transition” effectively be trying to create a lockstep path for all countries to follow. No to spousal abuse, but if some countries believe in tradition, this isn’t our place to tell them how to run their culture only to do it with an eye towards improvement of rights. I admire the idea of a safer world, but there is much below the surface that the UN does not know, even about the United States. Even major companies like Walmart or Amazon do some questionable, and seedy things to their employees, and in small towns, some women need to prostitute themselves to find decent work. I believe prevention of illness and disaster is a worthy goal, so I will skip directly to the first. Let’s talk about sustainable development, shall we? In the US, over the past few dozen years, agriculture has been moving away from sustainable development. We have moved from horse drawn farming, which have done agriculture at least the past thousand years, to pollution spewing machine tractors, to genetically altered crops, pesticides and herbicides, and especially fungicides. Our own soil is dead because crops do not have the symbiosis with mushroom breeds to process clean pollution into proper air, meaning we are slowly choking to death and killing our soil. Our bees are dying because of monoculture, and excessive pesticides. And this is just agriculture, our businesses are all but collapsed, hence the recession. Uhhh, yea, shouldn’t we be sure our own model is decent before passing on our problems to the rest of the world?

Let’s have a better model of what we want from this world, okay?

  1. Replacing “conventional” agriculture as a model. Creating a minimum standard for agriculture, and forbidding the use of certain products that deplete the soil. Doing away with sick practices in food, like making additives such as trans fats (and get rid of the 0g trans fat being allowed to be up to 0.5g, that counts as having added trans fats). Having a better labeling system so people know when seemingly healthy foods have been doctored or altered. Even going back to pre-industrial farming would be a major step in the right direction. I have no issues with breeding plants to be more productive, but gene splicing is an allergen concern, and I have major beef with plants that have been modified to be infertile (yes, that’s a thing). We should NOT have a business monopoly on our crops. Sustainability means dethroning all of these rulers of our fate.
  2. A better housing and job market. We need an end to landlords, which seems to be a relic from feudalism, and to allow people to build their own houses on any land that is not environmentally protected or within city limits. We need job systems that allow people to pursue the jobs they really want, education systems that don’t bankrupt people with debt, and job application process that tests people on what they can actually do, not by their past or their public speaking ability. How does the ability to do well at an interview have any bearing on getting an entry level job waiting tables or lifting boxes? We need less conversation interviews, and more practical skills interviews. We need the basics of live to be taken care of, since right now, not only are people not “independent” as seems to be the goal of our time, but they cannot live without worry. Even if family is a value, one cannot live without worry that when the parents die, one will not be able to pay the taxes and the bills to heat and cool the house.
  3.  Oil and gas free, and pollution free within the next 10 or 20 years. We should be exerting our effort into making electrical, solar, wind, and other natural sources for energy for the houses we heat, and the cars we drive. Part of the problem with the corn “solution” of using ethanol for fuel, is that the big trucks harvesting this stuff typically run on conventional diesel engines, making this just more greenwashing. We need to cut the umbilical cord where we’re sucking oil from the Middle East.
  4. Speaking of which, an end to terrorism. Muslim countries have grown fat and well-supplied from our reliance on their oil. But at the same time, they hate us because we bully them for more oil, at lower prices. Their culture that abuses women, and terrorizes people in general is bad enough, but since they have more power recently, they have moved from a backwards region of the world, to an actual nuisance that has invaded from Europe to Africa to much of Asia, recently even bullying Tibetan monks. We need to stop antagonizing them, stop relying on them, and stop allowing them to invade other countries.
  5. Religious freedom. An end to bullying of all religions, and an end to proselytism. People need to be able to defend their beliefs without any laws preventing them, and violence between religions needs to be criminalized and enforced. Whatever God is out there, I don’t believe he (or she) would be pleased to see people fighting over petty differences in dogma. Prayer in schools needs to be allowed, religious necklaces allowed too. But schools insisting on teaching others religion needs to be disallowed. We can have Lutheran schools, and we can have them teach Lutheran theology. It is their right to be able to teach. It is not their right, however, to force other people to learn. All religious courses should be an elective, except for those majoring in Religion. The fact is, human beings don’t need to be “saved” because salvation is a resource extending to all, and potentially found in any religion.
  6. An end to persecution of others on “religious” grounds. There is nothing religious about hurting other people. Whether it’s abuse of women or minorities, or hurting and killing based on homosexuality or gender status. Pretty much no religion actually advocates hurting others as part of its core teaching. We need an end to fundamentalism, and more moral relativism. The fact that so many religions exist means that God allowed them to exist. An end to treating women, homosexuals, and transgender people as second or third class people. In some countries, we may have strict gender roles, where women can be teachers, men are in military. But regardless of the roles we have in society, all are important. Society couldn’t function without people to grow and harvest crops. Society couldn’t function either without the people who lead and organize. Both the “lowest” and the “highest” positions in society are extremely valuable. Likewise, we downplay people in society who are outcasts, but these people are the very people who can see what this society needs, as they feel the blow of the abuses of others. We shouldn’t be hurting or killing these people.
  7. A world without fear. A world where people can show their true selves to others, where people can live their dreams, and where society grows spiritually from its current situation to a more enlightened culture. A world with other cultures, since monolithic culture would be oppressive, but where each culture has its best solution towards housing, employment, civil freedoms, and cultivating the dreams of each citizen. Whether I live in Saudi Arabia or China or Newfoundland, the fact is, I have the right to live my life with others or alone, as I see fit. All people need to right to be who they wish to be, without fear.

When these are the case, I would like to see the world move from a superstitious one, to a truly spiritual one. One where rather than the horrors of science without conscience, our culture uses science in a way that is cleaner, heightens our understanding of this world, and which let’s the hearts of each of us burn with  passion. Whether in the US or some other country, I’d like to see all children answer “what do you want to do?” and be able to do just that.

Being Genderfluid (For Country Folk)

I have moved from a big city to a small town. Being that some people from my old town have grown up knowing me, I think it is useful to answer some questions. So I’ll do a Q&A on myself. Being in the big city, I have come to realize that I don’t really have a beef with either place, while I do have a beef with corporate culture. In a small town, my LGBT status is more the issue, so if I want to be happy anywhere, I need to clear up some things.

Are you gay?

There are several categories of LGBT: Lesbian, gay, bi, and trans. I am transgender.

Further, there are several types of transgender: Transsexuals, drag queens, crossdresser, nonconforming, and genderfluid. I will explain the difference.

Transsexuals legitimately want to become the opposite sex. In this way, they are actually gender-conforming, but to the opposite sex. They generally see themselves are trapped in the  wrong body, and are heterosexual with regard to their new sex, and homosexual with regard to the old.

Drag queens are typically gay men, who are attracted to other men. I am not typically categorized as such. The typical drag queen is doing performance art, for money, and possibly to impress other guys. A drag queen typically makes no effort to realistically be a woman, and is known for bad makeup and gives the entire trans community a bad name. Yes, I know this is coming across as harsh. But the reason thousands of transgender women get hurt and killed? The assumption that transgender people are trying to trick straight men into gay sex. The reason basic human rights (such as I dunno, being hired for a job based on merit) are denied to trans people? Because Hollywood sees transgender problems as a comedy angle, and confuses it with drag.

Most transgenders do not want public attention, they want to live their lives, find love, and be employed like everyone else. Moving on…

Crossdressers are part-time presenters as the opposite sex. Typically, this is a sexual fetish (but not always). They run the gamut from straight, to bisexual, to gay. Typically, the defining characteristics of a crossdresser is that they are not really involved with being transgender, it is mainly for them. Because of this, many of them only crossdress within the privacy of their own home, and have a secret stash of clothing somewhere. Over time, some crossdressers stay crossdressers, some decide to become transsexual, and some start to live out in the open as genderfluid people.

Nonconforming is people who identify as neither male nor female, or both. This also includes intersex people. Yes, they do exist. There are people who may walk around with a shaved head and androgynous look, or even some weird mix between appearing male and female.

I am likely genderfluid. I would like to like full-time as a female, but at the same time, there are perks about being male. I have change my identity information to female because I was tired of people saying “Well, you’re just a sensitive guy, but you’re really a male.” No, I’m not.

I am straight or a lesbian, depending on how I see myself. I generally do not like men, because over the years, I generally have been at worst manipulated by women (and everyone else), but bullied by men. It’s men who usually try to tell me what I want, it’s men who might beat me up, women generally don’t hurt me. I also do not like men, as they literally have nothing to offer me. I don’t care for anal sex, the wikipedia article on frottage made me puke inside my mouth, and while oral sex would be okay in theory, I would much rather have my mouth licking something than someone tell me “here, swallow this.” Plus, I have a gag reflex.

You’re part of the liberal agenda, aren’t you?

Actually, I’m personally slightly conservative, except for love of environment and LGBT rights. I don’t like the idea of transgender rights being civil rights. This should be part of natural rights, that as a transgender woman, I am treated like a woman. But it isn’t. Because under the current laws, I am in fear that one day someone might take my life. Yes, it’s that simple.

Also, so far as I know, there is no overarching “agenda” so much as alot of people trying to live their own lives, and called freaks or sinners for it. If my party saw the environment as a civic duty rather than a political thing (whether global warming exists or not, shouldn’t you be making cleaner factories? Better farms? Preserving wildlife?), if my party saw giving human rights to people who need it as a moral imperative, and if both parties understood that marriage is a matter for each church and not the state, I’d vote.

No, and because they don’t I’m not voting for them. I don’t like the leftist communism of the liberal party, and I don’t like the idea of a welfare state. Righteous living, and not government mandated redistribution, should be the solution. We should give charitably of our own free will, not be taxed to death. So I’m not in favor of voting, period. Maybe libertarian party, but it seems like a waste of vote. So, nobody can have my vote, and I won’t vote.

Are you born this way?

One of the statements of the left is that LGBT people are born that way. One of the statements of the right is that LGBT can change.

I was not born this way, I can recall a specific incident when I started thinking about this stuff (my brother crossdressed me as a kid for a play). That said, the course of my life has led me to the conclusion that this is very much a part of me. It may be symbolic of something, and in theory having certain other needs met might reduce the need. But I would feel unhappy if I could not do it period, any more than if I decided I should not do it, as years of depression have shown. That said, no, I do not believe in the “God made a mistake” idea. God, as far as I’m concerned, made the events that shaped my life.

One of the beefs that I have with the whole LGBT can change thing, is that there is an unsaid assumption, that because they can change, that also means that they must. Barring the logical fallacy here (LGBT have a choice, therefore, LGBT don’t have a choice), there are some serious situational problems with this. The chief one that it is the equivalent to telling a girl who wants to be a priest that “only men can be priests.” Suppose she puts her feelings aside, and chooses to go along with this. Is there any guarantee that she would be happy? What if no sooner does she decide to become a teacher than someone else comes along and tells her to become a doctor? At what point does the ability to change stop being a choice?

If we have a choice, we have a choice. We need to respect the choices of others.

Now that the big stuff has been mentioned, I’ll talk about the smaller questions.

What is genderfluid?

I am a transgender woman. This means that in the eyes of the law, I identify as female. This is correct.

But there are times when I identify as male, and possibly present as male. There are times when I feel like a mix between genders, and the are sometimes weeks or months that I’m okay with whatever gender I’m in. But generally, I’m not happy with other people defining those terms.

Generally, I want my hair to grow out without male pattern ever setting in. I want to rid myself permanently of my beard and chest/neck/back hair. It’s gross. My body shouldn’t be doing that, and I’d be fine with gene therapy to prevent it. Would I ever take hormones or do the surgery? No. The hormones have some serious side-effects (like cancer), the surgery traps me in a body which doesn’t function sexually (when a sex change actually involves gene replacement, and gives me a real vagina, maybe) and I want kids at some point.

What I would want is electrolysis, possibly shaving off my adam’s apple, and to have long hair that I could tie or braid. To be able to be male or female, with nobody making demands on what I should be. I should be myself. There is nothing less that a person should be, than what they feel inside.

What does this mean, in a small town?

Well, I’m extraordinarily shy, so to start with, I’m wanting to just find a few jobs, and work at the library and such. Generally, the trickiest part of this is that I have trouble approaching people and knocking on doors.

After that, since my paying stuff seems to be landscaping and odd jobs, and it is logistically difficult to work in a skirt pulling weeds, and doing dirty stuff, I would say that I would probably be presenting as male with long hair.

Working indoors, I would want people to accept me, and to slowly be able to work progressively more as female.

The nature of a small town is such that people don’t always understand what life is like elsewhere. But likewise, it doesn’t have to be a cruel place. Part of rural culture means that if I want to live my life a certain way, I should be able to as long as I don’t directly hurt you or your livelihood. So, yes, there are people here that will worry about reputation. But reputation works both ways. If you accept people and show this as an example, this works as good reputation. The employer comes across as someone who has stuff figured out, and treats workers well.

I would like to bring who I am to the town that I grew up loving, without the sense that I’m not welcome anymore, or that I have to hide significant portions of myself to fit in. I don’t want to step on any toes, but all the same neither do I want to live my whole life defined by others. I believe it would be reasonable to assume in a small town, that people show the sides of themselves they want people to see, and adjust to rural life.

I also want to visit the city on occasion (some of that is for electrolysis, some is to visit friends), provided I can afford to do so. But my home is here.

On Anarchy

A few years back, I used to be big on anarchy. I would get into debates with my dad about it. He would show stuff like Doctor Zhivago as “examples” of what anarchy looked like. Actually though, this is not anarchy. I’ll explain what is, and why it isn’t.

First, right, Doctor Zhivago. The scene in question was when the tsar’s regime was brought down. We see people doing whatever. Raiding and looting, and so on. Anarchy right? No. It was a lapse in power, what we call “chaos”. The word “chaos” does not mean “random” despite what we’d think. It comes from a word meaning “void” and is essentially that. It’s a gap in power, an emptiness, while the ruling power is out of power, and the rebels are trying to make the case why they should be the ruling power (they usually do, making some claim of how they are worth it to rule). The disorder and lawlessness you see is not an example of anarchy, so much as people taking advantage of the gap to get what they want. As in, not so much disorder, as people knowing very much what to do, and doing it, because they are opportunists.

So then, what is anarchy? Well, it’s “no rule” but first, let me explain what it isn’t.

We see movies every year, that have so called anarchists blowing stuff up. It’s almost like Hollywood is either projecting from their own idiocy or “paid for by the the US voting system”TM. In fact, the only film that actually got it right what anarchy is, was V for Vendetta, and this was mainly over most of the audience’s head (and he still blew up some major British buildings). In this film however, between despotic neo-fascism and anarchy, the audience usually preferred anarchy to despotism. Typically in movies, however, in an effort for “patriotism” anarchists blowing up things is a bad thing because of our wonderful democratic-republic. I’ll get to later how it isn’t, but for now, let’s start with the fact that most anarchists, who aren’t certifiably insane, see terrorism as a type of force, and thus part of a rulership mechanism, to say nothing of the fact that most of them are pacifists.

Second, I was on OkCupid looking for matches. Almost without exception, under Anarchist, all of them tended to men, with heavy beard stubble, and very conservative views. In other words, alot of men, who are tired of women ruling them, maybe? That sounds less like legitimate anarchy, and more like guys that were extraordinarily sexist, and didn’t like the idea that they had to be forced to work or maintain an image, or be decent people. Personal responsibility, however, is at the heart of anarchy. Not it either.

Third, I saw a number of links about anarchy that appeared to be tying it together with something else. Anarcho-communism. Anarcho-capitalism. Nice try. Anarcho-capitalism is a business government. Anarcho-communism is still communism, just without a leader. Neither of these are actually anarchy.

What then, is anarchy? Well, picture this. A school’s 5th grade has money and resources to show a film in class, or go to a water park. The water park involves a great deal of coordination, more money, and is more risky but is more fun. The class film requires bags of popcorn, and some pizza, is fun in its own way, but saves money for the school. A monarchy would be the teacher deciding this without input of the students, an oligarchy would be the school board deciding (they’d probably decide to stay in). You’ll notice that neither of these actually ask the students. Which brings us to the idea of voting, what formed the basis for our society (because of this article, we are going to call this democracy rather than republic). You’ll notice too, that from the outset, this system is worlds better. You’ll note that in parentheses, I mentioned this as a democracy vs republic. A democracy is a rule based on the group, republic is based on the individual. Our society, likes to call itself a democratic-republic, but it really isn’t, except that we vote for a single individual, who may or may not serve our interests. It also, as I pointed out in movies, likes to paint anarchy as much worse than democracy. But is it? What is anarchy?
Back to the example. Suppose the class is big, like 100 (just for percent). A democracy would take a vote, and we assume 49 of those people are introverts/like the movie, and so 51 outvote them. This means 49 pissed off kids. Anarchy is saving whatever money you can, and as a teacher, allowing a substitute for the kids staying in, and supervising the kids that vote to go. Anarchy is the concept of a republic to its logical end. So actually, even this wouldn’t be a good example, but it would be a start. A better example would be teaching the kids math and reading, and the basics, then in middle school onward, the kids choose which classes to pursue. They can apprentice themselves to prospective companies if they know what they want, can get a broader liberal arts education, or whatever. The kids can screw themselves over, but it’s understood that they make their own choices.

Btw, I actually had some of this happen, in college. They put it to a vote, test Friday or Monday, with the other day off. I wanted to get it out of the way, and not have tension all weekend, so I chose Friday. Everyone else was choosing Monday, so I abstained. The teacher was like “we need everyone to vote.” I’m like, I don’t care, I don’t want to be bullied into a decision. So I alone took the test (it was horticulture, and I was getting C’s) and with just me, I had the peace and quiet to think (small classroom meant I could hear coughing, tapping with the pencil, etc. and I was having trouble with ADD at the time) and aced the test. This is how society should be run, with nobody imposing their will on another.

The question is, how do we do this? Well, we have a few models.

The first is Switzerland, which is very much into small state. They arm their own citizens by selling them guns, and seem to be very (pardon the expression) anarcho-capitalist. The model works, I suppose, it’s just not what I’d call true anarchy. More like a commercial government. That said, the people appear free and happy. They appear to be good neutral territory for world leaders to come up with theories of how to improve the world, while at the same time, able to maintain their sovereignty by being well armed and good in business.

The second, is a more true version to the concept that I want. Both during early (pre-tsar) Russia, and during the Holy Roman Empire, the essential model was city states. So long as the city state has the same currency as nearby areas, and the ability to protect itself from outside attack, it is both connected to the whole, and sovereign, without needing a president. You can have an elected mayor, you can have a town council, you can have companies that run roads/water/electricity. Regardless of how you do it, that’s your Sim City, so to speak. In a true anarchy, this also means weirdness like Culpeper attacking Warsaw in Virginia. But yes, that’s part of the deal. If we have free government, towns are self-governed, versus having people decide for others. And people are also self-governed. If the place turns into a bad place to live, take responsibility. Ideally, in a true anarchy, you have an unelected town council, made entirely of volunteers. Their term lasts as long or short as they want, or even random people can show up and make suggestions. Of course, if nobody else likes your idea, it’s up to you to implement it.