This video was sent to me twice, once by my dad and once by an online friend.

I figured it was time for a review/response.

I’m going to forgo the expected attack on the man personally. I don’t care if he’s a child raping schizophrenic alien for the purposes of this essay. His claims and approach will be examined at face value.

Ironically his first claim is about himself. So I guess his background is unavoidably involved.

Wiki tells me he’s a former dentist, and an AIDS conspiracy theorist. He believes AIDS was invented by the government. It doesn’t mention the PHDs he claims. But whatever. I don’t care if he’s got a Nobel, that wouldn’t make him right or wrong.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Leonard_Horowitz

And yes I use wiki as my primary source here, if you’re going to take this dudes work for it, you should trust wiki just as much.

Could we dispense with the music? Please? The presence of music indicates an attempt to manipulate my emotions. Not a good start.

We get the question, if we’re advancing technologically why is quality of life not being improved?

It may merely be the result of the population expanding faster than the technology. It may also be that like a frog in a slow boil, we’ve just grown accustomed to what we have.

Once he starts talking about the video “History of bioterrorism” we start to see some of the problems I have with this video. He just name drops the CIA. “This program.. Was co-produced with the department of homeland security, with the CIA’s involvement.”

Oh yeah? What kind of involvement? Check this out. I wrote this essay “with the CIA’s involvement.” How? I went to the CIA’s webpage and looked up the first word. Depending on how you define “first” it’s probably “DOCTYPE” or “Mission”, or maybe, “About.” Does this mean I’m working for the CIA now? Are they “involved” in my website? No.

He’s clearly trying to imply some ominous connection, but he fails to show it. this is a common theme in this video. Lots of implication, no documentation. Indeed precious little explanation.

However, his use of the film as a representation of the government’s position, is a valid one. The CDC for example has a page sharing this video as fact. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/training/historyofbt/

Moving on…

He then spends a lot of time talking about how important and controversial this video is. I don’t like being explicitly told how I’m supposed to feel. Especially in the context of a film that’s supposed to provide me with the data I need to make informed decisions.

Then we get a cartoon from the 50s of a turtle talking about duck and cover. He then vaguely explains some link between “duck and cover” and industry. Again, just what link? What’s your point man?

The whole concept of duck and cover is not and was never meant to imply that hiding under a desk will make you nuke proof. It’s simply about preventing panic, and making yourself a smaller target for debris. Hitting the deck IS a good idea around and explosion. It’s just that with nukes we actually have the potential for a time lag between the light of the blast and the shock wave.

Duck and cover is not famous because it’s a bad idea, its famous because it shows how paranoid we were about nuclear war.

He then explicitly links the government’s current position with duck and cover. Oh I wish. Duck and cover at least is harmless.

And now the hate begins. We get name calling and hyperbole. Not very documentary there Leo. Yes yes tell us more about how awful they are and how they are lying.

Oh boy! A Full screen definition of genocide with elevator music! Gee thanks Leo I had no idea what genocide meant… But wait a minute, that’s not the definition of genocide. Genocide does not relate to slavery or profit. It relates to killing. And the fact that his definition is in quotes and yet fails to state what he’s quoting is pretty well the theme of this video.

The video then asks could this be happening in America? Well sure, someone could be killing all the protestants in Nebraska right now, how do I know? The question is invalid and sneaky. I agree we are enslaved, but again, that’s not genocide. And to misuse the words is intellectually dishonest and in unbelievably poor taste considering that genocide actually happens.

The man also doesn’t know what propaganda means, considering that’s exactly what this video is by definition.

He then talks about “real villains” and his definition is jam packed with negative subjectives. He’s in effect defining terms with synonyms almost exclusively.

You know I’m just going to stop commenting on all the horrific video editing work. This video is awful, I’ll leave it at that.

I really wish he’d stop asking loaded questions. Could this could that. Well yes if the event in question is permitted by the laws of physics then yes, they could. But is that the case? Implication is not enough Leo. Make a positive statement.

Finally! Something I can look up. “The Report from Iron Mountain.” Shitty for Leo, this book is apparently just a satire. Does it contain truth? Probably. Most good satire does. But presenting it as unchallenged fact is yet more intellectual dishonesty. If you want to read something that will break your mind regardless of it being real or not merely because it very well could be, check out Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. (Best version here: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/)

He talks about “the participants of iron mountain” and then behind him is a graphic with Rockefeller and Kissinger. That’s yet more intellectual slight of hand. Taken as fact the book doesn’t even say who was at the meeting.

Granted the concept of threat fabrication for power purposes is a valid one, but man if you’re going to use tactics like this to sell it, get off my side. Its like Alex Jones and his satanic psychosis, or Jim Marrs and his aliens. He’s quoting something that may very well be a satire as fact. Why not instead raid it for ideas and restate/attack them on their own merit? Why the argument from authority?

If there’s any conspiracy to be revealed here, its that the other team hires fruit-loops to make rational dissenters look bad. A sort of rhetorical agent provocateur.

He’s seriously going to sit there and say NASA and public welfare programs are a substitute for war spending? Oh my god, don’t we all wish.

Here’s a bit about the reality of the situation from http://dailycensored.com/2010/03/30/there-is-a-thing-about-opinions/

about defense spending– True, Social Security and Medicare are about the same size as the amount we are told is spent upon defense. The difference is that Medicare and Social Security are governmental TRUST funds. They are NOT paid for through income tax. They are supported by direct contributions from those who benefit from them. [Except that is for illegal aliens using someone else’s social security number. They pay but do not collect]. Hence, Social Security and Medicare do not belong in the Federal Budget Allocations, whereas Defense spending is an appropriation and is 60+% of our budget.

If our spending was in line with the rest of the world we could easily balance our budget. Just about every country in Europe, for example, spends less that 2% of its GDP on defense. Most are around 1% and the whole European Union together only spends 1.69%. We spend 4.65%. It is this imbalance that makes it easy for the top 1-2% to keep us busy fighting each other, rather than focusing on them, the real cause of the problem.

I guess we can add economics to the list of things this guy is misrepresenting.

That The Company invents bogeymen for power and profit is no shock to anyone. That illness and terrorists generally are such bogeymen, is also not shocking. Is that all you’ve got Leo?

Where are my facts? So far we don’t have one verifiable specific claim. We don’t even have an original statement of trends. Let’s hope you’re going somewhere with all this rhetoric.

Wow, let’s just show a bunch of injuries and genetic and toxic developmental damage with no indication of how they fit into the narrative.

Oh god the eugenics drum gets a beat too. I guess we can add Luddite to the man’s list of accolades. Genetic research is NOT synonymous with eugenics.

Oh man he’s actually including footage of Jim Marrs. Who is a competent historical annalist, but who also thinks lizard aliens are running the show. I’m quick to add Rule by Secrecy is an awesome book JAM PACKED with verifiable facts.

Use him but don’t include him man. Use his research, verify it for yourself, and include THAT, don’t make an argument from authority and use a ufo guy as the authority.

Still, the assertion that the de facto governmental form today is akin to socialism with corporations being the real citizens instead of individuals, is tremendously useful and fairly unique. Then linking that to the obvious patriotic element of control and you get Nationalist pride driven corporate Socialism. Like I said, I like Jim and his work, he’s just not the guy you want on your poster, if you know what I mean. (Neither am I I’m quick to add.)

What’s that Jim about the word Nazi? From the wiki… https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nazi

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1])

See Leo? Say something we can check on.

I suspect that this tidbit of information is the best thing about this documentary.

Jim also goes on to talk about “Corporatism” and fascism, and again, his statements are verifiable. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism#cite_note-doctrine-40

As Jim’s face fades from view I realize I’m going to miss his rationality as I watch the rest of this farce.

Hmm ok NSSM 200. Checking…

Well there is this NSSM 220, a 2 page request for a study.

http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/nsdmnssm/nssm220a.htm

NSSM 200 Apparently being the study that was called for…

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

Yup it exists. But no it does not “call for massive third world depopulation.” what is says is that exploding populations are a threat. Which is VERY different. I grow SO weary of this intellectual slight of hand.

And then we have this crazy blunt non sequitur about the US having biological and nuclear weapons “deployed around the planet.”

I have no doubt that we have biological weapons in secret. But the image behind him of a man sorting bombs, does not contain nuclear or biological weapons. It would be absurd not to have bioweapons however, at least for counter study purposes. Besides the CDC is packed with what could be called bioweapons. You could easily have a purely paper based administrative bioweapons program using immunological data applied to military strategy.

But that’s a far cry from smallpox in every armory, ready to wipe out the third world’s poor, which is the clear implication. Besides this study was don in the 70s, they’re moving a little slow.

And here we have some quotes. Lifted completely out of context. (I’ll bracket what he put on screen.)

19. The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs – rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration ── are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the U.S. is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the U.S. In a broader sense, there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.

20. The pace of internal migration from countryside to over swollen cities is greatly intensified by rapid population growth. Enormous burdens are placed on LDC governments for public administration, sanitation, education, police, and other services, and {{urban slum dwellers (though apparently not recent migrants) may serve as a volatile, violent force which threatens political stability.}}

He actually changed the beginning of the quote on this one to hide the fact that it’s ripped from context.

22. {{In international relations, population factors are crucial in, and often determinants of, violent conflicts in developing areas.}} Conflicts that are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.

26. {{There is no single approach which will “solve” the population problem. The complex social and economic factors involved call for a comprehensive strategy}} with both bilateral and multilateral elements. {{At the same time actions and programs must be tailored to specific countries and groups.}} Above all, LDCs themselves must play the most important role to achieve success.

At this point we are flooded with he said she said… First about Walter Isaacson speaking about Kissinger and some shadowy decree to spare all nazi. When that’s not what paperclip was about at all.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

And yes many industrialists had close ties to the Nazis because hello we weren’t always at war with them. Just because someone sold a gasket to the Nazis by mail doesn’t mean they secretly want to kill Jews.

I hate the rich as much as anyone, read my work, but hate them for valid reasons. There are plenty I assure you without making them up.

Allen Dulles, Paul Manning, Martin Bormann, Herman Schmidtz, Eric Troube, Ann Burger, … Lets drop a few more names and hope no one asks us to explain why they are significant or god forbid how they relate to my core assertion. And to complicate any effort to do so lets for once desist from our obnoxious constant on screen text for once so no one can get the spelling right, I know I couldn’t, and there is no official transcript of this video anywhere. Where is all that documentation?

Kissinger is a horrific man, no doubt. But still, how does that relate to the core point? NSSM 220 is still not about exterminating people.

“directed secretly, though covert intelligence” If it’s a secret how do you know? Because Operation Paperclip and NSM 200 are declassified? Do you know why? Because they are harmless.

Oh what is this? A clip from outbreak? What in the world does that have to do with anything? Why not one from The Stand as well? Or Home Alone while we’re grabbing random movies.

24:49 And now magically we’re back to The History of Bioterrorism.

“Just two decades after the report from iron mountain was released and it’s policies enacted.”

Heh, “Just?” Really? 20 years is nothing huh And again it was fiction, no one enacted it as policy for the same reason no one enacted alice in wonderland as policy.

Now that’s not to say elements of it aren’t mirrored IN policy, but again that’s true of any good political satire.

Another non sequitur into the military concept of Revolution in Military Affairs which is basically just a fancy way of saying “update how to wage war in the face of new technology.”

“In this publication from the 1960s.”

Heh, what publication? From where? Who wrote it? Why does it matter?

No we get into the really sneaky shit.

Let’s fill the screen with text and keep running my mouth, like an old friend told me, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

And, we shall see, the manner in which we use our resources undoubtedly has a great influence on the thinking of millions of people throughout the world. The thoughts and attitudes of these millions are of paramount significance since the mind is one of the most important battlegrounds of the Cold War.

What is he talking about? What’s content? This mystery 1960′s document, or the RMA?

And he’s wrong about the war college also.

From the wiki… https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Revolution_in_Military_Affairs

The original theorizing was done by the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov.[1] The U.S. initially became interested in it through Andrew Marshall, the head of the Office of Net Assessment, a Department of Defense think tank. It slowly gained credence within official military circles, and other nations began exploring similar shifts in organization and technology.

Cancer viruses? Hmmm. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Oncovirus

Again a video non sequitur, of one guy hating his meds. Which no doubt cost way to much and do more harm than good. I stipulate that, but where is the point?

More gene/sci/tech fear. Every time I get sick it’s the government that did it with their fancy plastic suits. Godless bastards. *facepalm*

Quote, unconditioned individuals…

Quote from what? He’s ALWAYS doing that.

And I hate how he can’t even pronounce anything. He actually says “plausible denial-ability” around 28:30 It’s “deniability.” Only one L sound. And the concept applies to everyone. Encryption systems like TrueCrypt employ plausible deniability features.

…experts say…

Wiki has a term for phrases like that. “Weasel words.”

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Weasel_word

The dude actually goes on to make fun of the lady’s name. Yeah that just SCREAMS professionalism. Now I make fun, I’m a huge smart ass, but I wouldn’t do it in my freaking “documentary.” I mean do I give LEo shit for his TelePrompter and his complexion reminiscent of the new Jersey fake bake epidemic? No, because they aren’t relevant.

The guy once again shows clips from a movie (The Manchurian Candidate remake, good movie though) to refute the CDC doctors… Really? Leo? Really?

However, he does have a point about the hazing process of medical professionals, and how its entirely possible to convince even experts of a lie. It’s sort of like a post purchase rationalization.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization

Oh boy after a bunch of rambling crap we have a new name and a new insult! The “prostitute” Abraham Flexner. This title is ironic considering the damage he did to prostitutes generally, as explained in the article mentioned, which is from 1940 I might add and is clearly and editorial piece as much as anything.

He’s the reason we have John’s Hopkins medical center. I strongly encourage anyone to read the article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,802061,00.html) and the Wiki about the guy himself. And maybe put “Johns Hopkins” in Google sometime.

I quote from the wiki… https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Abraham_Flexner

After graduating from Johns Hopkins, Flexner returned to Louisville and founded a private school in which to test his ideas about education. He believed that education should be marked by small classes, personal attention, and hands-on teaching. Graduates of his school were soon accepted at leading colleges, and Flexner’s school attracted considerable attention.

He then goes down a laundry list of alternative medicines attacked by the new medical schools. Including “most forms of energy medicine” hehe he means crystals and such in short, quackery and snake oil. I hate the medical establishment as much as the next guy, but this was the 20s. People didn’t know any better. If a guy in a lab coat told them to drink arsenic in the morning to cure stiff knees, people would do it.

(Check out the movie “The Road To Wellville”.) for some idea of the vulnerability I’m trying to get across. It’s not like today where quacks could be crushed by consensus. they were REALLY dangerous back then.

Applying our standards to the 1940s is just insanity.

They were building a monopoly because we needed a centralized approach to medical education because again this is before the Internet. This is like putting up the only lemonade stand in the neighborhood and then immediately being accused of monopoly building. Quarts crystals and acupuncture are not competition for medicine.

The medical industry has huge problems and it drags its feet for profit and stomps on alternatives all the time, granted, but by and large, the old stab still applies most of the time. What stab you ask? “You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.”

Healthcare became a single entity because the government had to regulate it because people were selling cocaine and mercury as a tooth aid, and the like. In this country you can’t be a doctor without government approval. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a license. It’s like saying the government has a monopoly on drivers.

There are issues no question but this presentation of them is flawed and EXTREMELY disingenuous.

This fucker just steeped over the line for me. He has the balls to show a picture of Auschwitz, and then tosses off UNIT 731 as “human rights violations.” Like she was exaggerating. Jesus man if anything she was RADICALLY understating the matter.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unit_731

This moron actually says that America, in specific reference to Unit 731 with a picture of Shiro Ishii in the background, says we have done “the same or even worse.”

Are You Out Of Your Fucking Mind? Dude, No.

We’ve done horrific shit, no question, but Unit 731 is a God among atrocities. And you clearly have never picked up a book about it. Let me put it this way, most libraries keep the reference material under lock and key to avoid traumatizing people. the Internet has no such scruples. Happy digging, but before you start let just say, some things you can’t unsee.

Are these anglo-American corporations any less criminal than the Japanese military organization Dr. Cono Recalls?

That would be a resounding yes you moron in both substance and legality. 1. Unit 731 was legal according to the Japanese government at the time. But that’s just pedantry. What you meant was a comparison of horrors.

Again, wow. Nothing the pharmaceutical industry has ever done comes close to the mind numbing blinding torture undertaken regularly at Unit 731.

Your insensitivity is matched only by your ignorance.

Oh noes! Her date is off? See above for why you are in no position to complain about someone’s dataset.

He briefly mentions cancer viruses again. And he’s right that people were killed, by a Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cornelius_P._Rhoads

But I’m willing to bet viruses were not involved. I would say rather the infection was accomplished by transplantation of cancerous tissue.

Comparing the botched Vioxx painkiller to the Nazi’s medical experiments and Unit 731 is inexcusable and indefensible.

The radical down play of the size of the Bioweapons facility is completely believable but impossible to verify.

Again from the wiki… “SV40 is an abbreviation for Simian vacuolating virus 40 or Simian virus 40, a polyomavirus that is found in both monkeys and humans.”

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SV40#Theorized_role_in_human_disease

Of course though he’d dismiss this data as propaganda.. convenient.

Why don’t you tell us where we can get he full list of these viruses created by this Special Virus Cancer Program, which I can find no reference to outside the conspiracy media.

And please kill these stupid sound effects.

Heh, oh look NOW he trusts the mainstream science press by quoting nature.

Man this guy clearly has some sexual issues. He loves calling people prostitutes. But like many other words he apparently doesn’t understand the relevant definitions. She’s not sleeping with anyone for money therefor she’s not a prostitute. Case Closed.

(Are you still reading this? Damn, I don’t know why I’m still writing it. I’m only 44 minutes into this 2 hour monster and I’ve been writing for 5 fucking hours.)

Joy, yet more quotes from phantom sources. *sigh*

Oh god, sports metaphors… *facepalm*

Claims claims claims, no defense.

Hmm yeah William C. Patrick III is a liar and the USA bioweapons program continues. Ok. Stipulated. Your point?

Ok, I’m done taking any of this shit seriously. And I’m tired of writing this review and watching this painfully bad lie that like only 4 people care about anyway.

If someone want to pick up where I left off. (52:09)

Feel free.

I’m not even proof reading this.

For example…

“Oh Noes! They’re going to chip me!”

Calm down.

No they aren’t.

The government will not come and chip you under any circumstances because they don’t need to. It’s way cheaper to do it passively. Then they can upgrade the tech on their end. Its like cloud computing. Why would they let you download the technology (hand you an artifact to exploit) when they can just keep it on the server (watch you from the air).

They have more to fear from chips than you do. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663

What happens when I can put an open source chip in my head that teaches me everything there is to know about the government? What happens when you can give someone a 50 year education on any topic as a 20 minute outpatient procedure?

Besides, the chip is crude, the real sexy techs are things like transcranial magnetic stimulation and genetic engineering.

What happens when I can make a flu virus variant that instead of making people sick, gives them a phd in physics.

And before you cry sorcery, remember that you are born knowing how to swim and bees are born knowing everything they need for their whole life.

Skills and knowledge can be genetically encoded.

What happens when I can make a crown that once worn for 10 minutes commits the total contents of wikipedia to long term memory?

Chip fear is manufactured to produce the illusion that you can’t be tracked right now.

Hate to break it to you, but. You have enough diagnostic equipment pointed at you right now already to tell when you’re taking a dump. It’s just that no one cares. And the processing power attached to these eyes and their resolution is increasing exponentially.

I can go buy a laser mic and point it at your window and hear everything that goes on in your house right now. I don’t even have to build the system, I can buy it, prefab. So just imagine what the government has.

Chip fear is a standard flavor of techno fear. Its like being afraid of smart glass because they could be used to make glasses which could filter out things which you might otherwise like to see. Sure there is potential for abuse. But the same is true of a glass of water or a hammer. RFID is hilarious, its just an inventory system. It was hacked like a week after it was released. If people are worried about being hacked they should learn how to build Faraday cages and use some common sense security procedures.

They want us to be afraid of tinkering with our brains because it took them 10,000 years to master manipulation of us at this level. And we all have a standard issue brain pretty much. They will completely lose control when brains start truly diverging though individual tinkering.

“The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.” ~Timbuk3

Imagine being forced to fly somewhere every day and go through airport security and then wait for 6 hours in the most crime ridden area you can think of, all the while having no opportunity to improve your conditions, or even be heard as a human being with an opinion. Now imagine that you tried to speak up anyway, and someone came and hit you for it, and you could do nothing legally or physically about it. Welcome to being a typical child in America.

We the people. Yea right, at first it was effectively “We the white land owning males.” Then the poor, then women, then minorities, so now it’s we the people… over 18.

They are allowed to be beaten, because they are powerless, because they have no vote.

The argument that they are immature and would not understand the issues could and should be applied to adults if its going to be applied at all. Voting requires a level of reasoning, yet adults are not tested for possession of it. Immature logic and being easy to coerce were arguments used in attempts to prevent blacks and women from voting as well so why should we accept them in relation to children? Anyone can be coerced regardless of age, gender, or race, given the right conditions.

All societies distinguish between an adult phase and a immature phase of life where rights are curtailed. And no society has managed to produce a peacefully unifying culture. Could there be a link?

The 26th amendment lowered voting age which shows that it is arbitrary, or fluctuates. Children as young as 12 get tried as adults. Children as young as 14 can be married. The argument is made that children are growing and thus their opinions will change over time. That is of course correct but it is no reason for them to be barred from voting.

Many adults change parties, many adults vote irrationally because they liked how one candidate looked in a suit, or because their pet told them to vote a certain way, many adults throw their votes away on candidates they know won’t win, or write ins that have no meaning, many vote for two people, some intentionally. The point is, people make mistakes, and age is really no indicator of how likely a person is to make them. Mental ability varies from person to person. Some are geniuses, some are not. Some are 10 and some are 90.

Eighteen year olds if raised traditionally are in many ways new children. They bridge the gap between the life of school and obedience they have experienced all their lives, to the life of decisions and freedom that is entirely new in their experience. This effect is well known, it’s why many adults look fondly back on their freshman year of college, their first year not under a thumb.

They also laugh at the memory of this awkward stage, and the mistakes they made. The traditional American gets two childhoods. And the second one they are allowed to vote through, so I say why not the first? How many perfectly rational level headed adults do you know? If your experience is anything like mine, they are in the minority. If you are a citizen, have an opinion, are subject to the rule of law, you should be allowed to vote, period. No rational argument can be made against that position without admitting to some form of support for totalitarianism or discrimination.

People should be allowed to begin participating in the political process as Americans as soon as they demonstrate an interest. Weakness corrupts, some of us had political interest since we were 10. Spending years being bossed around by the government through the school, makes us lose taste for the whole country. It makes us cynical. Because we hear all the garbage about everyone having a voice, while being told not to talk in class. We’re told about freedom of speech only to be punished for being “disrespectful”. We’re expected to know algebra and made to feel stupid if we can’t name every president between Washington and Lincoln, yet we’re told that an opinion on healthcare spending is beneath us. And you wonder why half the population doesn’t vote. If you treat children like children, the adults they turn into will act like children.

If we started voting soon enough, we wouldn’t have that cynicism, if we had just a little respect as human beings. Churches don’t wait, why allow churches and other organizations with clear political agendas to influence children and not let them vote? Do children who grow up in the church not vote in its favor the overwhelming majority of the time?

Children also have unique concerns that require representation. I would like to form the children’s lobby, but I know there is no funding for it. I have to be rich first. Examples of these unique issues are very real. For example, children have a much greater stake in environmental policy than any adult because they will be exposed to the future environment much longer than policy makers and polluters both, they should be allowed to vote for the protection of the environment that only they will see.

As long as school attendance is compulsory it is unfair to deny children the right to vote in favor of better educational funding. Children daily risk their lives because of legal threats, and lack of standing. How would you vote on education if you were forced through metal detectors and risked being shot?

Kids who work, pay into social security, yet they have no right to vote with regard to how the fund is managed. Poverty among children exceeds all age groups, while the government spends 10 times as much money on each poor senior as it does each poor child. Can we tell the Gov is run by old people yet? Children have no AARP, no meaningful lobby yet there are millions of them. This really needs revision.

Criminals too, it’s quickly becoming a crime to have vocal disfavor with the government, if labeling someone a criminal or terrorist is all it takes to strip them of their right to vote, then the government is in a position ripe for the formation of tyranny. I’m told that at this rate, by 2050 half our population will be in prison I don’t know about that, but we already have the largest prison population by percentage in the industrialized world. What will be the democratic implications of a country that claims to be democratic yet imprisons half its population and does not allow them to vote?

What argument for letting mentally deficient adults vote does not apply to children beyond “they’re adults” or the like? If we let mentally challenged adults vote (the pinnacle of speech from a civic perspective) why not children?

Because children are slaves in this society, property. Whipped when disobedient, traded, ordered, sequestered, and they tend to act out as a result. The only reason they don’t revolt is a mechanism of oppression literally centuries in the making coupled with their size during their most impressionable years.

It’s not at all shocking to me how adults behave given how we treat children.

(Adapted from earlier posting at http://www.scribd.com/doc/563554/Children)

Why do men leave their children?

It may not be a popular subject but the fact of the matter is, women basically run the show once a child is involved. From potentially sending men to jail for non payment of child support to an extreme advantage in court when it comes to custody battles, many fathers are trapped by the system in a position where their perceived or actual choice is live as a slave or say goodbye to their children.

Forever punished for the social (most especially in the south) opinion that having unprotected sex was a contractual decision where in he was expected to agree to a life time of service for a moment’s pleurae. And that being poor for whatever reason is a dereliction of duty punishable by rape. Yes rape, since everything thinks prison rape is funny and therefor does nothing to stop it. And since men get put in prison for failure to pay child support.

Women do get a somewhat more brutal but less permanent and less fiscally crushing version of this, regarding the orientation of their legs. But it quickly passes. Social enlightenment has resulted in less women being chastised for sexual promiscuity (which is a very good thing in and of itself) but when a child is produced men in effect become the “sluts” if they are unable (Which in the mind of society is always synonymous with “unwilling”) to pay the premiums.

This is on top of the victim/princess mentality that ends up giving even the most irresponsible women a huge social pass on the grounds that the most (ir?)responsible party in an accidental birth is always the man. As if women have no sex drive, are in capable of lying, or simply should not be held accountable for their actions.

An additional sad fact that many fathers are aware of is that while the courts are brutal about enforcing payment of child support they care not one bit how the money is spent. Far too often child support pay goes straight to a drug dealer. The mothers in effect being socially rewarded for the resulting poverty, the perception being that the dead beat father isn’t paying enough. This area of the country is packed with psychotic pillhead mothers. (But I digress, the drug war is a whole other set of mindless manufactured problems.)

The situation is getting so bad that recently (past 10 to 20 years) family annihilation is becoming more common.

The combination of crushing economic pressure combined with the cruel social myth that poverty is a function of irresponsibility, along with the idea that the main thing a father must do is “provide,” on pain of incarceration no less, which in the minds of most legitimate men who’s only exposure to prison is TV, is a sentence of rape, it’s not surprising that many men choose to kill everyone involved.

Men have no representation in this country. Centuries of racist and sexist dominance has left they impression that men deserve whatever happens to them. I personally don’t believe in revenge. Just because my great grandfathers were slave owning monsters by today’s standards does not mean I deserve to have my intestines punctured with a broom stick.

This situation is why I personally have carefully evaded having anything to do with children or “family.” Unless one is in a high income bracket, “love” all too often is a life destroying affair for men. Women simply have too much power in this area. From the de facto position that those accused of sex crime are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent, and even then people lament them “getting away with it” (just ask Michael Jackson, who despite exoneration in the courts died convicted in the court of public opinion) to the other advantages laid out here, being a father is just too dangerous in America.

Typically men can’t even have this debate. Women are trained by the TV to carefully shut down any rational discussion of the situation with debate cards ranging from family responsibility to what its like to have a child. I’m routinely accused of being a pedophile, or a woman hating sexist, because of my speaking on out this subject.

Women can talk about how hard it is to raise a child or get a job, quite rationally blaming the economy and lack of opportunity for single mothers, but then they are allowed to turn around and go all determinist when speaking about the fathers. “Oh well he should man-up and get a job.” or “He shoulda thought of that before.” Failing to realize that 90% of available employment is subsistence at best.

Just look at the phrase, man up, we all know what it means. Well, what would woman-up mean? The emergence of the phrase “man up” indicates a serious problem with anti male sexism in this country. And regardless of my social position as a man in 1950, its not that way today.

Take wage slavery for instance. In the 50s as a man I could make enough from an entry level job to feed a family. It was a given that getting a job (any job) resulted in being paid sufficient to cover subsistence bills and have some left over. Thus child support was fair because it took most of that overage and gave it to the single mothers who could not work for themselves thanks to an overtly sexist work place.

But that system is no longer fair when you consider two key factors. 1. A huge portion of people require every dime of their income just to break even. There IS no more margin. Thus ANY fee is too much. and 2. Women can now get the same jobs men are expected to get. Though of course they are also bound by this subsistence income.

Today even two people working full-time is insufficient in many ways to properly raise a child. The situation is exacerbated by the political and economic upheaval. And yet men are expected to produce income regardless of the condition of the outside world, or else they are deadbeats. Many of them choose not to get a job. Many of them are deadbeats, but I ask you, if you were given the choice, destroy yourself attempting to do the impossible, or simply give up, which would you pick?

I’m not going to break my legs trying to jump to the moon. Are you?

Single parenting is a self fulfilling prophecy of doom for men. The courts and legislators defend single mothers on the grounds that there are far more single mothers than fathers, this ends up being true but not for the reasons claimed. This disproportionate population of single mothers presents the illusion that men don’t want to be fathers or that when they are they dump the children on someone else. When the defense of single mothers extends to a distinct advantage in custody cases, and a ferocious pattern of attack on fathers simply too poor to pay what the courts say they should pay, driving many men underground, you end up with a situation akin to a bully saying mockingly, “stop hitting yourself stop hitting yourself.” when clearly it’s the bully doing the hitting, because it is these very efforts to defend single mothers which create a disproportionate supply of single mothers. Rinse lather repeat.

I personally believe that if the courts were even handed in both custody and child support issues, the percentage of single fathers would approach 50%. (The approximate divorce rate.)

This is in addition to the tendency of younger women especially not to think things through. Pride is a huge part of the culture, and many women will go to custody bat, just to win, just to spite the father, just to “be with” their children, but once victory is had they find the pressures of motherhood overwhelming.

In many cases the fathers simply fail to pursue their rights because they recognize the potential futility of it, making the horrific choice to abandon their children or face potential disaster for them and the very children they want to see saved. Either they know they can’t afford to be a father, or they know that they can’t afford the lawyers since there is no such thing as men’s support structure in this country.

Sadly, The most intelligent men begin to see the system like so…

“Strange game, the only winning move is not to play.” – W.O.P.R.

Drug law causes drug crime.

It amazes me that we tolerate drug law given the lessons of prohibition.

By outlawing drugs we’ve created a criminal enterprise the likes of which the world had never seen.

This is all old hat, the debate is well established and the figures are there for anyone who knows how to use google. For me people fall into three categories with regard to drug law. Those who are ignorant, those who profit from the drug trade in some way (DEA or dealer), and those who are for across the board legalization.

This post is about how the future will look with regard to drugs.

Desktop manufacturing is going to change the world. And one of the first things people are going to do with the ability to craft items from the molecule up is create their own drugs.

Enforcement will be impossible and the drug trade will vanish. This will have two seriously positive side effects.

1. Drug law, and the related expense of enforcement will go with it, from the culture of drug testing, to the absurdly over crowded prisons.

In the face of a truly impossible job, the government in its infinite pragmatism will pretend social progression. As I said the data to do this today is already available, so it will be worlds easier in the future.

2. The Criminal empires funded and created by the drug trade will wither and die along with all the related violence and heart break.

Where’s the profit in growing cultivating refining shipping and manufacturing heroin when the future equivalent of a toaster oven can churn it out for 1$ a pound?

And don’t try to tell me they’ll sell the machines, because the machine will make the machines. You’ll have as much luck regulating them as you do MP3s.

We already have rapid prototyping devices (the grandfather of True DM) that can replicate up to 50% of its own components.

Drug use will become a health care issue, and a pretty unimportant one at that. Future historians will look back and realize a huge part of drug use was the anti establishment culture, just like in the 60s. Once drug law vanishes, once the government makes it clear it no longer cares, drug use even in the presence of perfect availability will drop off, for the very same reasons many people don’t smoke or drink despite availability.

Anti drug posters and after school specials and the like cause drug use in an adversarial and smart ass teen crowd. D.A.R.E. To make weed cooler than it is.

Stick it to the man, smoke a joint, right? What happens when the man doesn’t care.

People are not stupid they are just easily mislead. The simple fact is drugs are primitive. They are a chemical reflection of our ignorance. They are a neurological sledge hammer. Once drug use becomes fully a health care problem drug use will drop off to nothing. The only thing that will remain is functional addicts and drug hobbyists. The cannabis cup crowd and the people around you that are on drugs that you can’t even detect.

Mark my words, drug law’s days are numbered.

Very soon, despite The Company’s aspiration for total control, we will enter an era of unprecedented personal freedom and material wealth as the need for centralization drops away.

Robots and DM, will redefine what it means to be wealthy since the service and consumer economies will vanish.

“The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.”

So a 15 year old tells a 17 year old if you come near my house today I’m going to shoot you. The 17 year old piles in the car grabs two friends and goes to the dollar general across the street from said house.

Given the data I have so far, I’m going with hero.

The 17 year old for her quick wit gets capped in the leg, with a .22. A flesh wound so minor that she’s expected to be out of the hospital sooner than it took for Angelina Jolie to have her twins by C section.

I don’t see a problem here, in fact I’m happy. I see a bully getting what was due, and even if that’s not the case, it could have been with sufficient credibility that less kids will be beaten up today which will make them nicer adults tomorrow.

In my state, response with deadly (or potentially deadly) force is authorized if you feel you’re endangered. Warning someone to not approach on threat of said force, and having that person show up, with backup, in my mind constitutes more than enough of a threat to respond in this way.

Ironically her action defends her assertion (implied by said action), after all she knew she had the stones to fire, perhaps in her mind it was shoot or be shot. Or as I’ve personally encountered, brandish or be beaten to death.

Nothing takes the wind out of an abusive alpha thug asshole on a power trip like seeing a gun.

Besides, it was a rifle, and she put it in her leg, that seems like an attempt at non-lethal force. I can put a hole in a dime at 80 yards with my .22 and its an iron site bolt action job from the 40s.

The moral of this story is don’t be an abusive dickhead that tries to win with intimidation, you might get your legs blown off. If you’re prepared to fight be prepared to kill or die, or find a more adult solution to your grievance.

I do have the gutz to shoot you ill show you if you come to my (expletive) house right now…right now I will shoot your (expletive).

According to nbc 15.

Besides, the girl was older. I can’t help but see a bully that got what was coming.

I mean seriously, what 17 year old grabs two friends to go beat up a 15 year old?

I see this as a sign of society getting better, not worse. If more people were willing to stand up to those that scare them, and do what needs to be done when the chips are down, maybe we wouldn’t have bullies roaming in packs in the first place.

Trespassing cases should provide more than enough legal precedent here to exonerate the girl.

Why do people care you ask?

Because she’s property (aka a child) and has a vagina. If either are cute, this will explode into a sitcom and a book deal.

She’s getting spotlight because she fought back. Something children simply aren’t supposed to do according to our insane society, especially girls.

I mean just look at this gem uttered by the remarkably ignorant and fascist Boscobel Police Chief Jim Reynolds…

This is because of mobility of young people and communications they have available to them.

That’s right. Communications and mobility caused this. So, lock up your pets and make sure you muzzle them.

And for the record here is my reply to a bunch of whining crap on another page about this little spike of cultural maturity.

Brandon M. Sergent
Aug 1, 2008 at 7:50 pm

1.?Giving her a ride.? ?Best friend.?

So what? Neither of these things prohibits them from jumping in on a beating.

2.Cousins.

And? Newsflash: The majority of homicides are committed by friends and family.

3.”It’s NEVER okay to shoot someone. ”

Obviously you’ve never been scared for your life, good for you, now grow some perspective.

4.Dollar General.

So she’s told if she approaches the house today she’s getting a bullet so she decides to go shopping at the nearest store? I call Bravo Sierra, big time.

5. They have been fighting face to face for months.

Which only lends credence to a legitimate fear, and drives a stake in the dollar general innocent victim crap.

6. Look at how much of a spotlight this girl is getting for shooting someone.

As above. She’s getting spotlight because she fought back. Something children simply aren’t supposed to do according to our insane society, especially girls.

I’m tired of fights being trivialized. Rest assured the next credible physical threat I receive will be met with deadly force, as is my bloody right as a human, and hers as well. This girl probably saved lives. I promise you at least one person will think twice about fighting someone else now, given the level of publicity this is getting, and that could have prevented a death.

I know how quickly a fight can go wrong, not to mention the fact that they are HORRID even if you win. We need zero tolerance for assault initiation of any kind in this country, but shock and surprise a whole culture beaten by its own parents and daily hammered with nanny Company external discipline doesn’t see the point.

Andrea, all I have to say is, good for you honey.

7 points for balls, but negative 5 for forethought. Next time use a stun gun followed by a brick, it’ll fuck up your life less. But hopefully your sacrifice won’t be wasted. I really hope some bully somewhere is having second thoughts about beating on the little guy because of you.

FTR:
Much like gun control, I’m in favor of nuclear weapon freedom, for many of the same reasons.

I’m fine with everyone owning a handgun and a rifle and even a machine gun, but I don’t need everyone’s basement looking like a gun museum. Same with nukes, one or two for everyone. The really dangerous weapons don’t even need industry to produce anyway.

I think this is a good thing. Besides, on the whole nuclear power is safer than coal because you at least have a chance of safely dealing with its by product, where as you don’t with coal.

Edit: The moderator, the person with whom I am speaking, I later found out was not American, and has English as a second language, and so expecting him to respect ideas like freeness of speech and the absence of censorship would be ethnocentric, and expecting him to fence with me verbally would be radically unfair.

In short in my view the man is utterly off the hook, but I leave this post here because my attack does still apply to those who would defend censorship out of fear, or greed.

—

This post is a copy of an exchange I had with a moderator of a gaming forum that has bowed to censorship pressure applied by Blizzard, a gaming company (WOW, Diablo, etc).

The board has an anti hack policy because it is scared shitless of upsetting Blizzard because the owners of the forum have no spine, and no money even if they had a spine.

They deleted my post where in I explained how to use Autohotkey (a perfectly legitimate macro utility) to make life easier when playing Diablo 2.

They claimed it was a hack, I disagree.

Note: This was purposefully not proofread in the interests of time, and I will not edit this because I want it to reflect what I actually sent in the interests of intellectual honesty.

—

Mod:
“How do you define hack then?”

Me:
An alteration of the game to produce an advantage totally not possible without said hack, IE M@phack.

“Just because it’s open source, it’s not a hack?”

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying because it is open source you can go confirm for yourself that it is not a hack, it does not do anything to diablo files, period. Answer my question about the keyboard, if I had a hardware dfevice that recorded and played back macros would that also be a hack in your mind?

“What if the author of m@phack released its source to the public tomorrow?”

Then you’d know exactly how m@phack circumvents file integrity to produce an illegal command as far as the game rules go. AHK must by definition work within the game’s rules.

“It stops being a hack because I can go look at the code?”

No, see above.

“But this doesn’t matter all that much. Still, the unfair advantage point stands.”

Not really, all AHK does is eliminate the need for practice to produce instant muscle memory recall. I think sufficient money to not have to work to allow for that practice is an unfair advantage. AHK levels the playing field. AHK does not confirm strategic advantage, it simply obviates the need for hours of tedious training. As I said the BEST AHK can do is equal the game’s potential speed.

“I don’t play PvP either, but it’s obvious that it gives you advantage over your enemy.”

No it isn’t. I still have to have a tp, I still have to survive long enough for it to open, and I still have to be standing in the same place. In short, the rules of the game still apply. Once again it does not alter the game it simply applies a convenience. and again what about a sweet monitor a fast computer and connect a good mouse a good desk a good chair? Seems to me you over look all the “unfair” advantages that stem from money while attacking he ones that are free.

“If Blizzard wanted going to town to be that convenient, as you put it, they would have made a hotkey for it, don’t you think? ”

They did. The function keys and a wheel. All AHK does is make them all easier to use, and that is not a bloody hack any more than a stick of ram is.

“Let’s say we’ve learned over the years. Let’s say that we managed to exist over the years exactly because of these policies. And let’s say that I’m not going to further discuss our relationship with Blizzard. ”

*facepalm* I simple can’t express how disgustingly sycophantic that appears to me. I wouldn’t want to discuss a relationship of total servitude either.

“I could say the same thing about your position…”

And you’d be demonstrably logically incorrect, but hey it works for the Scientologists, maybe my theta levels really are important.

“…then who’s to decide who’s wrong and who’s right?”

Reality. Look into it.

“But I wasn’t the one to resort to insults, was I? ”

I never insulted you I insulted your position and you in so far as your actions define yourself. If you shoot someone in the face you’re a killer, the end. That’s not an insult just because you don’t like it, it’s a fact.

And if we’re going to go there who’s resorting to abuse of power and intimidation tactics? You’re too scared of the great white father to even let me disclose my position publicly. My position is looking more valid by the second to any objective eye.

“Only comes to show how weak your arguments are. ”

Yeah, that’s a laugh, so weak that you wont even let me share them. So weak that you threaten me and erase every trace of them. I’d rather be an asshole than a coward.

“As for rising to position of power – let’s just say that when one agrees with what those in position of power have to say, then he doesn’t need to question it.”

Please, you and I both know you’ve merely rationalized the idiocy that grants you a perceived advantage. It amazing what people will do for a badge.

Just ban me and be done with it, because I’m never going to kiss your boot. I tried to help you fucking people, and you go all nazi on me. I’m not sure I’d care too awful much at this point, I’m disgusted and disappointed. I deeply hope the majority of you are teenagers, that would excuse this behavior and lack of logic to a large degree.

——

Reply:

You’ll be surprised to know that most of us are well past their teenager years, have life, jobs, families and so on, me included. You don’t know the first thing about me, but you go berserk on me on things that you don’t have idea about, for example how I became an administrator on the site. Think whatever you want, but know that your assumptions are far from the truth.

To answer your question about the comfy chair – a comfy chair isn’t software. This is a software forum and we have to draw a line somewhere between software that can be discussed and software that can’t be discussed.

Anyway, I really don’t see a point in wasting any more of my time in this discussion. Every once in a while, someone appears that simply has to question all decisions made by the staff and send lengthy PMs. But face it, someone has to run this place and someone has to decide what’s right and what’s wrong on the site. If you don’t like it, then there are plenty of unmoderated forums on the web.

Heh. My reply…..

For the record the rest of my message is personal, so if you’re the type to kick me after you have your point shattered to the point of embarrassment, you are free to not read beyond this point. And never speak to me again.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Still with me? Ok then… I warned you.

“You don’t know the first thing about me…”

I know that for some reason you care what I think and feel.

I know you didn’t respond to a single one of my points, which I am forced to conclude stems from a lack of reasonable response. Of if that was too complex for you. You’re wrong and thus have no response beyond what amounts to calling me names.

I know you’ve chosen to characterize my attack as one on you personally when in fact I’ve attacked ideas which you may or may not possess. That you’ve taken those theoretical attacks as personal affronts speak to the extreme likelihood that I’ve hit the nail on the head.

I know that one can have a family and a job and still be extremely immature, in fact usually families are the result of immaturity given the teen pregnancy rate and the high percentage of pregnancies in the united states being unintentional.

No I don’t know your trivia, address anecdotal personal history etc, nor do I care. I’m speaking to your actions and the ideologies defended and supported by those actions (and omissions).

“This is a software forum and we have to draw a line somewhere between software that can be discussed and software that can’t be discussed.”

That’s not an answer to the question. Again, because you know full well you’re full of it. But as long as we both know it, my goal is met.

“someone has to run this place”

And apparently that someone is the shadow of blizzard since you’re so callow you wont even wait till a complaint is lodged you’re labor under some sycophantic delusion regarding what they Might want and your ever present fear of your master’s punishment. Taken to such an extreme that you endorse a total dismantling of freeness of speech and wanton censorship of anyone who even hints at opposition.

The only reason you tolerate this is because they’ve bought you off with a milk bone of illusory power.

But that’s fine, my original motivation was to enhance the quality of this board, your callow deletion of it corrects a mistake I didn’t even know I had made in that regard, namely that you don’t deserve my aid.

“lengthy PM”

Have I moved beyond your limited attention span? My apologies.

“then there are plenty of unmoderated forums on the web.”

No there aren’t, because sadly your flavor of cowardice is quite common. The whole of the American presence on the Internet seems to deeply fear an angry letter form anyone with a tie. Not surprising given the other injustices we tolerate daily. Your actions are symptoms of a much deeper social problem totally outside your capability to understand. Besides non of them host LOTH, or tons of other mods. You hold people creative works hostage and you damn well know it, so don’t act like I have a choice because you know I don’t. If I really had a choice, then you’re status as mod would be utterly meaningless and you’d not being their slave because they’d have nothing to bribe you with.

But you’re right about one thing, this conversation is pointless. you’ve proven yourself incapable of rational discourse and debate, or even the pretension of willingness to contemplate the validity or invalidity of your precious boards so called policies.

Beyond that your lack of literary skill has robbed this exchange of any entertainment value for me.

And if that slipped past that enormous head of yours, I’ll put it more simply.

You’re boring me to death.

As I said, please, feel free to never speak to me again. I’m sure you have apples you’d rather be polishing anyway.

The Boy Hero and How to Deal With Terrorists

ST. JOHNS, Ariz. — An Arizona boy charged in the shooting deaths of his father and another man kept a ledger of his spankings and told a Child Protective Services worker that when he reached 1,000, that would be his limit, according to a newly released police report.

Good. The boy deserves a medal not a sentence.

I only wish more people who happen to be under the age of 18 would execute their abusive shit for brain excuses for parents.

Yes, I’m 100% serious. Yes I know what I’m saying.

It’s quite simple. If you are capable of hitting your own child with the intenion to cause pain you deserve death. And if justice were truly served it would be at the hands of your victim.

I don’t know how much plainer I can make it.

Say it with me. Children are people. People have rights. One of those rights is reasonable protection from assault.

If that is too complex for you, then you aren’t human. You’re an abusive alien that has infiltrated our society and taken a child hostage. And as such, I’d happily watch your head explode, like any other terrorist taken care of in good order by a marine or SWAT sniper in order to protect an innocent.