Journal
26 May, 2010
The Role of Abortion-Rights in our Culture
Obama does not want girls who make a mistake to be "punished with a baby". And guys? well, I doubt that one of Obama's talking-points would be that we should equalitize the laws which allow a woman to either kill a man's child without his consent, or indenture him into two decades of servitude against his will.
The idea that "pro-choice" is about freedom is indefensible. Regardless how much a given person 'feels' that pro-choice is about freedom - nevertheless, in our culture, abortion rights are afforded only for the purposes of population-control, dividing and conquering men and women, and controlling men via women.
26 May, 2010
Women Should Know Their Place (accurate self-esteem)
Many in our culture have foolishly come to believe that the benefits of positive self-esteem has no limit: the higher you esteem yourself, the better. In reality, your self-estimation should be accurate, and anything 'more' than accurate will be debilitating. In our culture, flattery is among a woman's most recurring enemies. Initially, a woman may enjoy the flattery; but eventually the flattery helps the woman to become exceedingly useless and unhappy. Such is not the help that anyone wants!
Every inch of the fashion industry competes amongst itself with various trade-marked snake-oils, aimed to sell each socially stupefied woman that which promises to make her seem outwardly as important as she feels inwardly. Of course, since her self-importance is without principle, it is insatiable, and no matter how effective a given snake-oil is at making a woman seem outwardly important, still it will simply raise the bar, since she will continually adapt to the more and more elaborate symbols of importance, become bored with them, then bored with herself, then panicked into searching out the newest snake-oil, to raise the bar higher, and shield her evermore from recognizing how boring she is to others and herself.
Such a raised bar of symbols of self-importance is the reason that you can go into virtually any business in our culture and see the men dressed sanely - anything from a suit, tie, and dress-shoes, to simply a clean shirt and slacks; whereas the women - working the same job - will have meticulously styled hair, a meticulously falsified face (to appear as flawless as she is taught to believe she is), (usually) meticulously accentuated mammary glands, (usually) meticulously accentuated hind-quarters, and often even meticulously accentuated gastrocnemius muscles.
Some women are said to present themselves so affectedly in order to impress men; others believe that women present themselves so affectedly to compete with other women; the truth is that most women who present themselves so affectedly - they do so in order to convince themselves that they appear outwardly as important as they feel inwardly. And that is a high bar! because women, typically, are taught to be absolute mini-tyrants of self-importance.
Again - none of this nonsense is inherent to 'being a woman'. Rather, when a women is thoroughly ridiculous looking or ridiculous acting - this is not by her nature but by nurture: she will have been taught to appear unduly complicated and clownishly affected. And she will certainly have been taught to wear that complication and clownishness as a badge of honor.
Movies and books often contribute to raising the bar of her fetid self-importance. There is so much written and visual literature, in our culture, which serves to render women useless, clueless, and unhappy. Usually this literature will aim at appealing to the cartoonish self-importance of our culture's women. There are so many examples of stories in which a woman or girl has been instilled with an absolutely pathological sense of self-importance; the story invariably centers around a theme of no one recognizing how monolithically important is the woman or girl; and the entirety of the story is an unfolding of how all the people around her gradually come to recognize just how exceedingly important is the girl or woman. And the characters which fail to fall in line and worship the woman - those characters are either killed-off, or at least humiliated beyond repair. Cinderella could be thought of as the archetype of many of these stories.
In our culture, flattery - specifically, the resultant self-aggrandizement - is among a woman's most recurring enemies.
The following video shows an example of the reasoning skills of a woman who has been socialized with a pathological sense of self-importance (it is only coincidental that the topic which she addresses is abortion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sTjJ-3NdwE
*notice her indefensible insistence that the Orwellian statement of "medical liability begins at 24 weeks" is a powerful argument to defend abortion. (Again: that the topic is abortion is only coincidental.)
26 May, 2010
'Never an Excuse to Hit a Woman' (Bad Laws Make Stupid Women)
"There is never an excuse to hit a woman."
The foundation of the idea that there is never an excuse (for a man) to hit a woman is the idea that women are both weaker and more peaceful than men, and so should be especially protected. Because of the foolish rule of 'there is never an excuse to hit a woman', an interesting thing has happened in our culture: plenty women use the social-presumption that woman are weak and peaceful (and of the resultant over-protection) to attack men - mentally and even physically - whenever they care to, with absolutely zero fear of a counter-attack, and usually with zero fear that the man will even be able to effectively defend himself whatsoever against her attacks.
When a woman in our culture fearlessly attacks a man in our culture, that fearlessness is owed to the mental headlock into which a man is put when attacked mentally or physically by a woman. The mental headlock exists because both he and she have been socialized to believe that "there is never an excuse to hit a woman"... not even in self-defense.
Ridiculously, not even self-defense is seen as 'an excuse to hit a woman'. And there are various excuses given for why self-defense never comes up as 'an excuse to hit a woman'. The reasons given are invariably anti-male, sexist, hypocritical nonsense. And acceptance of the reasons cripples the minds of those women who would use the reasons - rendering the women as reckless, unreasonable hypocrites.
Plenty women in our culture are reckless, unreasonable hypocrites. These women have been socialized away from even their sense of self-preservation: they feel no fear, even when attacking people who could easily crush them in a fair fight. Of course, in our culture, a fight between a man and woman is almost never fair, and is instead a fight between 1) a man, and 2) a woman... who is bolstered by a mountain of sexist socialized ignorance which tells her not that 'there is never an excuse to hit', but that 'there is never an excuse to hit HER'.
Unsurprisingly, such idiocy goes to her head (taking up space where math and science belong).
Thankfully, the idiocy aforementioned is nurture, NOT nature: women who are reckless and hypocritical in the ways described above - they have been meticulously TAUGHT to be reckless and hypocritical. Chief among their corrupt socialization is their having learned that the rule is not "there is never an excuse to hit", but that "there is never an excuse to hit... a woman."
25 May, 2010
Someone to Hear YOUR Prayers, Someone Who Cares?
It is always unnerving to hear someone talk about how God chose to protect them against their leisure and bad choices, instead of protecting others from objective despondency.
What follows is an example:
Setting: One of the oldest friends of my family was just in a skydiving accident.
BRIAN:
Today I got the cast off and just a brace to wear on my leg until the15th of June......a mini hurdle passed. Still not happy with the
halo....I mean we can send a man to the moon yet to fix my broken neck we have to screw bolts into my skull?
... I'm joking really since the truth is 99% of people that have my break, the C1 & C2 vertebrae, don't survive or never move again........thank you Heavenly Father!
DONNA:
Well, good news/bad news but...it is forward progress! Hang in there...many prayers are still being said for you :)
JENNY:
It's the year of miracles:)) your a great man God is taking care of you!!
RUSS LINDQUIST:
to be fair, it is hard to imagine that'God' is looking out for you, in this instance, even as yesterday, today, and tomorrow 16,000 children died of hunger and preventable disease. If anything, it would be right to be glad that were born into culture which possesses advanced medical techniques. I understand the sentimental consolation of wanting to believe that a personal God was 'looking out for you'; your saving grace was cultural, via regional - not celestial.
BRIAN:
We all have that right to believe in what we want to and comment on others responses, that is a good thing about our culture also!
KRISTIN:
Wow...Russ is a downer! MY God watches over ME!!!!!
CARINA:
Amen!!
BRIAN:
You saw that too......we all have opinions, but we also can keep them to ourselves instead of showing the world how negative we can be!
MELINA:
It is a miracle indeed. :) Glad for some progress.
KRISTIN:
Yup...there IS a reason we have 2 ears and only 1 mouth!!!!
ANYWAY.... I ♥ You Daddy!!!
JODY:
Brian, I see you as my extra Dad, and I would be sad if YOU were taken from us...... So thank GOD, we are blessed with you on earth.... Hugs coming to you!
RUSS LINDQUIST:
but what good is a "right to speak" within a society which teaches a disdain for introspection? I do realize that I, personally, still gain the benefits of speaking honestly, though unpopularly; yet what good does hearing unpopular honesty do for those socialized to disdain introspection? Some would say nothing. Still, in my grand humility, I hold out hope and am willing to point at a thing and describe it without guile, to even the most self-righteous, spiritually jaded persons.
"Russ is a downer"? It would have been interesting to, instead, hear a more descriptive, accurate statement than "Russ is a downer". 'Russ' has nothing to do with this. Instead, it should be "what a downer to hear a clear, reasonable opinion with which I disagree - I much prefer being exposed to things which offer no challenges, especially those which lull me into a false sense of moral superiority."
KEITH:
1 Corinthians 3:19 (King James Version) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
BRIAN:
Thanks! Love ya, Brian.
ALEX:
“To be fair”, is this really the time and place to bash someone’s personal beliefs? Brian narrowly escaped quadriplegia and death, and is now confined in a halo brace for six months minimum. I’m all for discussion and debate over varying opinions, but this seems like a time when a nice comment or simple silence would have sufficed. Your sesquipedalian banter is very amusing, but perhaps another occasion would be more appropriate. Brian is unable to walk more than a couple steps without feeling exhausted and in pain, so even if he wanted to believe that the tooth fairy saved him from his demise, I would let him for now.
That is all.
STEVE:
Brian, we love you good friend. My parents (as are we) are praying for your speedy recovery!
Russ, your "right to speak" comes directly from your ability to choose an opinion. To choose requires the existence of opposites. Life and death, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, good and evil, etc. As you indicated... even believing in God is a choice. To believe in God is to believe that he gave us the ability to choose between each set of opposites. Fortunately, we are able to experience the consequences of our actions, either to our benefit, or detriment. To believe that God does not exist simply due to the fact that we are able to experience both happiness and sorrow is not, in my opinion, a defendable argument. Your ability to experience life to its fullest, both emotionally and physically is the greatest gift God has given us. Only by having the ability to choose to love or hate/deny God can we truly demonstrate a sincere desire to obey Him and love Him.
However, God has promised to not interfere with our ability to choose which is why so many needlessly suffer at the hands of others choices. Thank you for sharing your opinion which allowed me to rethink mine and to feel gratitude for it!
RUSS LINDQUIST:
Steve, you are creating arguments that I never made... and busying yourself with them. Unsurprisingly, the counter-punches to your strawmen are the very platitudes which no doubt console you. Nevertheless, I did not speak of doubting the existence of god. You made that up. So since it's you against you... surely win your fight.
Alex, you should take your arrogant, passive-aggressive nonsense; put it in a bundle; put that bundle on a stick; then hitchhike over to Keith's 1 Corinthians 3:19. (And stop by Romans 1:22, if you think to.)
Brian, Alex's says, " if he wanted to believe that the tooth fairy saved him from his demise, I would let him for now." If that sentiment does not chill you to your spiritual bones, then you have not been close enough to death.
STEVE:
Interesting. I didn't realize my strawmen were throwing counter punches, or speaking consoling platitudes... I'll have to talk to them about that... Here's to the day we all remember everything we have forgotten.
KRISTIN:
Praying for Russ through gritted teeth
CONNIE:
Glad to see the second part of the comment! Hope you are feeling better! We love you and are praying for you.
KEITH
Isaiah 55:8-9 (King James Version)
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
SHARON:
A halo... so your thinkin your an Angel these days and can fly I hear.... LOL... all kidding aside, so happy to see good news! We are off to Europe tomorrow early AM...your halo should be gone by then and the horns coming back in...hehehe
AMALIA:
hooray for that hurdle passed! agree in amazement w/the moon-screws in the skull status. sheesh.
prayers for you. we are thankful you are with us.
love, the j family
DONNA:
God gave you life. Then blessed you with doctors that could do the things that will help you to have a quality of life back again. Faith will help you heal. Gods love will help you to endure. Get well very soon.
10 May, 2010
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: Ecclesiastes 3:1
LIZ:
For every minute you spend angry, you loose 60 seconds of happieness. My new moto at least for today. :0)
RUSS:
when pedophiles are happy, are they, thus, on the right track? And is it 'a wasted 60 seconds of happiness' to be angry about pedophilia?
LIZ:
I don't believe that pedophiles know true happiness, I think if they did, they would not be able to rob so many others of it. As to the waste of 60 seconds, Everything has a time. So no, I don't believe every bit of anger is a waste, but some seconds are are better used as happiness.
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: Ecclesiastes 3:1
RUSS:
"no, I don't believe every bit of anger is a waste, but some seconds are are better used as happiness"
So then I recommend that you take the time to thoughtfully rewrite your original assertion, namely that in fact, "...every minute you spend...you loose..."
And my perspective on the principle of the matter:
Ecclesiastes 3:1 is perhaps where so many get the indefensible phrase "everything in moderation." Either way, neither is respectable. That passage of the bible is foolish: there is not a "time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." Do you know that, about a decade ago, a mother stuffed her three children into a dishwasher, killing them? I recommend that you not just shudder and dismiss that fact. You should let it affect your perspective on Ecclesiastes 3:1. Also, do not tell Nikolai Vasilev that "there is a time for everything", because in April of 2005, he returned to his Florida home to find his 9-year-old Christian and 3-year-old Grace had been stabbed to death by their mother. Each had been stabbed over 100 times. Authorities concluded that there were a great deal of wounds which were caused by the children trying to defend themselves.
Again - you can block this out of your mind, or not take the time to picture the last moments of those kids lives through their eyes and sense; you can even delete my having said this, but it still happened. And, no - there is not "a time", nor is there "a season" for it.
10 May, 2010
50 year old man sexing a girl under 18: legal in 38 of 50 states
Should a 50 year old man who has sex with a girl under 18 face criminal charges? If you think so, then your goal should be to change the laws of the 38 states of our country wherein such a situation is perfectly legal. Only 12 states agree with you.
Certainly, many people have heard stories of males in their early 20's getting into serious trouble for engaging in sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old. Though there are certainly exceptions, those situations usually involve misinformation about state-laws, for the purpose of terrorizing a male, and often this terrorizing is a last-resort, after aims to dissuade a female's sexual goals has proved unsuccessful.
And when it does not work to distract her from her sexual goals with all manner of self-indulgence and social inanities, then the move is to begging that she should change her sexual goals; and when begging her does not work, interested parties move on to simply threatening those with whom the girl has chosen or may choose to have sex with - lying to any and every one of her (male) sexual partners and potential-partners, threatening every male within the girl's sphere of sexual influence that if they help her to achieve her sexual goals then they are a criminal - a sexual deviant, even a pedophile. Still, such terroristic threats, such vigilantism is not backed by the law of our land, but by only the slippery deception of interested parties.
All in all, by the popular modus operandi described above, the mode of persuasion and begging is reinforced to the female; whereas the mode of terrorism and vigilantism is reinforced to the male... all in the name of social-engineering, population control.
I would say that the most telling social-engineering laws are right here in California: the age-of-consent is 18, and parents have the right to take responsibility out of the hands of their "underage" daughter, and prosecute the male, when the daughter chooses to have sex; while concomitantly we have anti-disclosure abortion laws, wherein the same daughter has the right to receive abortions without informing her parents. Therefore, in California, the letter of the law is this: "Girls may choose to have an abortion; but girls may not choose to have sex."
The social atmosphere described above is not about freedom; it is not even logical - it is simply about social-engineering, population-control.
10 May, 2010
Pattie's Tribulations
Deb's mom, Pattie has been a big retarding influence on Deb's sensibilities, towards me, ever since I have known the two of them. Below are the lyrics to my song "Pattie's Tribulations". It is a song about Deb's mom, Patricia Difiglia.
Here is a link to the audio: http://russlindquist.info/flash/patties_tribulations.swf
For any clarification as to why I would write such a song... simply refer to the lyrics. That should be enough. If not, let me know. True enough - Pattie's dad molested her, throughout her childhood, up until she was 12-years-old. Still, that does not mean Pattie can be unaccountable for the rest of her life. And you armchair philosophers are welcome to argue the finer points of "pro-choice" all you want; nevertheless, Pattie wanted both Athena and Aiden to die, and for me to have had no say. My son and daughter will grow up knowing that their grandma wanted them dead, then wanted me disassociated from them. I support a murderous grandmother's right to be outted.
THE LYRICS
Pattie seduced her daddy, when she was just a child.
Maybe that's not exactly true; but who needs truth,
when Pattie's goal was to kill her grandchildren?
Pattie married a pedophile (Deb's dad), when she was twenty-one.
She said that man raping kids turned her on.
Pattie is a pedophile and she has killed her grandchildren.
Pattie abandoned her kids, when she was thirty-eight.
She found love on the internet, and thus made her escape.
She didn't really like the fact that her internet-lover was fat, smelly and black.
(That was Loren. He was sexually inappropriate with Deb, by the way.)
Pattie is a masochistic racist and she kills her grandchildren.
Pattie cheated on her second husband, when she was forty, with a random, limp-dick, adulterous sailor named Rudy (Rudy Difiglia, her current husband). She said, "A mindless, spineless, Italian pussy is the kind of man for me." So she pretended to fall in love, with a limp-dick from the navy.
All of that true, as is the fact she wishes he were never home so she could cheat on him more often. She wishes he was out to sea - that's when she cheats. (That was ABSOLUTELY true, at the time of my writing this.)
Pattie has already had a hand in killing her own grandchildren. Pattie helped her daughter, Stacey kill her child (she was 15). Let's face it: sometimes a grandma just needs to kill her grandkids. Pattie kills her grandkids.
So it came to me as no surprise, when Pattie tried to kill my child. My daughter was born three months early, thanks to the stress put on her mother, by neglectful, spitful grandma Pattie, who was too busy escaping back to her youth. She's "getting it right this time" (In reference the new child, she told Torrie, Rudy's daughter that she - Pattie - and Rudy were "going to get it right, this time".) Even as her children needed help, she neglected them and escaped into a facade of motherhood: My one-pound twelve-ounce daughter, and her first-time-mother mother were relegated to an uninsulated room (a garage), even as a perfectly ready room lay EMPTY - perfectly available (intended for Pattie's "getting it right" child who was due MONTHS later).
Pattie excels as bad grandma.
Pattie excels as bad mother.
Pattie sicked child-protective-services on my children, as retaliation for me not giving my daughter birthday-cake. I did not give my daughter birthday-cake, which resulted in my daughter's fat, pro-choice Aunt Stacey critiquing my parenting, which resulted in me pointing out that a fat, pro-choice person should not give advice about parenting - certainly not NUTRITIONAL advice! you fat, murderous fuck. So, in the end, two fat, pro-choice women called child-protective services, as retaliation.
Pattie is a bad mother. Her daughter excels at brattiness. Soon enough, Pattie will seek to shift the blame, away from her own bad parenting, onto Andrea - shift the blame onto her confused, conflicted, helpless daughter Andrea. (It certainly has ended up happening - now "Andrea is just out of control".)
P.S.: Rudy is an emotional-retard and has an unfaithful wife (unfaithful in every way, especially emotionally). And this is the kind of shit that makes women contract-out men, to kill the men who shouldn't be offending women.
Pattie seduced her daddy, when she was just a child. Maybe that is not exactly true; but she never really needed truth - she just kills her grandchildren. Now and again, she can be found killing her grandchildren... and then calling ME a bad dad?
I am a bad dad, according to Pattie. I was not welcome - I was not allowed to come around (to her house, even when my kids were there and Deb still took my kids over there), even as her bratty-ass daughter terrorized my very peaceful, very kind, very gentle son. Personal note to Pattie: "Pattie, when I found out about you letting Andrea terrorize my son, this is what I said to Deb:
"Andrea is just a child, being mad at her does not help. So if this happens again, I am beating the shit out of your mom and her husband (Pattie and Rudy - Andrea's parents, Deb's mom and step-dad)."
21 April, 2010
Addressing (Bad) Argument: 50% Marriages become Divorces = Marriage does not matter = Homosexuals should marry
The following is a "pro-gay-marriage" argument that is being pass around online:
Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? REALLY??... Feel free to copy and paste if you agree and support gay marriage!
Some things to consider:
1) the divorce-rate is 50%
2) since Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor have 16 divorces between them, then
3) to get a divorce-rate of 50%... 16 other marriages need to stay together.
Think about it: a couple who stays together for 70 years - they count as 1 marriage; whereas Larry and Liz count as 16 marriages. So the argument that marriage does not mean much, because 50% of marriages end in divorce -- that is a weak argument, considering that it is such a misleading statistic.
Nevertheless, I agree with the overall thesis: marriage between a homosexual couple would not, indeed cannot "ruin the sanctity of marriage". Still, what can ruin the sanctity of marriage is widespread acceptance of divorce.
Every honest, informed person who wants to "save marriage" must, in good conscience, first pass a constitutional amendment would ban divorce, before ever even considering an amendment which would disallow marriage between persons of the same sex. Anyone who puts banning homosexual marriage before banning divorce is either dishonest or ill-informed.
For now, until something changes, marriage in our culture provides two, amoral (a-moral, not im-moral) things:
1) a legal contract for the purposes of wealth distribution, especially inheritance (as "marriage" has always fundamentally been)
2) a license to screw
Thus, marriage in our culture, though not at all inherently sanctified, is inherently sanctimonious.
21 April, 2010
6 April, 2010
*The following is my response to any Christians, however well-meaning, who would tell me, "Jesus Loves You."
The Book of Russ, Chapter 1
- Remember: the mental-masturbation of "Jesus LOVES you" means something to you. It means nothing to me. At all.
- Further, I do not like Jesus. At all.
- Further still, one day, in hopes of being proven wrong about my belief that the bible is 100% false, I will make all the statements which - when made in the "biblical times" - caused that angels came down, or that caused God to show his wrath, et cetera.
- I suspect that nothing will happen, when I make these statements; however, if I am wrong - if, for example, on behalf of God, angels were to appear - then I would surely not "cower", nor "cringe", nor "grind my teeth", et cetera. Instead, I will come unto those angels, yea even unto them.
- Neither hither nor thither shall I come, but directly shall I come unto them.
- And when I am come unto them shall I firmly say, "Get your stupid, angel asses over to Africa, and stop the widespread death of children from hunger and preventable, treatable disease;
- then get your stupid, angels asses over to Mexico, China, Thailand, et cetera, and stop the sex-slavery of children;
- then get your stupid, angel asses back up to heaven and tell your lame-duck God to profess his will - via book or otherwise - in such a manner that it can be understood simply through earnestness."
- And if Christianity turns-out to be the one true path - and not just a regional construct for emotional circle-jerking - then come the day of judgment, God, too, will get an earful from my wrath, regarding his choices for prophets, seers, evangelists, and so forth.
- Unless, of course, by his arrogance and cowardice, God incapacitates me with mind-bullets, such that I can but be in speechless awe, amidst his lame-duck presence.
- No thanks - I do not want your "Jesus LOVES you".
12 March, 2010
Thanks to the internet, neither republicans nor democrats can easily escape the scrutiny of increasingly informed critics. Still, plenty Bush supporters resisted the obvious. Likewise, as plenty Obama supporters, now, resist the obvious. Nevertheless the internet overwhelms such resistance - it shines too bright a light, and makes visible many realities which, previously, politicans and their fans had a much easier time avoiding. The internet has shown that it can even overwhelm big-media. The internet has forever changed the way of politics.
Throughout the presidential administration of George W. Bush, the internet proved to be a potent tool for showing evidence against the government. However, at that time, only the opponents of George Bush used the tool; and although the internet had revolutionized methods of political criticism, there were still many republicans who simply ignored even the most piercing, damning commentaries and juxtapositions against George Bush. Nevertheless, such potent political criticism - often brought by simple, amateur social-critics - was introduced to the world. The revolution began. And now no one can ever erase the writing on the wall.
With the election of Barack Obama, the role of Bush supporters has reversed. Before, they were the stubborn ignorers of powerful criticisms, yet they now suffer on the receiving-end: their powerful criticisms are being ignored. Still, in the age of the internet, politicians and their fans can less and less afford to ignore powerful criticism; and if they try to, then their credibility will quickly crack and crumble.
Today, there is more potential than ever before for common people to be well-informed critics. Almost everyone knows how to consult alternative sources of media. With these alternatives, critics can easily find and share the types of flagrant mis-speaks, gaffes, and downright lies of politicians which, in the past, were typically downplayed, mis-contextualized or ignored by politicians, their fans, and the media-giants.
Because of the internet, big-media is less of a factor. Big-media has always been a tool - used by ruling elites - to manage the 'lower' classes; and until the internet, big-media was pretty much a monopoly, which the U.S. oligarchy could use - unchallenged - to quickly and easily dictate the perspective of the general public.
In the past, our ruling elites could comfortably enjoy their oligarchy. In the past, they easily oversaw their plantation and its mis-informed serfs, with the unchallenged help of their loyal lap-dog, big-media. But the internet is leashing the lap-dog.
The internet is creating a rebirth of the potential for effective, informed democracy. This rebirth is inevitable.
And the time is quickly approaching.
Recognize how rapidly the internet has grown as a tool for undermining our oligarchy: in the last presidency (that of G.W. Bush), it took years for detractors to build their potent indictment of the president's deceptive, corrupt words and actions. Yet Obama has barely finished one year in office, and already there is a mountain of incontrovertible evidence which shows that his words and actions are deceptive and corrupt.
It is 2010, and virtually every politically-minded person knows the value of independent study. And now even the most common person - the most amateur critic - can double-check the assertions of the oligarchy's big-media lap-dog against alternative sources of media. So the truth becomes harder and harder to bury in the yard.
During the government of the liar George W. Bush, the internet began the rebirth of democracy. By the end of the presidency of the liar Barack Obama, the child will awaken.
Soon, the child will walk.
The internet is the most powerful tool, in the history of the world, for realizing an effective, informed democracy. Now, politicians must be more and more honest, and are more and more accountable. At times, they can still lie and get by. That will change, as the child grows.
10 March, 2010
Today, I recalled a few interesting events from my past...
Years ago, I was assaulted by four gentlemen of African-American descent. I suffered a concussion and a fractured skull. To them, it was about race; to many who have heard the story (in full) - it was about race; to me, it was about four people who would do better if they knew better. Moreover, if anyone should be pitied, it would be the next two people (years later) who attacked me. I vented a lot of my frustration and fear on their faces. Though it was self-defense, I am extra-lucky that they were both gentlemen of Caucasian descent... so I was never in the running for a hate-crime.
Another time in my life, while working as technical internet support for Cox Communications, I was sexually harassed by a female supervisor, then fired. Her name was Toni Savoy. Her name is probably still Toni Savoy ;) The story, in full, is quite unbelievable.
Also unbelievable were my experiences in bootcamp for the United States Navy. I was in bootcamp for about nine months (long story). I personally met hundreds, if not thousands, of people and heard their personal life stories. Especially, they would tell me their motivations for joining the military. In bootcamp, I was clear-headed and skeptical... amidst innumerable mercenaries-in-training. Nearly each and every one of them wanted to quit. They wished for a way out. But nearly none of them found a way out - they did not know how to leave; because they were told that - if they were to quit - they would face criminal charges: a two hundred-fifty-thousand dollar fine and up to five years in prison. That was not true. Still, nearly all of them were too scared and sleep-deprived to question anything. That was in 1999. Those people are, now, your United States military personnel, after having endured some of the same mind-altering tactics which are used on those whom we hold as prisoners of war, including - but certainly are not limited to - meticulously implemented sleep-deprivation, and participation in raucous, hyperbolic chants of psychopathy: "If I am captured, I will die trying to escape; or, if I have information that may compromise my mission, I will kill myself so that I am not tortured to the point of sharing what I know. And if I must kill myself, then I will also kill as much of the enemy, before I die, that I am able to". Many who chanted things such as these will hardly remember having done so (at least not consciously). Instead, they will have compartmentalized their mind away from the experiences.
9 March, 2010
I started my journal page today... hooray!