If I could time travel I would go back in time so I could order something on Amazon and come back to the present so the thing I ordered would be waiting for me.
*.*
Special Forces To Change ‘Free The Oppressed’ Motto After Complaints From Afghans Holding Sex Slaves
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — Top Army leaders have ordered its elite Special Forces unit to change its motto from the Latin “De Opresso Liber” (To liberate the oppressed) to something that would be more culturally sensitive, after a large number of Afghans holding child sex slaves have complained.
“We want to make sure we are not offending our coalition partners and not judging them based on our own biases,” said Col. Dwight S. Barry, a Pentagon spokesperson. “At the end of the day, we just have to respect that raping young boys and mutilating female genitals is just a part of their culture.”
Started in 1952, Army Special Forces chose its Latin motto of “De Opresso Liber” at a time when the U.S. was heavily focused on freeing people around the world from the chains of Soviet Communism. Now decades later, Army leaders want operators to be more aware of cultural differences they may not understand in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Berkeley, California.
The move comes in the wake of numerous complaints from Afghan men, who have chided U.S. military officials over previous run-ins with Special Forces soldiers unaware of the ancient Afghan custom of “bacha bazi.” The practice, which literally translates to “boy play,” consists of chaining children to beds, taking off their clothes, and then sexually assaulting them until they scream “bingo.”
Anger over U.S. military insensitivity toward “bacha bazi” is not the only issue in which Afghans have raised concern. The use of Special Forces “night raids” on high value targets has aroused suspicion among many locals in the past, and U.S. troops expressing discomfort around opium-addicted Afghan policemen as they throw acid in the faces of young girls has strained coalition partnerships.
In one high-profile incident, two Special Forces soldiers beat up an American-backed militia commander after they had learned he had raped a young boy and beat up his mother, a practice which goes back centuries and is perfectly normal in Afghan society. Fortunately, one of the American soldiers decided to leave the Army after the incident, while the other is being kicked out.
Officials are currently weighing a number of potential mottos as replacements, which include “Tolerate Iniustitia (Tolerate Injustice)” and “Ad Dissimulare (To Turn a Blind Eye).”
In addition to the change in motto, the Army band has also been directed to record a new version of the “Ballad of the Green Berets,” which was recorded during the Vietnam War. An initial draft of the lyrics include: “Silver wings upon their chest / These are men, America’s best / One hundred slaves get raped today / But all ignored by the Green Beret.”
*.*
A drunk is sitting on the street curb in front of a bar. A stranger comes buy and asks if he's O.K.
The drunk replies by asking, "Do you know who I am?"
The stranger says "No. Who are you?"
The drunk proudly says "I'm Jesus Christ... and I can prove it! Come with me!"
They enter the bar and the bartender looks up and yells "Jesus Christ! Are you here again?"
*.*
I Love Her, But...
... she makes lists; Things to buy, things to do, people to call. If it's not on the list, it doesn't get done. Once, to be funny, I put "sex" on the list. Mistake. Now it has to be on the list, or it doesn't get done.
--Nick, Wheeling, W.Va.
... you can hear her eat soup from the next room.
--Bruce, Bridgewater, N.J.
... when she gets an idea in her head, there's no stopping her. And no rest for anyone until it's done. It's not so bad when the idea is to bake cookies, or even to go on vacation. But when it's to build a new house, or to get pregnant, things get pretty intense.
--Jim, Minneapolis
... every so often boom! Shes a brunette. Or I come home to a redhead. Actually, I have no idea what her natural color is.
--Cary, Seattle
... she'll brush her teeth but she won't go to the dentist. She says she's not afraid of the pain; she just doesn't want to put herself in the hands of any fellow who'd choose to be a dentist.
--Terence, Gary, Ind.
... Shes stopped shaving her legs. She says that now people will know she's a natural blonde.
--Ned, Tucson, Ariz.
... it annoys her that our children look like me.
--James, New Orleans
... with five kids, I don't have time to complain about my wife. I don't have time to notice her.
--Bob, Charleston, W.Va.
*.*
Three men are sitting in the maternity ward of a hospital waiting for the imminent birth of their respective children. One is an Englishman, one a black South African and the other a West Indian.
They are all very nervous and pacing the floor, as you do in these situations. All of a sudden the doctor bursts through the double doors saying "Gentlemen you won't believe this but your wives have all had their babies within 5 minutes of each other." The men are beside themselves with happiness and joy. "And", said the doctor...
"They have all had little boys." The fathers are ecstatic and congratulate each other over and over.
"However we do have one slight problem," the doctor said. "In all the confusion we may have mixed the babies up getting them to the nursery and would be grateful if you could join us there to try and help identify them."
With that the West Indian raced passed the doctor and bolted to the nursery. Once inside he picked up the white skinned infant saying, there's no doubt about it, this boy is mine!" The doctor looked bewildered and said, "Well sir of all the babies I would have thought that maybe this child could be of English descent."
"That's a maybe", said the West Indian, "but one of the other two is a fucking South African and I'm not taking the risk."
Issue of the Times;
Leftist Legal Fictions and the Atheists Who Love Them by David Cole
I’ve never had much use for smug, arrogant leftist atheists like Bill Maher, Ricky Gervais, or Seth MacFarlane, whose smarmy “aren’t we ever-so-clever” attitude I find as irritating as a bur sweater. But this week, it occurred to me that in their own way, these self-satisfied annoyances have done the world a service. In the days before “atheist chic,” your typical left-wing follow-the-leader type could usually be counted on to respond to serious and sober questions with disjointed New Age bullshit. “Why are the school district’s math scores plummeting?” “Well, maybe it’s because we’re, like, confining the children’s cosmic minds by forcing them to adhere to the fascist concept of right and wrong answers, man. Maybe seven plus nine actually does equal 84, and these rainbow starchildren are trying to teach us a new way of thinking, man.”
Don’t get me wrong; 1970s-style Shirley MacLaine hooey still exists and still gets spouted. But thanks to atheist chic, there’s a new crop of leftists who braid “What Would Dawkins Do?” into their hipster beards (or their armpits, in the case of the women). These young leftists shun chakras and past lives in favor of almighty science. It’s a step up from the days of “There are no objective standards.” The smug atheist leftists will at least admit that there are standards, and that there are mathematical and scientific facts (all hail Dawkins, PBUH).
The overwhelming majority of these smug atheists are pro-choice, which is why last week was such a bad week for the “science is my God” leftists. They found out, much to their chagrin, that tumors have internal organs. Don’t you just love science?
“Science fact is now hate speech, thanks to an irrational leftist legal fiction that denies biological reality.”
The typical atheist leftist doesn’t have the guts to admit that abortion involves extinguishing a living being. Rather than displaying the boldness that atheists love to think they possess by just flat-out admitting, “Yes, it involves ending a life, but I prefer it to the alternative of women being forced by the government to carry to full term”—which would be an intellectually honest position—they prefer instead to speak of fetuses as “tumors,” the removal of which should spark no more concern, and just as much joy, as the removal of a cancerous cyst. So the stark, unpleasant image of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the removal of fetal organs over a standard-issue hipster luncheon of salad and wine was not good news for the “IFLScience” set. Because the notion that fetuses are tumors is one of the great pseudoscientific myths of the “we’re superior because we reject myths” crowd.
But it’s not the only myth. If you know one of these smug atheist leftists, it’s almost inevitable that you’ve heard them self-righteously grouse about the Citizens United decision and “corporate personhood.” “Corporations are not people. Does a corporation have, like, lungs and a liver and a heart? No, man. Corporate personhood is not scientific.” Hey, leftists, please allow me to introduce you to the concept of “legal fiction,” defined as “an assertion accepted as true, though probably fictitious, to achieve a particular goal in a legal matter.” I’d tried my best after Citizens United to explain the purpose and value of legal fictions to my leftist friends. But since leftists are typically only capable of grasping a concept once it becomes clear how it benefits them (“States’ rights means racism! Wait, it also means legalized pot? States’ rights rocks!”), I think the aftermath of the Planned Parenthood video is as good a moment as any to explain to leftists how they benefit from legal fictions.
One of the most blatant legal fictions in the U.S. today is that life begins when a woman says it does. In most states, a woman can be on her way to an abortion clinic to get her “tumor” legally sucked out, but if she stops at a mini-mart to buy some smokes and rethinks her decision, and if she gets caught in the middle of a robbery and takes a bullet to the gut and loses the baby, the robber can be charged with murder for doing exactly what the abortionist was about to do legally. If a woman wants to get an abortion, the baby is a tumor and the act is legal. If a woman wants to keep the baby, it’s a baby and anyone else can be prosecuted for harming it. To deal with the obvious contradiction between prosecuting people who destroy fetuses in some situations and protecting those who do it in others, a legal fiction was created, namely that life begins when it’s wanted. A wanted fetus is a life. An unwanted fetus is a tumor.
Well, guess what? That ain’t science. That’s as phony a concept as a corporation being a person. But a leftist will undeniably argue that this legal fiction is necessary in a society in which the destruction of a fetus is legal if the mother desires it, but illegal if the mother doesn’t. And maybe it is necessary. I’m not weighing in at all with my own opinion on the abortion minefield. All I’m saying is that smug atheist leftists should confront the existence of this legal fiction, and they should probably ask themselves why they’re okay with a medical health policy that has absolutely no basis in science. I mean, if everything is supposed to be all rational and scientific and Neil deGrasse Tyson-approved and all, “Life begins when it’s wanted” is as far from scientifically sound as possible. Does human life begin at conception? At viability outside the womb? At birth? Wherever you stand, human life does not begin when it’s desired. That’s pure hoodoo-voodoo superstition.
Few leftists are willing to confront this big steaming bowl of irrationality, and when they do, it’s usually with no sense of irony or self-awareness. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing in Salon, argues that the difference between a stranger destroying a fetus and a woman and doctor doing the same is that the humanity of the fetus is based on the “dreams” of the mother. If the woman “dreams of becoming a mom,” and those dreams are dashed by anyone other than her, destroying a fetus is murder. The “science” of whether a fetus is a person or not comes down to the mother’s dreams. Science and medical policy based on dreams. Wow. And you’re okay with that, oh, ye spawns of Sagan? Should we hand over all medical science questions to a Yaqui shaman dream interpreter?
I could devote another entire piece to the new big leftist legal fiction—that gender is nothing more than how one chooses to “identify.” No biology involved at all, just desire, just pure old-fashioned wishing-well magic. This is, of course, another 100 percent antiscience construct. And it’s another way in which smug atheist leftists are proving that they can take to faith-based antiscience twaddle as easily as any “young Earth” creationist.
Last week, on what might as well have been called “Caitlyn Jenner Day” (also known as “the day hipster millennials learned there’s a channel called ESPN”), I posted this sentence in threads on a couple of trans-positive Facebook pages:
The fact is that women are different from men. The science backs this up. It’s taboo in some circles to suggest that we’re genetically different from each other, and yet we are. Sex is a biological construct. There are sex differences between men and women, and how those differences manifest and what happens, from a genetic level to how the body operates, is different.
In each case, I was attacked for being an ignorant, trans-hating bully, and my comments were removed. But that quote I posted…where’s it from? The first two sentences are from Phyllis Greenberger, president and CEO of the Society for Women’s Health Research (science!), writing in the Huffington Post. The rest is from Tamarra James-Todd, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School (science!), from an interview in The Guardian. Both women were writing about the dangers to women’s health posed by not including female test subjects in medical research.
Science fact is now hate speech, thanks to an irrational leftist legal fiction that denies biological reality. Most smug atheist leftists will undoubtedly deal with the cognitive dissonance by ignoring it. It’s amazing the extent to which the human mind can compartmentalize. “We’re better than those ignorant right-wingers because we believe in science, man! Oh, and fetuses are either living beings or nonliving tumors based entirely on the dreams of the mother, gender has no basis in biology, and wishing real hard can turn a dude into a woman.”
Best of luck in dealing with those contradictions, my little Bill Mahers. Vaya con ciencia.
Quote of the Times;
If you are going through hell, keep going. – Chruchill
Link of the Times;
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2015/09/will-desecration-by-syrian-immigrants.html
Smarmy?
Each?
There was a lady sitting on a bench when an old man came over to sit down.
He moved over to her side and said "Do you believe in the hereafter?"
She said "Yes".
Then he replied, "Then you know what I’m hereafter."
*.*
I feel like my body has gotten totally out of shape so I got my doctor's permission to join a fitness club and start exercising.
I decided to take an aerobics class for seniors. I bent, twisted, gyrated, jumped up and down, and perspired for an hour.
But, by the time I got my leotards on, the class was over.
*.*
Oneliners:
Sometimes I get stuck in the future. Just a few minutes ago I was thinking of how 120 years ago was 1905.
Reddit is like a dad at a kids birthday party, I’m watching everyone else have fun and not really understanding what's going on.
If deaf children fail to develop language after not being able to hear early in life, I wonder what abilities humans don't have because we haven't been exposed to them in infancy.
Someone, somewhere, is boycotting a product because it has they heard it has Dihydrogen Monoxide in it.
Men have sex with who they can and woman with who they want, but men marry who they want and woman marry who they can.
Asexual organisms can literally go fuck themselves.
Rich, young princes of Arab royal families are like thousands of Muslim Justin Biebers with diplomatic immunity.
Why the hell is there a sofa and a lamp in front of a fountain outdoors in the Friends theme song.
Every valuable and expensive new item that you own will eventually be some crap at a thrift store that nobody wants to buy.
I wonder how much interesting shit we've missed before the era of camera phones.
Spoons Are Small Bowls On A Stick.
Underwear are kind of like socks for your butt.
*.*
I've sure gotten old!
I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip replacement,
New knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes
I'm half blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine,
Take 40 different medications that
Make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts.
Have bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation;
Hardly feel my hands and feet anymore.
Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92.
Have lost all my friends. But, thank God,
I still have my Florida driver's license.
*.*
Fort Hood Achieves Record-High 1½ Star Yelp Score
FORT HOOD, Texas — Leaders at the Fort Hood military base in Texas are hailing the 50 percent improvement to their Yelp page that has brought their rating up to 1½ stars, sources confirmed this morning.
“They’ve really turned this place around,” said Spc. Tara Stevens, admitting she recently amended her Yelp review of the base to 3-stars from an initial assessment of 1-star. “I work for the Base Services Group and we’re getting a lot fewer work orders to clean up fluid and bullet holes in ceilings.”
Single star ratings are typically reserved for restaurants from which every customer gets diarrhea, beauty salons that cater exclusively to street prostitutes, or martial arts studios that molest their younger clients, according to sources at Yelp. But ‘The Great Place,’ as it is referred to by general staff and a handful of billboards, is finally living up to its name.
“Yeah, I gave Fort Hood a pretty good review, I think. They said I could have my stapler back if I gave it a good review. But I didn’t get it back. And then they took away my computer so I can’t change it,” Sgt. Adam Norris, a soldier who’s been posted at Ft. Hood for the entirety of his 13-year career with the Army, told reporters.
“Cutting off the internet to North Ft. Hood [a deployment mobilization center] has really helped,” Command Sgt. Maj Patrick Williams explained. “We had an infantry battalion there for 63 days getting trained up for Afghanistan by truck drivers from First Army. That almost knocked us back down to 1 star. Fortunately, a lot of the reviews were removed due to Yelp’s rules on obscenity and hate speech.”
“I don’t know what isn’t to love,” Williams continued. “There have been a lot fewer murders in Killeen. And we have a Chile’s now.”
Sources confirmed a series of mandatory Change of Yelp Review Ceremonies have been scheduled by leadership across the post to commemorate the occasion.
Issue of the Times;
If Black Lives Matter, Blacks Need To Stop Killing Each Other
The biggest violent threat to African-American communities is
neither the “white” police (for example, the Baltimore officer
allegedly most responsible for Freddie Gray’s death was black)
nor white people in general. It is blacks themselves. Of all the
blacks killed in the United States over the last 35 years, only a
fraction have been killed by law enforcement and a small minority
by the broader white population.
The numbers may be “large” for these two categories of white-on-
black crime (America has 320 million inhabitants) but they are
spectacularly dwarfed by the rate at which blacks will shoot,
stab, and otherwise maim each other.
93% of murdered blacks between 1980 and 2008 were murdered by
fellow blacks. More recently, the proportion was 91%. Even
Politifact, which interprets “facts” according to a leftist
agenda, rated Rudy Giuliani’s referencing of the 1980-2008
statistics (when he criticized last year’s Ferguson riots) as
“Mostly True,” adding the very nitpicking technicality that
blacks mostly live amongst fellow blacks. This also suggests that
whites would be killed in greater numbers by blacks if
neighborhoods were more racially assimilated.
Or, in other words, people will kill each other in the context
they find themselves in, undermining, again, the mantra that a
purported white shooter and shot black (or the reverse) is always
a case of racist hate.
The tragic death of homeless man James Boyd over illegal camping
allegations received, surprisingly, some ample coverage by the
media. It still accounted for very little compared to Eric
Garner’s death. The reason? Race.
The white-on-black crime hysteria has much in common with the
vitriol surrounding feminism and alleged crimes against women.
Tears may flow from families but outrage is thoroughly muted,
especially from the likes of the NAACP, when a black child is
murdered in an area like South Central Chicago.
Why? Because the probable offender is almost guaranteed to be
black, like the victim. That hypothetical black child (actually
far from hypothetical if you watch the news) lying dead on the
streets of urban Illinois is afforded not even an iota of the
attention given to a Michael Brown, whose shooting death, albeit
heart-wrenching for his relatives, was reported by many black
witnesses as being a case of Officer Darren Wilson acting in
clear self-defense.
I personally regard the death of African-American Eric Garner in
New York as a police homicide. The facts are different in kind
from those surrounding Michael Brown. Garner may well have been
behaving illegally but the response from law enforcement was
excessive and, in the end, fatal. That said, it is very selective
to highlight Garner’s death at the expense of deaths like that of
James Boyd.
I chose Boyd, who was white and homeless, because his plight,
dying at the hands of Albuquerque police, did receive some wide
media attention. It simply paled in comparison, however, to that
provided to Garner, which cannot simply be explained by the video
recording of Garner’s gruesome suffocation or the fact that
police involved with Boyd’s shooting have been put on trial.
Both were accused of “minor” crimes at the times of their deaths,
with Boyd allegedly camping illegally due to his homelessness and
Garner supposedly selling untaxed cigarettes.
Based on the media and popular airing of the story we can safely
say Boyd is a victim, but only at the bottom of a victim’s
monument, whereas Garner is at the apex. Why? And God help your
regular black-on-white, white-on-white or black-on-black homicide
victim, who might be extremely fortunate to make the six o’clock
news.
When will the “Black Lives Matter” movement go after black
shooters and not Bernie Sanders?
It is conceivable that within the next ten years or so, SJWs will
start to continually and explicitly blame whites for every
trigger pulled by an African-American on another African-
American. Right now, this allocation of direct responsibility to
Caucasians is more implicit, brought up in conversations about
slavery, Jim Crow and a twisting of the original civil rights
movement (the actual civil rights of the 1960s, not the
opportunism of a Sharpton or Jackson today).
Other mechanisms for apportioning blame includes “white
privilege,” which tendentiously groups together the likes of
affluent Mitt Romney and Donald Trump with greatly impoverished
Scots-Irish white Americans in two of America’s poorest states,
Mississippi and Alabama.
Meanwhile, aside from the occasional (excellent) Samuel L.
Jackson video, which doesn’t even mention African-Americans
specifically, few are interested in perceiving black people, most
notably young black men, as free agents, whatever influences may
be around them.
The convenient segue is to focus on the less than 1% of black
deaths caused by police, which includes a great many instances of
self-defense and needing to protect the public. When the “hate
the police” narrative temporarily runs out of steam, one can
always confront Bernie Sanders, the “Black Lives Matter”
movement’s lackey, and accuse him of some sort of thoughtcrime
for “not doing things right.”
Will those really interested in black lives please stand up?
“Gangsta” rap’s glorification of violence has probably killed
many times more people than all police shootings, justified and
unjustified, combined.
You do not cure cancer that has metastasized throughout most of
the body by treating, say, only one’s left hand. So if the rate
of black deaths is an issue without any equivalent, which is
already doubtful when other racial deaths are being calculatedly
quarantined from the underlying discussion, a holistic approach
to combating violence is what will matter and pay dividends. A
politicized method designed to please a Rachel Dolezal or Louis
Farrakhan only serves to divide, antagonize, and hide the facts.
Beleaguered liberals like Bernie Sanders and ex-Maryland Governor
and Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, who was booed for
saying “All Lives Matter”, suddenly sense that the putrid corn
syrup they and their leftwing colleagues have been feeding to the
African-American community and SJWs for years is now being
vomited up on them. For sanity’s sake, the only choice is to
confront the festering wound of black-on-black crime.
No parent, boyfriend or girlfriend, spouse, child or friend
deserves to have their loved ones taking from them in a homicide.
Yet what a homicide is seems to change daily, according to the
wishes of those pursuing their own agendas. Worse still is how a
black death is only really considered a death by SJWs if a white
or the “system” is behind it.
The majority of black deaths are thus deemed irrelevant by the
same folks claiming black lives matter. How typical.
Quote of the Times;
“I know all about the despair of overcoming chronic temptation. It is not serious, provided self-offended petulance, annoyance at breaking records, impatience, etc., don’t get the upper hand. No amount of falls will really undo us if we keep picking ourselves up each time... The only fatal thing is to lose one’s temper and give up.” - C.S. Lewis
Link of the Times;
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/
He moved over to her side and said "Do you believe in the hereafter?"
She said "Yes".
Then he replied, "Then you know what I’m hereafter."
*.*
I feel like my body has gotten totally out of shape so I got my doctor's permission to join a fitness club and start exercising.
I decided to take an aerobics class for seniors. I bent, twisted, gyrated, jumped up and down, and perspired for an hour.
But, by the time I got my leotards on, the class was over.
*.*
Oneliners:
Sometimes I get stuck in the future. Just a few minutes ago I was thinking of how 120 years ago was 1905.
Reddit is like a dad at a kids birthday party, I’m watching everyone else have fun and not really understanding what's going on.
If deaf children fail to develop language after not being able to hear early in life, I wonder what abilities humans don't have because we haven't been exposed to them in infancy.
Someone, somewhere, is boycotting a product because it has they heard it has Dihydrogen Monoxide in it.
Men have sex with who they can and woman with who they want, but men marry who they want and woman marry who they can.
Asexual organisms can literally go fuck themselves.
Rich, young princes of Arab royal families are like thousands of Muslim Justin Biebers with diplomatic immunity.
Why the hell is there a sofa and a lamp in front of a fountain outdoors in the Friends theme song.
Every valuable and expensive new item that you own will eventually be some crap at a thrift store that nobody wants to buy.
I wonder how much interesting shit we've missed before the era of camera phones.
Spoons Are Small Bowls On A Stick.
Underwear are kind of like socks for your butt.
*.*
I've sure gotten old!
I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip replacement,
New knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes
I'm half blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine,
Take 40 different medications that
Make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts.
Have bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation;
Hardly feel my hands and feet anymore.
Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92.
Have lost all my friends. But, thank God,
I still have my Florida driver's license.
*.*
Fort Hood Achieves Record-High 1½ Star Yelp Score
FORT HOOD, Texas — Leaders at the Fort Hood military base in Texas are hailing the 50 percent improvement to their Yelp page that has brought their rating up to 1½ stars, sources confirmed this morning.
“They’ve really turned this place around,” said Spc. Tara Stevens, admitting she recently amended her Yelp review of the base to 3-stars from an initial assessment of 1-star. “I work for the Base Services Group and we’re getting a lot fewer work orders to clean up fluid and bullet holes in ceilings.”
Single star ratings are typically reserved for restaurants from which every customer gets diarrhea, beauty salons that cater exclusively to street prostitutes, or martial arts studios that molest their younger clients, according to sources at Yelp. But ‘The Great Place,’ as it is referred to by general staff and a handful of billboards, is finally living up to its name.
“Yeah, I gave Fort Hood a pretty good review, I think. They said I could have my stapler back if I gave it a good review. But I didn’t get it back. And then they took away my computer so I can’t change it,” Sgt. Adam Norris, a soldier who’s been posted at Ft. Hood for the entirety of his 13-year career with the Army, told reporters.
“Cutting off the internet to North Ft. Hood [a deployment mobilization center] has really helped,” Command Sgt. Maj Patrick Williams explained. “We had an infantry battalion there for 63 days getting trained up for Afghanistan by truck drivers from First Army. That almost knocked us back down to 1 star. Fortunately, a lot of the reviews were removed due to Yelp’s rules on obscenity and hate speech.”
“I don’t know what isn’t to love,” Williams continued. “There have been a lot fewer murders in Killeen. And we have a Chile’s now.”
Sources confirmed a series of mandatory Change of Yelp Review Ceremonies have been scheduled by leadership across the post to commemorate the occasion.
Issue of the Times;
If Black Lives Matter, Blacks Need To Stop Killing Each Other
The biggest violent threat to African-American communities is
neither the “white” police (for example, the Baltimore officer
allegedly most responsible for Freddie Gray’s death was black)
nor white people in general. It is blacks themselves. Of all the
blacks killed in the United States over the last 35 years, only a
fraction have been killed by law enforcement and a small minority
by the broader white population.
The numbers may be “large” for these two categories of white-on-
black crime (America has 320 million inhabitants) but they are
spectacularly dwarfed by the rate at which blacks will shoot,
stab, and otherwise maim each other.
93% of murdered blacks between 1980 and 2008 were murdered by
fellow blacks. More recently, the proportion was 91%. Even
Politifact, which interprets “facts” according to a leftist
agenda, rated Rudy Giuliani’s referencing of the 1980-2008
statistics (when he criticized last year’s Ferguson riots) as
“Mostly True,” adding the very nitpicking technicality that
blacks mostly live amongst fellow blacks. This also suggests that
whites would be killed in greater numbers by blacks if
neighborhoods were more racially assimilated.
Or, in other words, people will kill each other in the context
they find themselves in, undermining, again, the mantra that a
purported white shooter and shot black (or the reverse) is always
a case of racist hate.
The tragic death of homeless man James Boyd over illegal camping
allegations received, surprisingly, some ample coverage by the
media. It still accounted for very little compared to Eric
Garner’s death. The reason? Race.
The white-on-black crime hysteria has much in common with the
vitriol surrounding feminism and alleged crimes against women.
Tears may flow from families but outrage is thoroughly muted,
especially from the likes of the NAACP, when a black child is
murdered in an area like South Central Chicago.
Why? Because the probable offender is almost guaranteed to be
black, like the victim. That hypothetical black child (actually
far from hypothetical if you watch the news) lying dead on the
streets of urban Illinois is afforded not even an iota of the
attention given to a Michael Brown, whose shooting death, albeit
heart-wrenching for his relatives, was reported by many black
witnesses as being a case of Officer Darren Wilson acting in
clear self-defense.
I personally regard the death of African-American Eric Garner in
New York as a police homicide. The facts are different in kind
from those surrounding Michael Brown. Garner may well have been
behaving illegally but the response from law enforcement was
excessive and, in the end, fatal. That said, it is very selective
to highlight Garner’s death at the expense of deaths like that of
James Boyd.
I chose Boyd, who was white and homeless, because his plight,
dying at the hands of Albuquerque police, did receive some wide
media attention. It simply paled in comparison, however, to that
provided to Garner, which cannot simply be explained by the video
recording of Garner’s gruesome suffocation or the fact that
police involved with Boyd’s shooting have been put on trial.
Both were accused of “minor” crimes at the times of their deaths,
with Boyd allegedly camping illegally due to his homelessness and
Garner supposedly selling untaxed cigarettes.
Based on the media and popular airing of the story we can safely
say Boyd is a victim, but only at the bottom of a victim’s
monument, whereas Garner is at the apex. Why? And God help your
regular black-on-white, white-on-white or black-on-black homicide
victim, who might be extremely fortunate to make the six o’clock
news.
When will the “Black Lives Matter” movement go after black
shooters and not Bernie Sanders?
It is conceivable that within the next ten years or so, SJWs will
start to continually and explicitly blame whites for every
trigger pulled by an African-American on another African-
American. Right now, this allocation of direct responsibility to
Caucasians is more implicit, brought up in conversations about
slavery, Jim Crow and a twisting of the original civil rights
movement (the actual civil rights of the 1960s, not the
opportunism of a Sharpton or Jackson today).
Other mechanisms for apportioning blame includes “white
privilege,” which tendentiously groups together the likes of
affluent Mitt Romney and Donald Trump with greatly impoverished
Scots-Irish white Americans in two of America’s poorest states,
Mississippi and Alabama.
Meanwhile, aside from the occasional (excellent) Samuel L.
Jackson video, which doesn’t even mention African-Americans
specifically, few are interested in perceiving black people, most
notably young black men, as free agents, whatever influences may
be around them.
The convenient segue is to focus on the less than 1% of black
deaths caused by police, which includes a great many instances of
self-defense and needing to protect the public. When the “hate
the police” narrative temporarily runs out of steam, one can
always confront Bernie Sanders, the “Black Lives Matter”
movement’s lackey, and accuse him of some sort of thoughtcrime
for “not doing things right.”
Will those really interested in black lives please stand up?
“Gangsta” rap’s glorification of violence has probably killed
many times more people than all police shootings, justified and
unjustified, combined.
You do not cure cancer that has metastasized throughout most of
the body by treating, say, only one’s left hand. So if the rate
of black deaths is an issue without any equivalent, which is
already doubtful when other racial deaths are being calculatedly
quarantined from the underlying discussion, a holistic approach
to combating violence is what will matter and pay dividends. A
politicized method designed to please a Rachel Dolezal or Louis
Farrakhan only serves to divide, antagonize, and hide the facts.
Beleaguered liberals like Bernie Sanders and ex-Maryland Governor
and Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, who was booed for
saying “All Lives Matter”, suddenly sense that the putrid corn
syrup they and their leftwing colleagues have been feeding to the
African-American community and SJWs for years is now being
vomited up on them. For sanity’s sake, the only choice is to
confront the festering wound of black-on-black crime.
No parent, boyfriend or girlfriend, spouse, child or friend
deserves to have their loved ones taking from them in a homicide.
Yet what a homicide is seems to change daily, according to the
wishes of those pursuing their own agendas. Worse still is how a
black death is only really considered a death by SJWs if a white
or the “system” is behind it.
The majority of black deaths are thus deemed irrelevant by the
same folks claiming black lives matter. How typical.
Quote of the Times;
“I know all about the despair of overcoming chronic temptation. It is not serious, provided self-offended petulance, annoyance at breaking records, impatience, etc., don’t get the upper hand. No amount of falls will really undo us if we keep picking ourselves up each time... The only fatal thing is to lose one’s temper and give up.” - C.S. Lewis
Link of the Times;
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/
Patton?
The teacher noticed that Johnny had been daydreaming for a long time. She decided to get his attention. "Johnny," she said, "If the world is 25,000 miles around and eggs are sixty cents a dozen, how old am I?
"Thirty-four," Johnny answered unhesitatingly.
The teacher replied "Well, that's not far from my actual age. Tell me...how did you guess?"
Oh, there's nothing to it," Johnny said. "My big sister is seventeen and she's only half-crazy."
*.*
Larry's barn burned down, and, Susan, his wife, called the insurance company ...
Susan: We had that barn insured for fifty thousand and I want my money.
Agent: Whoa there just a minute, Susan. It doesn't work quite like that. We will ascertain the value of the old barn and provide you with a new one of comparable worth.
Susan, after a pause: I'd like to cancel the policy on my husband.
*.*
Saw this on an employee's shirt at a Halloween store: "We put the tomb in costume!"
Kylie Jenner has introduced her own line of hair extensions. Absolutely nothing real about that family.
Artificial Intelligence experts say that over the next few years, robots will be taking most people's jobs. Can I request we start with the Raking Leaves robots?
Life expectancy in the U.S. has reached an all-time high. A spokesman for Craftsmen tools, the ones with the lifetime guarantee, responded with, "Damn!"
It's hard to take the Nobel Chemistry prize seriously when it wasn't awarded to the people who discovered Pumpkin Spice Latte.
*.*
A young man visiting a dude ranch wanted to be "macho," so he went out walking with one of the hired hands. As they were walking through the barnyard, the visitor tried starting a conversation: "Say, look at that big bunch of cows."
The hired hand replied, "Not 'bunch,' but 'herd.' "
"Heard what?"
"Herd of cows."
"Sure, I've heard of cows. There's a big bunch of 'em right over there."
*.*
A hillbilly was making his first visit to a hospital where his teenage son was about to have an operation. Watching the doctor's every move, he asked, "what's that?"
The doctor explained, "this is an anesthetic. After he gets this he won't know a thing."
"Save your time, Doc," exclaimed the man. "He don't know nothing now."
Issue of the Times;
A Letter from General George S. Patton to His Son
On June 6, 1944, General George S. Patton wrote this letter to his twenty-year-old son, George Jr., who was enrolled at West Point. Patton Sr. was in England training the Third Army in preparation for the battles that would follow the invasion at Normandy.
Dear George:
At 0700 this morning the BBC announced that the German Radio had just come out with an announcement of the landing of Allied Paratroops and of large numbers of assault craft near shore. So that is it.
This group of unconquerable heroes whom I command are not in yet but we will be soon—I wish I was there now as it is a lovely sunny day for a battle and I am fed up with just sitting.
I have no immediate idea of being killed but one can never tell and none of us can live forever, so if I should go don’t worry but set yourself to do better than I have.
All men are timid on entering any fight; whether it is the first fight or the last fight all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better of their manhood. You will never do that because of your blood lines on both sides. I think I have told you the story of Marshall Touraine who fought under Louis XIV. On the morning of one of his last battles—he had been fighting for forty years—he was mounting his horse when a young ADC [aide-de-camp] who had just come from the court and had never missed a meal or heard a hostile shot said: “M. de Touraine it amazes me that a man of your supposed courage should permit his knees to tremble as he walks out to mount.” Touraine replied “My lord duke I admit that my knees do tremble but should they know where I shall this day take them they would shake even more.” That is it. Your knees may shake but they will always take you towards the enemy. Well so much for that.
There are apparently two types of successful soldiers. Those who get on by being unobtrusive and those who get on by being obtrusive. I am of the latter type and seem to be rare and unpopular: but it is my method. One has to choose a system and stick to it; people who are not themselves are nobody.
To be a successful soldier you must know history. Read it objectively–dates and even the minute details of tactics are useless. What you must know is how man reacts. Weapons change but man who uses them changes not at all. To win battles you do not beat weapons–you beat the soul of man of the enemy man. To do that you have to destroy his weapons, but that is only incidental. You must read biography and especially autobiography. If you will do it you will find that war is simple. Decide what will hurt the enemy most within the limits of your capabilities to harm him and then do it. TAKE CALCULATED RISKS. That is quite different from being rash. My personal belief is that if you have a 50% chance take it because the superior fighting qualities of American soldiers lead by me will surely give you the extra 1% necessary.
In Sicily I decided as a result of my information, observations and a sixth sense that I have that the enemy did not have another large scale attack in his system. I bet my shirt on that and I was right. You cannot make war safely but no dead general has ever been criticized so you have that way out always.
I am sure that if every leader who goes into battle will promise himself that he will come out either a conqueror or a corpse he is sure to win. There is no doubt of that. Defeat is not due to losses but to the destruction of the soul of the leaders. The “Live to fight another day” doctrine.
The most vital quality a soldier can possess is SELF CONFIDENCE–utter, complete and bumptious. You can have doubts about your good looks, about your intelligence, about your self control but to win in war you must have NO doubts about your ability as a soldier.
What success I have had results from the fact that I have always been certain that my military reactions were correct. Many people do not agree with me; they are wrong. The unerring jury of history written long after both of us are dead will prove me correct.
Note that I speak of “Military reactions”–no one is borne with them any more than anyone is borne with muscles. You can be born with the soul capable of correct military reactions or the body capable of having big muscles, but both qualities must be developed by hard work.
The intensity of your desire to acquire any special ability depends on character, on ambition. I think that your decision to study this summer instead of enjoying yourself shows that you have character and ambition—they are wonderful possessions.
Soldiers, all men in fact, are natural hero worshipers. Officers with a flare for command realize this and emphasize in their conduct, dress and deportment the qualities they seek to produce in their men. When I was a second lieutenant I had a captain who was very sloppy and usually late yet he got after the men for just those faults; he was a failure.
The troops I have commanded have always been well dressed, been smart saluters, been prompt and bold in action because I have personally set the example in these qualities. The influence one man can have on thousands is a never-ending source of wonder to me. You are always on parade. Officers who through laziness or a foolish desire to be popular fail to enforce discipline and the proper wearing of uniforms and equipment not in the presence of the enemy will also fail in battle, and if they fail in battle they are potential murderers. There is no such thing as: “A good field soldier:” you are either a good soldier or a bad soldier.
Well this has been quite a sermon but don’t get the idea that it is my swan song because it is not–I have not finished my job yet.
Your affectionate father.
Quote of the Times;
“Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion.” – Kerouac
Link of the Times;
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wq_lhlIn1e0
"Thirty-four," Johnny answered unhesitatingly.
The teacher replied "Well, that's not far from my actual age. Tell me...how did you guess?"
Oh, there's nothing to it," Johnny said. "My big sister is seventeen and she's only half-crazy."
*.*
Larry's barn burned down, and, Susan, his wife, called the insurance company ...
Susan: We had that barn insured for fifty thousand and I want my money.
Agent: Whoa there just a minute, Susan. It doesn't work quite like that. We will ascertain the value of the old barn and provide you with a new one of comparable worth.
Susan, after a pause: I'd like to cancel the policy on my husband.
*.*
Saw this on an employee's shirt at a Halloween store: "We put the tomb in costume!"
Kylie Jenner has introduced her own line of hair extensions. Absolutely nothing real about that family.
Artificial Intelligence experts say that over the next few years, robots will be taking most people's jobs. Can I request we start with the Raking Leaves robots?
Life expectancy in the U.S. has reached an all-time high. A spokesman for Craftsmen tools, the ones with the lifetime guarantee, responded with, "Damn!"
It's hard to take the Nobel Chemistry prize seriously when it wasn't awarded to the people who discovered Pumpkin Spice Latte.
*.*
A young man visiting a dude ranch wanted to be "macho," so he went out walking with one of the hired hands. As they were walking through the barnyard, the visitor tried starting a conversation: "Say, look at that big bunch of cows."
The hired hand replied, "Not 'bunch,' but 'herd.' "
"Heard what?"
"Herd of cows."
"Sure, I've heard of cows. There's a big bunch of 'em right over there."
*.*
A hillbilly was making his first visit to a hospital where his teenage son was about to have an operation. Watching the doctor's every move, he asked, "what's that?"
The doctor explained, "this is an anesthetic. After he gets this he won't know a thing."
"Save your time, Doc," exclaimed the man. "He don't know nothing now."
Issue of the Times;
A Letter from General George S. Patton to His Son
On June 6, 1944, General George S. Patton wrote this letter to his twenty-year-old son, George Jr., who was enrolled at West Point. Patton Sr. was in England training the Third Army in preparation for the battles that would follow the invasion at Normandy.
Dear George:
At 0700 this morning the BBC announced that the German Radio had just come out with an announcement of the landing of Allied Paratroops and of large numbers of assault craft near shore. So that is it.
This group of unconquerable heroes whom I command are not in yet but we will be soon—I wish I was there now as it is a lovely sunny day for a battle and I am fed up with just sitting.
I have no immediate idea of being killed but one can never tell and none of us can live forever, so if I should go don’t worry but set yourself to do better than I have.
All men are timid on entering any fight; whether it is the first fight or the last fight all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better of their manhood. You will never do that because of your blood lines on both sides. I think I have told you the story of Marshall Touraine who fought under Louis XIV. On the morning of one of his last battles—he had been fighting for forty years—he was mounting his horse when a young ADC [aide-de-camp] who had just come from the court and had never missed a meal or heard a hostile shot said: “M. de Touraine it amazes me that a man of your supposed courage should permit his knees to tremble as he walks out to mount.” Touraine replied “My lord duke I admit that my knees do tremble but should they know where I shall this day take them they would shake even more.” That is it. Your knees may shake but they will always take you towards the enemy. Well so much for that.
There are apparently two types of successful soldiers. Those who get on by being unobtrusive and those who get on by being obtrusive. I am of the latter type and seem to be rare and unpopular: but it is my method. One has to choose a system and stick to it; people who are not themselves are nobody.
To be a successful soldier you must know history. Read it objectively–dates and even the minute details of tactics are useless. What you must know is how man reacts. Weapons change but man who uses them changes not at all. To win battles you do not beat weapons–you beat the soul of man of the enemy man. To do that you have to destroy his weapons, but that is only incidental. You must read biography and especially autobiography. If you will do it you will find that war is simple. Decide what will hurt the enemy most within the limits of your capabilities to harm him and then do it. TAKE CALCULATED RISKS. That is quite different from being rash. My personal belief is that if you have a 50% chance take it because the superior fighting qualities of American soldiers lead by me will surely give you the extra 1% necessary.
In Sicily I decided as a result of my information, observations and a sixth sense that I have that the enemy did not have another large scale attack in his system. I bet my shirt on that and I was right. You cannot make war safely but no dead general has ever been criticized so you have that way out always.
I am sure that if every leader who goes into battle will promise himself that he will come out either a conqueror or a corpse he is sure to win. There is no doubt of that. Defeat is not due to losses but to the destruction of the soul of the leaders. The “Live to fight another day” doctrine.
The most vital quality a soldier can possess is SELF CONFIDENCE–utter, complete and bumptious. You can have doubts about your good looks, about your intelligence, about your self control but to win in war you must have NO doubts about your ability as a soldier.
What success I have had results from the fact that I have always been certain that my military reactions were correct. Many people do not agree with me; they are wrong. The unerring jury of history written long after both of us are dead will prove me correct.
Note that I speak of “Military reactions”–no one is borne with them any more than anyone is borne with muscles. You can be born with the soul capable of correct military reactions or the body capable of having big muscles, but both qualities must be developed by hard work.
The intensity of your desire to acquire any special ability depends on character, on ambition. I think that your decision to study this summer instead of enjoying yourself shows that you have character and ambition—they are wonderful possessions.
Soldiers, all men in fact, are natural hero worshipers. Officers with a flare for command realize this and emphasize in their conduct, dress and deportment the qualities they seek to produce in their men. When I was a second lieutenant I had a captain who was very sloppy and usually late yet he got after the men for just those faults; he was a failure.
The troops I have commanded have always been well dressed, been smart saluters, been prompt and bold in action because I have personally set the example in these qualities. The influence one man can have on thousands is a never-ending source of wonder to me. You are always on parade. Officers who through laziness or a foolish desire to be popular fail to enforce discipline and the proper wearing of uniforms and equipment not in the presence of the enemy will also fail in battle, and if they fail in battle they are potential murderers. There is no such thing as: “A good field soldier:” you are either a good soldier or a bad soldier.
Well this has been quite a sermon but don’t get the idea that it is my swan song because it is not–I have not finished my job yet.
Your affectionate father.
Quote of the Times;
“Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion.” – Kerouac
Link of the Times;
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wq_lhlIn1e0
Meaningless?
The Census Bureau says that more than two thirds of all Baby-Boomers are overweight or obese. In fact, they say that half of all Baby-Boomers make up 2/3's of them.
*.*
Boko Haram Struggles To Find Victims People Give A Shit About
BORNO, Nigeria — According to insider reports, leaders for the terrorist group Boko Haram have called an emergency meeting to determine how many more murders, rapes and kidnappings it will take before anyone in the international community will start giving a shit.
“It’s frustrating,” complained Boko Haram Commander Abubakar Shekau. “We work extremely hard, and all we get from the rest of the world is phlegmatic indifference. I mean, what’s a warlord supposed to do?”
During a month in which the group has attacked hard targets in Cameroon, as well as orchestrated the slaughter of up to 2,000 civilians, international media outlets have largely focused on recent terror attacks in Paris. The carnage wrought by Boko Haram in the Belgium-sized swath of territory it now controls in the northeastern states of oil-rich Nigeria was designed to get attention.
Much to Shekau’s dismay, however, it hasn’t been enough.
“I’m turning this country into a fucking Lars Von Trier film,” Shekau told Duffel Blog via Facebook chat. “I’ve literally stolen hundreds of kids from their parents and sold them into slavery, and all I got was a Twitter hashtag from Michelle Obama.”
Delegates to the strategy meeting struggled to come up with ideas evil enough to generate media attention. Numerous suggestions were scrawled across a white board, to include a moon laser, Ebola zombies, canceling American football, Scientology, a Hitler robot, and Furry convention, only to be crossed out, one after the other, in fits of despondency. Throughout the meeting, many in attendance appeared distracted by the television across the room showing live footage of leaders from countries like Russia, Jordan and Saudi Arabia marching in defense of a free press.
“Nigeria has elephants,” said Secretary for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield, when asked for comment. “But I don’t think Broker Ham or whatever it is wants to hurt elephants.”
By the close of their strategy session, Boko Haram leaders reported a general feeling of pessimism at the prospect of getting people’s attention any time soon.
“Between France, ISIS and those crazy-low gas prices, I don’t think your average media consumer has any room left on his plate,” Shekau admitted. “Je suis Boko Haram, and I am pretty bummed.” Shekau then donned his fedora made of flayed baby skin, filled his pipe with virgin hymens and asked his driver to bring around the Rolls Royce with the old lady crucified on the hood.
“If things keep going this way, he might do something crazy,” Commander Tobala Nukaway confided.
*.*
Amazon wants to continue drone-delivery tests.
Now, the real trick is getting the enemy to order the bombs.
*.*
The CDC says that one in four Americans admit they do no exercise at all.
Which of course means that 75% of Americans are liars.
*.*
When she asked, "Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
We both just had to laugh, because, being a peep-show girl, it really didn't matter to her either way.
Issue of the Times;
How To Recognize Meaningless Rhetoric From Masters Of Deception by Ashlar Ben David
Identifying and understanding the use of rhetoric is an excellent way to defend yourself against progressive poison. It is an equally good thing to apply against those who cannot be reasoned with logically. First, it is necessary to understand the distinction between logic on one hand, and rhetoric on the other. Then, we will look at examples and explore why one is more politically useful than the other.
When we consider logic, we are talking about the soundness and validity of arguments. Soundness deals with whether the argument is properly constructed and whether the premises lead to the conclusion, and an argument does not have to be true to be sound. Validity deals with the truth of an argument’s premises and their subsequent conclusion. Logic deals with sequence and building, which are in large part left- or male-brained concepts.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, is constructing phrases and arguments that appeal to a listener’s emotional landscape. It picks the audience up, takes them on a ride, then places them back down where it wants them to land. It has nothing to do with truth, relying instead on inducing a trance-like state of suggestibility and gullibility in the listener(s). It is less “built” and more “flowing” and “creative.” In that sense, it is more feminine or right- brained than logic.
The benefits of each method
Now, some of you may be wondering, “which is more persuasive?” Well, that depends on the context. If an engineer needs to know which parts to put in which order to build a machine, he’s going to use logic and sequential thinking in order to begin putting the pieces of the puzzle together…now, if you want to convince a typical non-thinking audience of something, then rhetoric will get you much farther.
Since progressives of all types are essentially unthinking meat puppets living in fear of what their friends might say should they stray from the party line, liberal politicians know better than to use logic. It would go over the heads of their audience, boring them and driving them away. Instead, liberal politicians pluck the heartstrings of their emotional puppet constituency by saying words that sound good and result in good feelings.
Then, they use shaming rhetoric to instill bad feelings in association with certain thought patterns that are labelled as “Politically Incorrect.” The term itself is a shaming tactic, and a young brainless liberal knows that should he dare think naughty thoughts, he will be attacked by others until his compliance improves.
The masters of rhetoric
Much as I despise Barack Hussein Obama for running the free world despite having never accomplished anything of significance besides smooth-talking, I have to give him props for being one of the best (liars and) rhetoricians I’ve ever had the enlightening experience of hearing speak. He and his team have cooked up some of the most meaningless, emotionally persuasive glittery nonsense I have ever heard.
I want to examine his favorite word from the campaign years, back when he still had to pretend that he would follow through with his promises. The name of that sinister syllable is:
“Change”
Barack Hussein Obama, the brother of a man under investigation in Egypt for affiliation with a terrorist organization, loves the word “change”—but not as much as his audience does. In conjunction with top-notch NLP, Obama litters his speech with phrases just vague enough for them to mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.
This is what NLP is, from a purely Ericksonian standpoint: language patterns vague enough for the listener to project his own experiences, assumptions and desires onto. It is essentially like handing someone a blank that feels really good, and having them fill it in.
For example, “If you care about America, then you should care about change” is a phrase that sounds great….and doesn’t mean anything at all. This is typical speech from a man like Obama. First of all, I will show you where the NLP is here.
The first part of the sentence, “If you care about America,” has two parts. It is the “if” half of an “if, then” statement, which begins with the next part of the sentence. It is also an embedded command, “care about America,” which the speaker would say with a drop in vocal tone or a gesture at the same time to mark the command. The second part of the sentence completes the “if, then” statement and includes another embedded command: “care about change.”
Now, it’s already a very good sentence rhetorically. However, the real genius is in the use of the blank canvass term “change.” Everybody listening to that word has some change they would like to see, whether in themselves, their families, communities, nations or even the entire globe. By using such an ambiguous word, whatever the listener wants to change is automatically linked to “something Barack Hussein Obama promised me.”
He might have promised one person less income inequality, he might have promised another that feminists would rule the world, and he might have promised another that order would be restored. And all he had to say was one word. Best part is, it is impossible for eight years (or one year, or even a day) to pass without change occurring, so in this way, Barack Hussein Obama also covered his own ass. He promised change, and then change happened! Isn’t he great?
Words like “hope,” “progress” and “equality” all belong in the same grouping as “change.” What does progress mean? Depends on what the listener believes should change about the world. What does equality mean? Absolutely nothing. What does hope mean? Something different to everyone. Keep your eyes open for when politicians, media loudmouths and public agitators use words like these. They have been chosen deliberately by those people for a reason, so next time you hear them being used against you, it is on you to figure out the speaker’s agenda and decide what you really think based on truth and logic.
So now that I have explained to you a little about the mechanics behind vague words and liberal rhetoric, it will be easier for you to identify it, guard your mind against it, and mock it openly and publicly so the mouth-breathing hordes and their evil masters know that we will not go down without a fight.
Quote of the Times;
"If I have but one goal in life, it is to be remembered forever!" – Anonymous
Link of the Times;
http://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/most-popular-american-burger-chains-map-in-n-out-sonic-five-guys?vc=2322
*.*
Boko Haram Struggles To Find Victims People Give A Shit About
BORNO, Nigeria — According to insider reports, leaders for the terrorist group Boko Haram have called an emergency meeting to determine how many more murders, rapes and kidnappings it will take before anyone in the international community will start giving a shit.
“It’s frustrating,” complained Boko Haram Commander Abubakar Shekau. “We work extremely hard, and all we get from the rest of the world is phlegmatic indifference. I mean, what’s a warlord supposed to do?”
During a month in which the group has attacked hard targets in Cameroon, as well as orchestrated the slaughter of up to 2,000 civilians, international media outlets have largely focused on recent terror attacks in Paris. The carnage wrought by Boko Haram in the Belgium-sized swath of territory it now controls in the northeastern states of oil-rich Nigeria was designed to get attention.
Much to Shekau’s dismay, however, it hasn’t been enough.
“I’m turning this country into a fucking Lars Von Trier film,” Shekau told Duffel Blog via Facebook chat. “I’ve literally stolen hundreds of kids from their parents and sold them into slavery, and all I got was a Twitter hashtag from Michelle Obama.”
Delegates to the strategy meeting struggled to come up with ideas evil enough to generate media attention. Numerous suggestions were scrawled across a white board, to include a moon laser, Ebola zombies, canceling American football, Scientology, a Hitler robot, and Furry convention, only to be crossed out, one after the other, in fits of despondency. Throughout the meeting, many in attendance appeared distracted by the television across the room showing live footage of leaders from countries like Russia, Jordan and Saudi Arabia marching in defense of a free press.
“Nigeria has elephants,” said Secretary for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield, when asked for comment. “But I don’t think Broker Ham or whatever it is wants to hurt elephants.”
By the close of their strategy session, Boko Haram leaders reported a general feeling of pessimism at the prospect of getting people’s attention any time soon.
“Between France, ISIS and those crazy-low gas prices, I don’t think your average media consumer has any room left on his plate,” Shekau admitted. “Je suis Boko Haram, and I am pretty bummed.” Shekau then donned his fedora made of flayed baby skin, filled his pipe with virgin hymens and asked his driver to bring around the Rolls Royce with the old lady crucified on the hood.
“If things keep going this way, he might do something crazy,” Commander Tobala Nukaway confided.
*.*
Amazon wants to continue drone-delivery tests.
Now, the real trick is getting the enemy to order the bombs.
*.*
The CDC says that one in four Americans admit they do no exercise at all.
Which of course means that 75% of Americans are liars.
*.*
When she asked, "Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
We both just had to laugh, because, being a peep-show girl, it really didn't matter to her either way.
Issue of the Times;
How To Recognize Meaningless Rhetoric From Masters Of Deception by Ashlar Ben David
Identifying and understanding the use of rhetoric is an excellent way to defend yourself against progressive poison. It is an equally good thing to apply against those who cannot be reasoned with logically. First, it is necessary to understand the distinction between logic on one hand, and rhetoric on the other. Then, we will look at examples and explore why one is more politically useful than the other.
When we consider logic, we are talking about the soundness and validity of arguments. Soundness deals with whether the argument is properly constructed and whether the premises lead to the conclusion, and an argument does not have to be true to be sound. Validity deals with the truth of an argument’s premises and their subsequent conclusion. Logic deals with sequence and building, which are in large part left- or male-brained concepts.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, is constructing phrases and arguments that appeal to a listener’s emotional landscape. It picks the audience up, takes them on a ride, then places them back down where it wants them to land. It has nothing to do with truth, relying instead on inducing a trance-like state of suggestibility and gullibility in the listener(s). It is less “built” and more “flowing” and “creative.” In that sense, it is more feminine or right- brained than logic.
The benefits of each method
Now, some of you may be wondering, “which is more persuasive?” Well, that depends on the context. If an engineer needs to know which parts to put in which order to build a machine, he’s going to use logic and sequential thinking in order to begin putting the pieces of the puzzle together…now, if you want to convince a typical non-thinking audience of something, then rhetoric will get you much farther.
Since progressives of all types are essentially unthinking meat puppets living in fear of what their friends might say should they stray from the party line, liberal politicians know better than to use logic. It would go over the heads of their audience, boring them and driving them away. Instead, liberal politicians pluck the heartstrings of their emotional puppet constituency by saying words that sound good and result in good feelings.
Then, they use shaming rhetoric to instill bad feelings in association with certain thought patterns that are labelled as “Politically Incorrect.” The term itself is a shaming tactic, and a young brainless liberal knows that should he dare think naughty thoughts, he will be attacked by others until his compliance improves.
The masters of rhetoric
Much as I despise Barack Hussein Obama for running the free world despite having never accomplished anything of significance besides smooth-talking, I have to give him props for being one of the best (liars and) rhetoricians I’ve ever had the enlightening experience of hearing speak. He and his team have cooked up some of the most meaningless, emotionally persuasive glittery nonsense I have ever heard.
I want to examine his favorite word from the campaign years, back when he still had to pretend that he would follow through with his promises. The name of that sinister syllable is:
“Change”
Barack Hussein Obama, the brother of a man under investigation in Egypt for affiliation with a terrorist organization, loves the word “change”—but not as much as his audience does. In conjunction with top-notch NLP, Obama litters his speech with phrases just vague enough for them to mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.
This is what NLP is, from a purely Ericksonian standpoint: language patterns vague enough for the listener to project his own experiences, assumptions and desires onto. It is essentially like handing someone a blank that feels really good, and having them fill it in.
For example, “If you care about America, then you should care about change” is a phrase that sounds great….and doesn’t mean anything at all. This is typical speech from a man like Obama. First of all, I will show you where the NLP is here.
The first part of the sentence, “If you care about America,” has two parts. It is the “if” half of an “if, then” statement, which begins with the next part of the sentence. It is also an embedded command, “care about America,” which the speaker would say with a drop in vocal tone or a gesture at the same time to mark the command. The second part of the sentence completes the “if, then” statement and includes another embedded command: “care about change.”
Now, it’s already a very good sentence rhetorically. However, the real genius is in the use of the blank canvass term “change.” Everybody listening to that word has some change they would like to see, whether in themselves, their families, communities, nations or even the entire globe. By using such an ambiguous word, whatever the listener wants to change is automatically linked to “something Barack Hussein Obama promised me.”
He might have promised one person less income inequality, he might have promised another that feminists would rule the world, and he might have promised another that order would be restored. And all he had to say was one word. Best part is, it is impossible for eight years (or one year, or even a day) to pass without change occurring, so in this way, Barack Hussein Obama also covered his own ass. He promised change, and then change happened! Isn’t he great?
Words like “hope,” “progress” and “equality” all belong in the same grouping as “change.” What does progress mean? Depends on what the listener believes should change about the world. What does equality mean? Absolutely nothing. What does hope mean? Something different to everyone. Keep your eyes open for when politicians, media loudmouths and public agitators use words like these. They have been chosen deliberately by those people for a reason, so next time you hear them being used against you, it is on you to figure out the speaker’s agenda and decide what you really think based on truth and logic.
So now that I have explained to you a little about the mechanics behind vague words and liberal rhetoric, it will be easier for you to identify it, guard your mind against it, and mock it openly and publicly so the mouth-breathing hordes and their evil masters know that we will not go down without a fight.
Quote of the Times;
"If I have but one goal in life, it is to be remembered forever!" – Anonymous
Link of the Times;
http://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/most-popular-american-burger-chains-map-in-n-out-sonic-five-guys?vc=2322
Inquisition?
From what I hear, pigs are supposed to be extremely intelligent.
I'll believe that when they tell us to stop eating them.
*.*
A Sign in a Canadian Store Window:
"WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE CANADIAN"
This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business in Hamilton, Ontario. You are probably outraged at the thought of such an inflammatory statement. One would think that anti-hate groups from all across the country would be marching on this business and that the RCMP might have to be called to keep the angry crowds back. But, perhaps in these stressful times one might be tempted to let the proprietors simply make their statement . . We are a society which holds Freedom of Speech as perhaps our greatest liberty. And after all, it is just a sign.
You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign?
A Funeral Home
*.*
As I was lying in bed that night, I got to thinking, "What would Jesus do?"
That didn't prove much help, so I got a bit more specific:
"What would Jesus do with a dead hooker's body?"
*.*
After MURPHY'S LAW, there's...
THE SUPERMARKET LAW: Any line you wheel into at the check-out counter, no matter how short, will automatically come to a halt and remain that way until your ice cream has melted and dropped into your shoes.
THE LEFTOVER LAW: Any food that would be delicious as a leftover will never be left over.
THE LAUNDRY LAW: The average washer or dryer will, in its lifetime, consume its own weight in socks... with a limit of one sock per pair.
THE BARGAIN-BASEMENT LAW: Any dress on sale at 50% off and fit to wear to an occasion more elegant than a wheel alignment will never be available in your size.
THE CHICKEN-CROSSING-THE-ROAD LAW: Any person trying to cross a highway from a side road will find that traffic, nonexistent seconds before, will now build to holiday-weekend proportions.
THE CLEAN HOUSE LAW: If you wax the floors, wash the windows, scrub the walls and rinse out the light fixtures, no living soul will come to your door. Conversely, if you fail to dust, leave the dishes in the sink and let the children bathe the dog in the tub; your front porch will sag with unexpected visitors.
*.*
Oneliners:
In t-shirt sizes, XL > L > M, but it's the opposite in roman numerals.
120,000,000 Just sat down and watched a group of millionaires throw a ball.
"Sh*ts and giggles" is kind of cute, but "Sharts and gargles" is an entirely different mental image.
It must be hard for people in England to tell other people when they have a bloody nose.
It would be ironic if snake oil was found to be the cure for cancer.
Children are like farts. While you can tolerate your own, it's tough to put up with anyone else's.
If Japan had won WWII, we'd be learning in school about the Japanese freeing people from the concentration camps in America.
I wish there was a secret handshake or a badge that identified you to other retail workers as being a current or former retail worker so they know you're not just another dumb customer.
There is one person on the planet for who the phrase, "someone has it worse than you do" doesn't apply.
Poor people used to entertain rich people, now it's the opposite.
My pubes are a calendar for how long it's been since I was sexually active.
The people who are the most athletically ready for a zombie apocalypse are the ones who will be our worst enemy if they become zombies.
Issue of the Times;
7 Myths about the Inquisition by Adam N. Crawford
— 1 —
The term “Inquisition” actually refers to an institution not an event.
Actually, more like a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat or suppress heresy. Begun in 12th century France, the ecclesiastical tribunal known as the inquisition has evolved over the years but is still an active part of the Roman Curia today, although admittedly operating under a different name. Originally the inquisition was carried out using local clergy as judges,1 but starting in the 1250’s inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order due to their unique charism. St. Dominic founded his order in 1216 in order to preach the Gospel and combat heresy. Is it any wonder that their name gave rise to the pun that they were the Domini canes, or Hounds of the Lord?2 In 1904 the office of the inquisition was given the new name Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and in 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and remains as such to this day.
— 2 —
Much like the Crusades, the Inquisition was not a single event, but can be generally broken into the following categories.
• Medieval Inquisition – 1184 AD through the 14th century.
• Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance – During this time the tribunal’s geographic scope was expanded to other European countries resulting most notably in:
1. The Spanish Inquisition – 1478 AD – 1834 AD (this is the inquisition which is perhaps most widely misrepresented today.)
2. Portuguese Inquisition – 1536 AD – 1821 AD
• The Roman Inquisition – 1588 AD – Present, in the form of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Spain and Portugal in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires with a particular focus on the issue of Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism – partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted back to their previous religions.
The concept and scope of these inquisitions were also significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
— 3 —
The Inquisition was born out of a need for fair trials, and to prevent unjust executions.
“For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training–something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.”3
— 4 —
The Spanish Inquisition was actually vastly superior to other secular courts of the day.
Unlike the situation in the secular courts of the day, the use of torture was strictly regulated by the Church. In fact, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was actually prohibited for the first twenty years of the inquisition before being first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1265.
The procedures of the Inquisition are well known through a whole series of papal bulls and other authoritative documents, but mainly through such formularies and manuals as were prepared by St. Raymond Peñaforte (c1180-1275), the great Spanish canonist, and Bernard Gui (1261-1331), one of the most celebrated inquisitors of the early 14th Century. The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were also theological experts who followed the rules and instructions meticulously, and were either dismissed or punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Pope Gregory IX.4
From the start limits were placed on the use of torture that were unheard of in the secular courts of the day.
• It was not to cause bloodshed, the loss of life or limb, or imperil life.
• Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless all other expedients were exhausted.
• When it was used, it was not to be applied for more than 15 minutes.
• It was never administered by the inquisitor (a cleric) but rather by the executioner appointed by the state. (In fact, in the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity)
• A Physician had to be present and could stop the proceedings at any time.
There were no rapes, feet burning, creative torture chambers, iron maidens, etc., and reports show that between 98%-99% of all inquisition trials did not involve torture at all. Compared to secular courts that decreed the death penalty for damaging shrubs in England, or disembowelment for sheep-stealing in France, the Spanish Inquisition was actually far more conservative than the secular Europe of the day. In fact, there are multiple accounts of convicts in Spain blaspheming on purpose, precisely so that they would be transferred to the significantly more humane prisons of the Spanish Inquisition.
According to Professor Kamen, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.” Prof. Jaime Conterras agreed: “We find when comparing the Spanish Inquisition with other tribunals that the Spanish Inquisition used torture much less. And if we compare the Spanish Inquisition with tribunals in other countries, we find that the Spanish Inquisition has a virtually clean record in respect to torture.”5
— 5 —
The death toll numbers that you have heard are wrong. Flat out wrong.
Protestant preacher Jimmy Swaggart claimed that 20 million people were murdered by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.6 Another Protestant text, “The Mystery of Babylon Revealed” claims 95 million people were killed during the Inquisition.
Really? 95 million? How is that even possible? It is not until modern times that the population of all of Europe even begins to approach 95 million. The present-day population of France, Spain, and Italy is about 150 million. To kill 95 million during just the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church would have had to kill every man, woman, and child in all of Europe, then import millions more just to kill them too.
In contrast to these claims, modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Spanish Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histórico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all inquisition processes between 1560 and 1700 AD. This material provides information about 49,092 judgements which were carefully studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. They calculate that only 1.9% of those processed were burned at the stake.
You read that right –
According to the historical records, less than 2% of all accused heretics were executed.
García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Spanish Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560 – 1700 AD (about 2%), the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Even if we take into account variances due to records from other regions and possible variations throughout the rest of the time period, it is highly unlikely that the total death toll would exceed 3,000 – 5,000 executed during the entire 300 year period of the Spanish Inquisition. Henningsen and Contreras also studied the records of 44,674 other cases, finding that 826 resulted in executions in person and 778 were executions in effigy alone – i.e. a straw dummy was burned in place of the person.7
With all of that in mind, it is also important to note:
— 6 —
The Catholic Church executed no one.
That’s right, the Catholic Church never executed a single heretic. The Church did impose punishment on heretics in order to bring them to repentance. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other punishments were more severe: fines whose proceeds were devoted to public purposes such as church-building and road-making, whipping with rods during religious services, the pillory, the wearing of colored crosses, and so on.
The hardest penalties were imprisonment, excommunication from the Church, and surrender to the civil authority. “Cum ecclesia” ran the regular expression, “ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari” — i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority.
Officially then, it was never the Catholic Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death. Rather, it was the state who determined and carried out the sentence of death. Heretics were traitors to both God and king, and dangerous to the welfare of the kingdom. Therefore, they deserved death. And unlike the Church, the state had no qualms about carrying out this sentence.
— 7 —
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
“Between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries in western Europe, the Latin Christian Church adapted certain elements of Roman legal procedure and charged papally appointed clergy to employ them in order to preserve orthodox religious beliefs from the attacks of heretics … Between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries … these procedures, personnel and institutions were transformed by polemic and fiction into myth, the myth of The Inquisition. The institutions and the myth lived — and developed – in western Europe and the New World until the early nineteenth century, when most of the inquisitions were abolished, and the myth itself was universalized …
Although the inquisitions disappeared, The Inquisition did not. The myth was originally devised to serve variously the political purposes of a number of early modern political regimes, as well as Protestant Reformers, proponents of religious and civil toleration, philosophical enemies of the civil power of organized religions, and progressive modernists; but the myth remained durable, widely adaptable, and useful, so that in time it came to be woven tightly into the fabric of modern consciousness. So tight is its place in that weave that the myth has been revived in the twentieth century …
Some myths are tougher and more durable than the occasions which first create and employ them. The Inquisition [as myth] was an invention of the religious disputes and political conflicts of the sixteenth century. It was adapted to the causes of religious toleration and philosophical and political enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In this process, although it was always anti-Catholic and usually anti-Spanish, it tended to become universalized, until, by the end of the eighteenth century, it had become the representative of all repressive religions that opposed freedom of conscience, political liberty and philosophical enlightenment.
In the United States, far more than in Europe, The Inquisition remained an evil abstraction, sustained by anti-Catholicism and supported by political opposition.”8
In 1994 the BBC broadcast a television documentary entitled, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. It is just over 45 minutes long, free to watch on YouTube, and I highly recommend it. Enjoy!
Quote of the Times;
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” – II Thessalonians 3:10
Link of the Times;
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/10/31/the-decline-and-fall-of-western-culture-in-one-photo/
I'll believe that when they tell us to stop eating them.
*.*
A Sign in a Canadian Store Window:
"WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE CANADIAN"
This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business in Hamilton, Ontario. You are probably outraged at the thought of such an inflammatory statement. One would think that anti-hate groups from all across the country would be marching on this business and that the RCMP might have to be called to keep the angry crowds back. But, perhaps in these stressful times one might be tempted to let the proprietors simply make their statement . . We are a society which holds Freedom of Speech as perhaps our greatest liberty. And after all, it is just a sign.
You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign?
A Funeral Home
*.*
As I was lying in bed that night, I got to thinking, "What would Jesus do?"
That didn't prove much help, so I got a bit more specific:
"What would Jesus do with a dead hooker's body?"
*.*
After MURPHY'S LAW, there's...
THE SUPERMARKET LAW: Any line you wheel into at the check-out counter, no matter how short, will automatically come to a halt and remain that way until your ice cream has melted and dropped into your shoes.
THE LEFTOVER LAW: Any food that would be delicious as a leftover will never be left over.
THE LAUNDRY LAW: The average washer or dryer will, in its lifetime, consume its own weight in socks... with a limit of one sock per pair.
THE BARGAIN-BASEMENT LAW: Any dress on sale at 50% off and fit to wear to an occasion more elegant than a wheel alignment will never be available in your size.
THE CHICKEN-CROSSING-THE-ROAD LAW: Any person trying to cross a highway from a side road will find that traffic, nonexistent seconds before, will now build to holiday-weekend proportions.
THE CLEAN HOUSE LAW: If you wax the floors, wash the windows, scrub the walls and rinse out the light fixtures, no living soul will come to your door. Conversely, if you fail to dust, leave the dishes in the sink and let the children bathe the dog in the tub; your front porch will sag with unexpected visitors.
*.*
Oneliners:
In t-shirt sizes, XL > L > M, but it's the opposite in roman numerals.
120,000,000 Just sat down and watched a group of millionaires throw a ball.
"Sh*ts and giggles" is kind of cute, but "Sharts and gargles" is an entirely different mental image.
It must be hard for people in England to tell other people when they have a bloody nose.
It would be ironic if snake oil was found to be the cure for cancer.
Children are like farts. While you can tolerate your own, it's tough to put up with anyone else's.
If Japan had won WWII, we'd be learning in school about the Japanese freeing people from the concentration camps in America.
I wish there was a secret handshake or a badge that identified you to other retail workers as being a current or former retail worker so they know you're not just another dumb customer.
There is one person on the planet for who the phrase, "someone has it worse than you do" doesn't apply.
Poor people used to entertain rich people, now it's the opposite.
My pubes are a calendar for how long it's been since I was sexually active.
The people who are the most athletically ready for a zombie apocalypse are the ones who will be our worst enemy if they become zombies.
Issue of the Times;
7 Myths about the Inquisition by Adam N. Crawford
— 1 —
The term “Inquisition” actually refers to an institution not an event.
Actually, more like a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat or suppress heresy. Begun in 12th century France, the ecclesiastical tribunal known as the inquisition has evolved over the years but is still an active part of the Roman Curia today, although admittedly operating under a different name. Originally the inquisition was carried out using local clergy as judges,1 but starting in the 1250’s inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order due to their unique charism. St. Dominic founded his order in 1216 in order to preach the Gospel and combat heresy. Is it any wonder that their name gave rise to the pun that they were the Domini canes, or Hounds of the Lord?2 In 1904 the office of the inquisition was given the new name Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and in 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and remains as such to this day.
— 2 —
Much like the Crusades, the Inquisition was not a single event, but can be generally broken into the following categories.
• Medieval Inquisition – 1184 AD through the 14th century.
• Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance – During this time the tribunal’s geographic scope was expanded to other European countries resulting most notably in:
1. The Spanish Inquisition – 1478 AD – 1834 AD (this is the inquisition which is perhaps most widely misrepresented today.)
2. Portuguese Inquisition – 1536 AD – 1821 AD
• The Roman Inquisition – 1588 AD – Present, in the form of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Spain and Portugal in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires with a particular focus on the issue of Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism – partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted back to their previous religions.
The concept and scope of these inquisitions were also significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
— 3 —
The Inquisition was born out of a need for fair trials, and to prevent unjust executions.
“For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training–something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.”3
— 4 —
The Spanish Inquisition was actually vastly superior to other secular courts of the day.
Unlike the situation in the secular courts of the day, the use of torture was strictly regulated by the Church. In fact, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was actually prohibited for the first twenty years of the inquisition before being first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1265.
The procedures of the Inquisition are well known through a whole series of papal bulls and other authoritative documents, but mainly through such formularies and manuals as were prepared by St. Raymond Peñaforte (c1180-1275), the great Spanish canonist, and Bernard Gui (1261-1331), one of the most celebrated inquisitors of the early 14th Century. The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were also theological experts who followed the rules and instructions meticulously, and were either dismissed or punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Pope Gregory IX.4
From the start limits were placed on the use of torture that were unheard of in the secular courts of the day.
• It was not to cause bloodshed, the loss of life or limb, or imperil life.
• Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless all other expedients were exhausted.
• When it was used, it was not to be applied for more than 15 minutes.
• It was never administered by the inquisitor (a cleric) but rather by the executioner appointed by the state. (In fact, in the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity)
• A Physician had to be present and could stop the proceedings at any time.
There were no rapes, feet burning, creative torture chambers, iron maidens, etc., and reports show that between 98%-99% of all inquisition trials did not involve torture at all. Compared to secular courts that decreed the death penalty for damaging shrubs in England, or disembowelment for sheep-stealing in France, the Spanish Inquisition was actually far more conservative than the secular Europe of the day. In fact, there are multiple accounts of convicts in Spain blaspheming on purpose, precisely so that they would be transferred to the significantly more humane prisons of the Spanish Inquisition.
According to Professor Kamen, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.” Prof. Jaime Conterras agreed: “We find when comparing the Spanish Inquisition with other tribunals that the Spanish Inquisition used torture much less. And if we compare the Spanish Inquisition with tribunals in other countries, we find that the Spanish Inquisition has a virtually clean record in respect to torture.”5
— 5 —
The death toll numbers that you have heard are wrong. Flat out wrong.
Protestant preacher Jimmy Swaggart claimed that 20 million people were murdered by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.6 Another Protestant text, “The Mystery of Babylon Revealed” claims 95 million people were killed during the Inquisition.
Really? 95 million? How is that even possible? It is not until modern times that the population of all of Europe even begins to approach 95 million. The present-day population of France, Spain, and Italy is about 150 million. To kill 95 million during just the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church would have had to kill every man, woman, and child in all of Europe, then import millions more just to kill them too.
In contrast to these claims, modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Spanish Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histórico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all inquisition processes between 1560 and 1700 AD. This material provides information about 49,092 judgements which were carefully studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. They calculate that only 1.9% of those processed were burned at the stake.
You read that right –
According to the historical records, less than 2% of all accused heretics were executed.
García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Spanish Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560 – 1700 AD (about 2%), the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Even if we take into account variances due to records from other regions and possible variations throughout the rest of the time period, it is highly unlikely that the total death toll would exceed 3,000 – 5,000 executed during the entire 300 year period of the Spanish Inquisition. Henningsen and Contreras also studied the records of 44,674 other cases, finding that 826 resulted in executions in person and 778 were executions in effigy alone – i.e. a straw dummy was burned in place of the person.7
With all of that in mind, it is also important to note:
— 6 —
The Catholic Church executed no one.
That’s right, the Catholic Church never executed a single heretic. The Church did impose punishment on heretics in order to bring them to repentance. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other punishments were more severe: fines whose proceeds were devoted to public purposes such as church-building and road-making, whipping with rods during religious services, the pillory, the wearing of colored crosses, and so on.
The hardest penalties were imprisonment, excommunication from the Church, and surrender to the civil authority. “Cum ecclesia” ran the regular expression, “ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari” — i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority.
Officially then, it was never the Catholic Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death. Rather, it was the state who determined and carried out the sentence of death. Heretics were traitors to both God and king, and dangerous to the welfare of the kingdom. Therefore, they deserved death. And unlike the Church, the state had no qualms about carrying out this sentence.
— 7 —
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
“Between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries in western Europe, the Latin Christian Church adapted certain elements of Roman legal procedure and charged papally appointed clergy to employ them in order to preserve orthodox religious beliefs from the attacks of heretics … Between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries … these procedures, personnel and institutions were transformed by polemic and fiction into myth, the myth of The Inquisition. The institutions and the myth lived — and developed – in western Europe and the New World until the early nineteenth century, when most of the inquisitions were abolished, and the myth itself was universalized …
Although the inquisitions disappeared, The Inquisition did not. The myth was originally devised to serve variously the political purposes of a number of early modern political regimes, as well as Protestant Reformers, proponents of religious and civil toleration, philosophical enemies of the civil power of organized religions, and progressive modernists; but the myth remained durable, widely adaptable, and useful, so that in time it came to be woven tightly into the fabric of modern consciousness. So tight is its place in that weave that the myth has been revived in the twentieth century …
Some myths are tougher and more durable than the occasions which first create and employ them. The Inquisition [as myth] was an invention of the religious disputes and political conflicts of the sixteenth century. It was adapted to the causes of religious toleration and philosophical and political enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In this process, although it was always anti-Catholic and usually anti-Spanish, it tended to become universalized, until, by the end of the eighteenth century, it had become the representative of all repressive religions that opposed freedom of conscience, political liberty and philosophical enlightenment.
In the United States, far more than in Europe, The Inquisition remained an evil abstraction, sustained by anti-Catholicism and supported by political opposition.”8
In 1994 the BBC broadcast a television documentary entitled, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. It is just over 45 minutes long, free to watch on YouTube, and I highly recommend it. Enjoy!
Quote of the Times;
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” – II Thessalonians 3:10
Link of the Times;
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/10/31/the-decline-and-fall-of-western-culture-in-one-photo/
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.