Banner Rotate

Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Nassim Taleb: An Undeservingly Exalted Moron

It just so happens that every now and then, the mention of any random politically well-known sleazebag will rile me up just like the resurgence of a poorly flushed 'floater' turd left over by a fellow drugged-up patron at some underground music gig where the toilet facilities are borderline third world.

The paragraph above is exactly how I feel when I come across random troglodytes who keep harping on about Nassim Nicholas Taleb and his authored piece, The Black Swan, as though he is some financial and scientific genius for coming up with a book that chronicles how shills like him manage to stay legitimate and afloat in modern society. Of course, such an intellectually bankrupt and morally arrogant shmuck can only appeal to the naive ineptitude of a specific branch of the struggling ‘masses’ who seem to enjoy being dictated under terms of absolute ignorance and arrogance; I can’t help but think troglodyte because there is little intellectual merit in placing, what can be best described as Salman Rushdie’s ugly evil twin, upon such a mantle.

For the remaining length of this post, I will focus on Nassim Taleb’s 2010 interview with NewStatesman. I believe that this particular interview manages to fully capture the tone and textured personality of this turd—err, economist, and just how he manages to hold such a strong grip over a certain quadrant of the human population who have become so meek and desperate that they would surrender their higher critical faculties to a self-serving, bovine, Libertarian mascot of doom (Hassan, 2010). 

One can always start by pecking away at the irony, but in this case, one would be pecking away eternally since Taleb’s ramblings often are an odd case of the ironic. Now I find it awfully ironic that an ape-headed, proto-elitist shit-head, whose greatest achievement is joining the ranks of other scoundrel ‘dooms day traders’, actually calls legitimate scientists and critical minds—no matter how extreme—of the rationalist movement, such as Dawkins and Harris, a bunch of ‘gullible charlatans’ (Hassan, 2010).

It’s both ironic and funny, since between those two words—gullible and charlatan—I can easily describe Taleb and the poor wavering souls that seek his condescending council and hang by his every word like a withering infant clinging to its mother’s baron breasts before giving in to the eventual providence that is death—but hey, it’s their fault since they allowed themselves to succumb to a black swan event. Watching morons gush over this man’s sheer mediocrity and infuriating arrogance is in itself, an experience worthy of being mirrored against carrion or other forms of deathly decay. Nassim Taleb is the quintessential scoundrel economist – a fucking shill for the corporate gang-bangs and an apologist for the elitist status quo peering down upon those mongrel plebeians because we all know what a bunch of depraved vermin they all are, right? And this gluttonous professional thief and denigrator of true valuable human wealth  that goes beyond artificial fiscal terminologies, has the gall to call men of much better philosophical and moral standing—Dawkins et al.—a bunch of charlatans because they’re ‘new atheists’ and apparently pose some kind of threat or challenge to his hot-winded demagoguery? Talk about the idiomatic case of the pot and the kettle!

I certainly find this to be a disturbing case of irony and a pivotal example of where the state of public discourse has ended up, when outright crooks and gutter-festering scum—who virtually pride themselves on the suffering of others and manipulation of market tactics—can call anyone, let alone established critical minds, ‘charlatans’. I could argue that this is just another case of a bovine shit-head simply projecting himself upon those who he finds threatening to his carefully weaved hypocrisy of materialism with a swinging door to faux spirituality, but let us not even get into that mess at this point – the man’s a slimy rat who gets away a bit too often with the same dodgy act because he is excessively celebrated for what I consider to be trivial contributions that are grossly over-exagerrated while also overshadowed by his perpetual disdain for anything and everything that does not factor into his conceited worldview.

As the pompous pseudo-intellectual that he is, Nassim Taleb even has the audacity to argue that atheism is some kind of vacuum that begs for, and justifies religion, for it begets human arrogance. I am certainly starting to see a pattern with this pig-face, since he and his ilk can be considered the modern-day cabal of arrogant elitism; living off of the chaos and pitfalls of a market while risking very little of their own skin in the process and laughing at the rest for being too naive. Yes, the same naive idiots who also naively buy into their nonsense and about-turn change of character from ‘competitive douche bags’ to ‘intellectual paragons’. Double-speak and self-projection are the primary elements of this man’s putrid profile and a reminder to all that even higher levels of social discourse have been shamefully hijacked by these types of cockroaches and their self-asserted ‘status quo’.

Finally, I proudly celebrate my own bias by saying that this grade-A cunt should be left to languish in some ‘Idiot Ward’ beyond the thirteenth circle of hell for having the audacity to pull the ‘Communism is an Atheism Experiment’ straw man argument. So he writes a book that is mind-numbingly obvious with no real solution, so now he gets to defacate utter nonsense from all orifices. Yes, the corpulent mongoloid pulled out the dreaded ‘c’ word in the aforementioned interview, so I am invoking another rather frowned upon ‘c’ word to counteract the point of how this piece of low-grade shit actually manages to link demagogues and fascist dictators—note: not dictatorship of proletariats, but rather, individuals and power structures that have more in common with Taleb and his ivory tower than he’ll lead on—with a concept of non-religiousness that has, at its very core, an outright rejection of such fascistic level of control and dominion over others.

The late, great and sorely missed, Christoper Hitchens, who passed away last year on the 15th of December, has harped on about this very subject, debate after debate against his feeble-minded opponents, whenever that weak communism angle has been pulled; often a closing symptom of the waning standing of his opposition when they’d often fail to counteract his basic points. What Nassim Taleb is so deceitfully siphoning through cheap-charming speech, is a far fucking cry from an ‘atheist experiment’ or even a ‘Marxist experiment’, especially when we open ourselves to the pending realisation that it is not a socialist or atheist experiment when a frighteningly ambitious cunt with a superiority complex, seizes the ignorance of a generally ignorant, superstitious and intellectually oppressed populace, and replaces their sense of theological servitude and dependence with a different brand of what is essentially the same servitude but now at the mercy of a self-appointed God in the flesh. 

That’s right... All the Pol Pots, Maos, and Stalins (and even Talebs) of the world are nothing more than another manifestation of the same arrogant God complex and absolute certitude of dogma bullying and dictating of the weak to further its own agendas; it is a vice that can manifest in the form of institutions, or it can be conjured up in the form of theological fables, or it can even be realised in the form of fascist individuals or self-important economists who start to believe their own hype.  The aforementioned individuals couldn’t get anywhere without religion and without using the symbolic potential and acculturate force of religion where it would be most convenient, just as Naseem Taleb does when he attempts to backhandedly discredit the likes of Dawkins and socialist economics in favour of something that better suits his parasitic and cancerous need to outright prey upon the weak and even exploit them where possible.

A pattern indeed: in this disgusting exhibit of self-grandiosity, Nassim Taleb has created irrefutable irony. In his put down of new atheism, socialism, and atheist intellectuals that he cannot even back up with anything better than a pathetic digression, he has essentially created the perfect allegory to his own character profile and legacy as nothing more than a pompous, elitist libertarian and dogma apologist sucking on the cock of a very subversive establishment that always deceitfully presents itself as the ‘underdog’ and ‘contrary movement’ when its proselytisers happen to be well-settled privileged scum, such as Nassim Taleb and Peter Schiff, dictating and even condemning policy through selective-bias from a position of relative comfort and distinguished affluence.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing about this man and how he is some kind of genius for apparently illustrating the obvious pitfalls of the bloated free market system. He isn't being innovative by constantly insisting on the notion that everyone should avoid black swan events by being robust, when in such an environment, someone always has to lose – everyone cannot win, otherwise that’s the very socialism that Taleb and his cohorts admonish and insist on demonising to irrational levels. Good for the idiot! He shamelessly babbles on a bunch of intellectually bankrupt statements against atheists and moderate free marketers, like every typical, self-righteous right-wing columnist—such as A. N. Wilson—while conveniently assuming that readers will miss out on the fact that those very statements probably apply a heck of a lot better to him and his breed of fiscal cockroaches.

I am sick and tired of hearing about this babbling dim-wit, who genuinely only manages to appeal to the lowest denominator for pointing out some obvious things and then spinning them into his political talking points. He is far from a big deal. He is the very charlatan that he baselessly accuses Dawkins and Harris of being; he epitomises the human arrogance that he allocates as a vice to atheism. Over and above all else, he insists that fascism under the ruse of socialist ideologies somehow supports his point when all it does is aptly show how well demagogues can turn the idea of dogma into a live-action role-play, and how well many of those people—in mentality—would get along with pigs such as Taleb, given their sense of superiority and disdain of others who are less aggressive in that 'law of the jungle' sense.

“But. . . But. . . The Black Swan is epi—” – Some Random Shmuck Before Being Bound and Gagged 
“Seriously, if I hear one more insistence on how something as trivial and outdated as The Black ‘Fucking’ Swan was some work of genius that excuses a mediocre self-serving egomaniac from being rightfully called a mediocre self-serving egomaniac, my mouth is literally going to part in demonically grotesque fashion—maxilla and mandible dichotomising through flesh—before I spew forth a flaming legion of evil rapist black swans who will then go on to ravage the world and inflict many unappreciated ‘events’ on these pompous pricks ranting from atop their ivory towers without a single fucking clue or even the graceful sense of self-awareness and irony!” – My Response

It’s a shame really that I have to actually question why men like Nassim Taleb have reason to become so invested in their own arrogant hype, when just across the other end of that social equation, there is an alarming sect of marks who generously feed such a mentality and enable the condescending egos of these self-appointed messianic freaks. The quicker we stop making gurus out of these scum, the quicker we can actually move towards the authentic, graceful form of individual standing and ability to reason that doesn't have to self-legitimise and survive off of its own mediocrity and pomposity by pointlessly scoffing at the backdrop of a collective civilisation or set of common ideas that allowed it the luxury to exist in the first place.


Hassan, M. (2010, June 18). The NS Interview: Nassim Nicholas Taleb. New Statesman - Britain's Current Affairs & Politics Magazine. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

To Russia, With Scorn – A Case of Dogma Encroaching on Human Rights; Yes, The Pussy Riot Controversy

I most certainly missed the memo on the issue, when special privileges were being awarded to the religious orthodoxy in Russia at the peril of the essential human rights of everyone else who has no ethical or moral obligation to respect or honour the tenants of any esoteric religious hogwash, should they chose to do so; it is their human right (The United Nations, 1948). If the late and great, Christopher Hitchens, were still around, he would be mopping the floor with every apologist who would dare embrace the ignominious task of dignifying the Russian legal system's treatment of the band, Pussy Riot, for mere political protest where the increasingly state-dominant religion was also – deservingly so – slandered. I had initially chosen to remain quiet on the subject, but after having read this excellent post on the My Secret Atheist+ blog (My Secret Atheist+ Blog, 2012), I am motivated to have my own say on the subject. By the dead God's carcass, I am going to devote a paragraph, or several, to this issue where all sense of common decency has been sacrificed in a single-handed desolation of the human rights convention!

The story's fast becoming a chapter of old news in light of just how much else seems to go wrong real fast in the world of the fast and furiously powerful. However, I was eager to make some comments when it went viral over the atheist page on Facebook. Unfortunately, by this point, much of the discussion was already hijacked by self-entitled theocratic pundits insisting that not only do they have a right to practice their personal delusion of choice, but they also have a right to force the rest of us to respect their theological sentiments. These individuals truly lack the kind of common sense that is required to avoid conflating the notion of respecting people's right to any given religion with forcing other people to respect the actual religion in question.

Russian punk band, Pussy Riot, finds itself at the heart of all this drama for offending the sensibilities of Russian church dictum, and attacking this religious institution's present cosy relationship with the ruling political mob. I refer to them as a mob, because in this day and age, their legal system had the gall to sentence members of this band to a two-year incarceration in the name of appeasing this elite club of theocratic-fascists who have the special right to not only be offended, but to have others penalised for bringing them mere offence (BBC, 2012). As it stands, human rights have taken a back seat – and have even been sacrificed – to the goals of religious appeasement.

“Fuck your human rights, bitches! You just messed with the state-dictate and their soon-to-be religious status quo of support! The hounds of hell shall be unleashed upon you heathens!” - An Appropriate Summary

I would consider it a noble effort that before we talk about human rights, we should really quiz some of these supposed 'heads of states' on just how well they comprehend the convention on human rights. It seems that they like to take the freedom of religion aspect so far and wide that it practically decimates every other article in the process (The United Nations, 1948); they're essentially transforming the right to religion into an imposition of religion upon the rest of us, leaving us with no choice but forced servility under threat of legal ramifications. We have essentially let a bunch of extremists hijack all progress, and then like efficient  extremists, completely decimate what human rights we have struggled to achieve over the last century.

Individuals have a right to practice and observe their personal beliefs, by themselves, and with others who agree to share in such practice. They are not free to impose their customs and theological courtesies upon the rest of us who are not obliged to care for, or respect, the actual religion; our duties as members of a free and progressive society end at allowing them their right to practice what they wish to practice. We only respect the right, not the actual belief! Now in return for this neutral, non-imposing courtesy, the rest of us non-believing heathens are free to practice what we practice, and if any of that happens to be diametrically offensive to someone else's beliefs, then they are free to be offended, and we are not obliged to care, or make hasty retreat – matter closed. Human rights are essential rights for people to exist as who they are without stifling one another; special privileges introduced into this equation to protect the emotions of certain groups grossly extends past such parameters of neutrality and begins encroachment upon the rights of others. This is a simple example of human rights as they stand, and not as the shoddy parody that they've become in today's world where malicious political elements are free to pick and chose what they want in order to support their tyranny while leaving out everything else that might be at absolute odds with the same tyrannical thesis.

This is absolute state-terrorism on the part of Russia. It carries political ramifications, and places a great deal of power, coercion, and theological abuse in the hands of an archaic institution such as the Russian Orthodox Chruch, which is quickly beginning to rival the dogmatic reach of Wahabist state doctrine in Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, the religious elite are awarded vulgar levels of appurtenance that allows them to do something about being merely offended. The system is granting these special few a level of dominion over their own fellow humans by allowing their cultural sensitivities priority and permit to trample over the very personal sanctity of others in a fascistic mission to impose censorship in the name of a non-falsifiable hypothesis: God. Apparently, in the eyes of God's chosen establishment, we are now mere animals for being unbelievers – our right to express a lack of faith doesn't merit an acknowledgement, let alone some level of protection against such virulent intimidation and state-endorsed assault.

“Why don't we turn our attention to that thread of hypocrisy that has penetrated The United Nations? I think that we should.” - A Thought

Aside from being a sceptic, I regularly drift into outright cynicism; world affairs often leave a lot to be desired, with even pettier excuses to merit the problems incurred. However, I will for one brief moment, give this moronic interpretation of modernity and human rights a sincere benefit of doubt. Perhaps the intentions are noble; perhaps in pursuit of generating tolerance, political figures and individuals with power have lost sight of the forest for the trees. Now, having done this -- having spent more time trying to manipulate religious parties into getting along, the policy-pushers have essentially ostracised a major bracket of agnostics and sceptics who not only feel politically excluded, but are also falling under an insidious wave of onslaught from various religious orthodoxy. So much for protecting all sects of society.

As it stands, rather than defending human rights from a source of neutrality where beliefs – in the absurd and otherwise – aren't required to be protected, but rather, people are to be protected from the dangerous, venomous dictates that stem from such beliefs, we have a trend towards protecting beliefs, and extending their reach beyond self-practice into a territory of sheer infringement upon outsiders. I have written about this in the past; human rights isn't about protecting religion and assigning it executive power; such progress is about defending minorities of all walks – religious and non-religious – from being persecuted by ideological, and by extension, religious dogma. This logical blunder, which is still tolerated and allowed to continue, should have been called out and should have become evident to the individuals who're playing a part in perpetuating said blunder.

I already touched on this subject in 2010 when I addressed the blasphemy law proposition. We already know that the UN – as an organisation – is contaminated with the tarnished presence of fork-tongued scum from Islamist countries, who carry with them, a very dubious agenda to not only award religion a specific spot of privilege that trumps human rights, but also disgraceful policy that deviates attention from serious issues within the Islamic creed that are at absolute odds with the civilised world. It is bad enough that nearly a billion individuals find themselves ideologically oppressed under such heinous theocratic harassment; now we're actually contorting essential rights to appease these glorified bullies?! This is either the product of professionally disgraceful short-sightedness, which I doubt, or the ominous undertone of malicious elements in policy making and execution. Unfortunately, despite the benefit of doubt, my cynicism and general disgust with the vermin that the UN allows into its sanctum wins out, and much to my own dismay.

“And what of that eccentric punk band that no one had heard of, who ended up pissing off the Russian church and its elite dictators, who in turn brought down the wrath of their man-made God – government, in this case – upon these errant heathens?! Now in jail for two years for mere political and theological dissent in the most passive and speech-expressive of mannerisms. All because a bunch of megalomaniacs in robes and collars got offended!” – Harsh Truths

It's high time that we stop sailing aimlessly in a sea of false gestures, and actually do the one thing to eliminate ideologically driven human intolerance, by becoming intolerant towards such heinous policy where political process becomes a lap dog for Draconian cultures set to oppress, diminish, and destroy every crucial aspect of human thought, freedom, and progress.

Russia's had one hell of a sordid history over the last century or so, and it's a damn shame that they're now quite possibly at the forefront of resurrecting another branch of the dark ages. A travesty permitted only by a cancerous political hierarchy that has allowed their legal and political systems to be seized by religious zealots, who're focused on imposing their tyranny; subverting human dignity and enlightenment by executing their malicious proselytism of contemporary culture and human rights in name of their monopoly over the all-eternal mute and absent dictator: God.

This saga, I hope, will go down as a brief, but utterly shameful reminder to the people of Russia that their leadership is now generously prostituting itself to a religious status quo that has always existed and corrupted much throughout Russian history. It's a shame for the people, and an even bigger shame for the rest of the world as we stand by idle, not even daring to make that pivotal gesture of support and solidarity against such a sickening attack on freedom of conscience; we have allowed in this day and age, the passing of something that should not be tolerated. We are witnessing the violation of very basic human rights for the sake of protecting and finding common ground between the monotheistic charlatans who're driven by delusions of divine grandeur. It's quite frightening, actually; imagine what will happen once these parties that lay sole claim to a one and only, malicious and capricious God, finally find common ground. The prospects of everyone else – who would dare to refuse servitude under such barbarianism – seem very dire under such a terrifying trend.

“Rather than make apologies, and remain reticent on the question behind the real issue of religion's subversion of human rights in the context of modernity, we should approach and prioritise this issue of society and human dignity from the right corner – human rights. These essential rights should take absolute precedence over all other forms of orthodoxy, cultural sensitivities, and theological oppression. People belonging to a special club of ideas are entitled to be offended if someone doesn't agree with or respect those ideas, and that's where it ends; they have no special place to penalise those that dare to dissent.  
More importantly, we shouldn't waste more of our time pandering to the mediation process between religions and their fanatic elements, when we should actually be protecting people from the fallout of these very elements that have human rights violations almost hard-wired in their design. People don't want their beliefs protected when they already have all the rights to practice any element of their choice. What they want is protection from other beliefs that might impose upon their very fundamental existence or differing views. Unfortunate indeed that the Russian justice system, instead of protecting its citizens, is actually becoming the very force that violates their basic rights and dignity. We have gone beyond patent intolerance and straight into the down-right ironic with this modern-day re-enactment of medieval savagery that has no place in a post-enlightenment era, let alone the bloody twenty-first century!” – The Closer

I am going to finish by taking a quote from the My Secret Atheist+ Blog post on this subject, “Who's interested in Human Rights?” Better yet, I'll couple this excellent quote with another quote that is often floating around inside my circle of malcontent folk, “Sure, they've got their human rights and right to religion, but what about our human rights?” As a collective, we have a rational, and utmost humanistic moral prerogative to emancipate all forms of human rights articles from their present incarceration under the purpose of serving religious convenience. There should be no tolerance for such nonsense -- as has been the unfortunate case with Pussy Riot's sentencing -- in this day and age, let alone the offensive treading around, and embarrassing defence of the subject by representatives of other world powers who are too busy playing meaningless cultural diplomacy. I am sorry, but a few neutered, generic sentiments of passive condemnation are not doing the case for human rights any kind of service.


BBC (2012, August 17). Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. BBC News - Europe. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from

My Secret Atheist+ Blog (2012, August 22). Pussy Riot and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird: Looking out for the interests of Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church. My Secret Atheist+ Blog. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from

The United Nations (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Looking Back at 2011: The Legacy of Intellectual Dishonesty – A Critique of The Daily Mail's Up and Coming Demagogue, A.N. Wilson

The year 2011 was quite eventful, despite many of those events being expected and perhaps even trivial. However, the one thing that my mind does keep going back to is the London riots, and more particularly, the general public and media perception of the phenomenon. I recall getting very aggravated by certain columnists, especially Daily Mail's A.N. Wilson, who took it upon himself to seize the opportunity for his own myopic religious critique of social decline. Perhaps it was a creatively dry period and he had no better pitch to offer other than to take an obnoxious religious angle on the matter, but I think it was more the case of intentional demagoguery. I also recall that even in my post from last year, I brought up the humility of religious thinkers who were abstaining from the act of harsh judgement as a testament to their values. It was really a paradoxical moment since I – as an 'amoral atheist' by Wilson's broad stroke perception – was talking about not judging others as well. Meanwhile, this upper middle-class shill with a metal-bound Bible up his ass was patently denouncing the ignorance, disillusionment, and absolute desperation of the weak as a product of their vices and theological inferiority, compounded by the secularisation of society.

Now a year on from the event and the media circus that it spawned, I am taking the opportunity to finally address my mention of theism in that last post, and with particular regard for its purpose of use before this piece turns into a potentially blind vindication of manipulative charlatans like Wilson of The Daily Mail and his embarrassing column on the virtues of religion during these riots (Wilson, 2011).

It should be made perfectly clear that hijacking this disastrous outcome that was the 2011 London riots to promote an esoteric agenda -- with potentially ulterior motives -- is not going to fly in the face of reason. Using this social phenomenon to execute a one-sided commentary on the moral decline of society, and then blame it on the lack of religious values is not going to work in a rational discussion, especially when that argument is further supplemented with laments about how people aren't free to don or sport religious symbols any longer like the next fancy fashion accessory (Wilson, 2008). This is an ironic key point in Mr. Wilson's poorly concealed exposition -- or deception, more like it -- because it is actually the direct result of other religious presence in this country and has nothing to do with those that are, how would one say, 'religiously apathetic'. Last time I checked, it was other religious minorities that took exception in greater numbers to the idea of Christmas being called 'Christmas' because of their counter-theological inclinations or sense of feeling undermined. It was other religious minorities that took offence to Christian folk of this country donning their symbols, which hasn't really stopped anyone since they still continue to do so, and I personally continue to not give a shit about. It was the product of multiculturalism where other religiously galvanised minorities felt 'less equal' when one particular symbol was dominant, again another factor that warrants little care on my part as the antitheist.

Individuals like A.N. Wilson would insincerely mourn the tragic death of Tariq Jahan's son and his two friends as a subterfuge to pass this idealistic positive view of how people of all faiths who feel answerable to some 'higher moral authority' are truly the ones to shine at such times. Yet another poorly veiled attempt at seizing interfaith dialogue for ulterior gains. Not to mention, something that we know Mr. Wilson doesn't embrace all that sincerely. All this hypocritical garbage, while continuing to peddle the same mantra about disaffection and lack of morality resulting in the suppression of very specific Christian values in this country, a truth that is horribly undercut by this devious man's own prior writings. This emergence of counter-Christianisation is something that he himself admitted – more or less – was a direct result of the 'Islamisation of UK' brought on by what he considered mass immigration; a publicly professed tangent from no more than four-years-ago (Wilson, 2008).

Make no mistake, we are all free to change our minds, but when it comes to a serious re-think of prior ramblings, then we offer umbrage and apologies for the error of our old ways before we proceed to haphazardly contradict our prior works; we should have the grace to admit that we were wrong before any such deviations are expected to be taken seriously. On the other hand, Mr. Wilson's shameless, hypocritical diatribe that demonstrated the same recycled 'victim card' nonsense -- with selected facts and confounders being left out -- was attributed as a straw man argument against the rationalist movement, which is a downright shame. I refuse to believe that an individual who is so patently deceptive, and morally bankrupt, could ever be a truly God fearing human being. Hell, if I was a betting man, I'd bet that he doesn't even believe in any higher moral authority given how shamelessly he'll twist his own statements to fit the counter-cultural fad of the current affairs. This man's a career media-manipulator and probably has a great potential for being a salesman for the Tea Party movement in the United States.

The low down critique of A.N. Wilson's self-serving monologues:

  • Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. Fundamental conditioning and extraordinary factors aside, cultural agendas and religion, while engrained at a younger age, simply become more of a justification of the fundamental values and leanings of the concerned individual at a later stage. (Example: 'I must wage war because my religion says so.' Or, 'I must do charitable deeds because my religion says so.' There's something very extraordinary that a pacifist Moslem has in common with an Islamic Fanatic – they both do what they feel they need to do, and justify it using different aspects of the same faith that fits their personal agendas.)

  • Tariq Jahan seems like a genuinely good man, so he did a good thing and used his religion as a positive philosophy to drive the point further rather than preach down from an offensively detached ivory tower. Hell, the man hardly even made mention of his creed. All he expressed truly was disappointment towards how his son's life ended, and closed on a plea that the matter be left as it is since his faith gives him comfort in the idea that his son is destined for heaven. Of course, we can always trust spin-meisters like A.N. Wilson to twist this around into a pro-religious argument.

  • Funny part being that the typical profile of most of these 'disaffected youths' was that of lower income families who have plenty of misplaced faith and religion in their households to compensate for the lack of material success. I might be overgeneralising here, but it is, generally speaking, an accurate assumption that these are the people who tend to rely on religion, and despite this reliance, it is clearly not getting the job done. Why? Perhaps because there's a wealth of other factors that drive people towards greed, depravity and avarice. It is also another reason why people, in the name of any higher moral authority, end up committing some of the most heinous acts known to humanity (Pogatchnik, 2011).

I am going to throw a recycled theory out there, into this ever-changing cesspool that is the internet, and we can also consider this theory, my bottom line. Good folk do good things and bad folk do bad things, and there's a much more complicated cocktail of factors that determine the direction folks take with their lives and agendas that far exceeds the simplistic dictate of dogma. Let's not get religion and their ideology of justification tied up into this mess, otherwise before making any moral authority look good, a lot of us will be making those very authorities, and ourselves, look pretty fuckin' dubious. Also, it just so happens, due to the sheer case of statistical numbers that the majority of immoral and heinous crimes are indeed committed by self-righteous scum supposedly doing the bidding of some higher power under the illusion of divine approval. This isn't an argument against religion, because I do strongly believe that even if we had a majority atheist world, we'd still have a significant degree of heinous acts in the name of some other source of orthodox authoritarianism such as science, logic, or utilitarianism; the list is endless. I am quite certain that this notion isn't entirely lost on sharp, shrewd little authors such as the smug and self-righteous, Mr. Wilson, who're perfectly aware of the inherent contradiction in their vendetta. This includes the misleading undertones of their own various agendas that snipe out at any level-headed reader, and even the hypocrisy that reeks from the totality of the inconsistent dossier that is formed as an end result of their converging works to desperately promote such a factually false, myopic outlook of a society that is presented as having fallen victim to vice as a direct result of decline in faith. Such obnoxious certitude has no place in a reasonable social analysis of any form.

Fact remains that in 2008, this man was blatantly blaming Moslems for the attack on English Christianity, identity, and moral values, along with further attribution to multiculturalism (Wilson, 2008). Today he's singing the exact same lamenting mantra vis-à-vis the English identity, but actually using romanticised notions of the Moslem and other foreign communities to support the same intellectually-crippled argument without any regard for the contradicting precedence set by his prior disaster-pieces of dishonesty, courtesy of The Daily Mail. Mr. Wilson is a classic example of a Fox Hole Atheist, who is now reborn, but not with a self-conscious humility, paired with commitment to a cosmic supremacy or sense of piety, but to a false, politicised agenda – he is deluded like a religious fanatic, and he is manipulative like an arrogant atheist who assumes his own immunity to scrutiny. The man's a Luciferian cocktail of intellectual vices!

Our society, from a rational and a religious stand-point, doesn't need these dangerously dodgy self-parodies like A.N. Wilson to force themselves upon the rest of us as the true and only bearers of a moral compass. I'd dare say that the man's own wayward writings make him a bit of a joke, and a potentially great liar, but this isn't a light matter. Honest, decent-minded individuals probably turn to this man's dented rhetoric to form their own views, and when society has these type of individuals promoting and preaching their flawed thinking in the face of some very strong challenges, the general construct becomes compromised. Yes, there's far bigger things to worry about when it comes to the coercion of individual thought, and the often easy-target known as the government is just one – and most likely the least – of those elements. All one needs to look at is the media, along with powerful entities in the private sector pushing politicised marketing and actually funding their politically motivated lobbies. Looking back again at the media and these passionate pundits who seem like honest connoisseurs of knowledge, one can then fully appreciate and realise that in reality, they're nothing more than beacons for the same subversive thought derailing goal. It'd be great if people could think for themselves, but this romantic Libertarian notion of banning government and embracing subliminal faith  isn't going to rid us of corrosive elements of thought-control such as bad media and dodgy PR. We're constantly being fed information, and not all of it comes from a place of positive inquiry or honest intent.

“Friend of all theists; Moslems and Sikhs alike. An absolute load, and quite possibly the most disingenuous attempt at interfaith dialogue that I have seen in recent years. The moment Dawkins and his ilk die down, Wilson will be back on his high-horse preaching his older mantra in which he bashes Islam and multiculturalism for robbing his nation and kinship of 'their way of life' and their 'beliefs'. Call me a bit old-fashioned and simple, but I never trust a snake! A.N. Wilson can sell his bullshit on the Arab black market, because that's where it fuckin' belongs! As far as I am concerned, individuals like him are the very enemies of our way of life – and of reason – for they have no inward dignity or sense of allegiance to common decency; their rhetoric is about as unconscionable as their papermache faith.” - A Thought

The way I see it -- and here's another low-down on A.N. Wilson -- we're looking at the legacy of a man who abuses the concepts of dignity, belief, and faith; an individual who gives the idea of grace a sordidly bad spin. We are not dealing with a man of grace, and certainly not a champion of the people when he so shamelessly harps on about God and then applies antiquated Victorian classicist judgement on the weak and disillusioned. 'You're not good enough because you're not Godly enough!' that is the mission statement of these false prophets and born-again hypocrites, only looking to offer petty apologies at their man-made altars of greed, shameless self-service, and putrid servility to an elitist ideal.

"No individual, let alone this intellectually stunted, proto-theocratic bully, Wilson, has the face to talk down -- in most condescension -- to those of us with contrary beliefs or lack of theological faith. Neither does this individual have the face to impose his esoteric morality, and his arbitrary judgement upon the genuine, humanistic moral challenges faced by society from atop his sacred tower as a self-appointed authority on the matter. He has no place, and no moral grace of any sort that awards him the distinction to ramble on and be taken seriously as judge and jury about any subject matter, because he feels that his financial status and educational freedom -- a consequence of his sheer luck, fortunate fortune, privilege and status -- award him divine permission from some transuniversal tsar! We should not be subject to tolerating such borderline demagoguery!" - Another Thought Closes

Take it easy, people. Always be wary of individuals selling supposed truth for a dodgy price; don't buy into any more bullshit or the visage of a posing 'New Age Messiah' most likely pretending to be a man of God while leaving his personal back door open to his one and true lord and master – the metaphorical manifestation of humanity's dark side – Satan.


Pogatchnik, S. (2011, July 13). Ireland unveils new report on Catholic child abuse. Yahoo News. Retrieved
August 16, 2012, from

Wilson, A. N. (2011, August 13). Legacy of a society that believes in nothing. The Daily Mail. Retrieved August 16, 2012, from

Wilson, A. N. (2008, September 9). The Great Surrender: How Britain has given in to religious fanatics intent on destroying our way of life. The Daily Mail. Retrieved August 16, 2012, from

Saturday, June 30, 2012

The Illusion of Freewill – A Reality Check for Apologists of Monopolised Marketing

As of late, the fringe-movement on the internet is getting overwhelmed by 'individualist' and 'self-responsibility' hysteria, touted by self-important, elitist pin-heads who are riding high on their own hubris. These self-appointed wise folk, in the throes of their own arrogance, seem to think that all the modern-day afflictions suffered by the masses due to bad decision making are by and large a fault of their own greedy, malfunctioning freewill as opposed to that special field of consumer behaviourism that is dedicated to conceiving ideas that have a subconscious bearing on human behaviour, also known as marketing.

In these individuals' simplistic reality, psychologists and social-engineers have no real place or right of existence. No one can really be manipulated, and we're all subject to the perils of our own free thinking. Free thinking has become one hilarious oxymoron. There is no room for arguing against the possibility of true freewill, despite the fact that each and every so-called individual is subject to a substantial level of conditioning from day one under a certain cultural, societal, and personal set of parameters – it's an inescapable reality (Lafave, 2006). I used to bitch about religion in a similar manner, but having gone through literature and debate after debate with people who are a bit more informed on the subject than some fringe-bloggers with an overinflated sense of authority, I found my position to be child-like and naïve. Everything is a stimulus and can thus, be used to manipulate and condition an individual to behave a certain way if any party knows how to exploit this interaction between organism and environment to their benefit (McSweeney & Bierley, 1984, p. 619).

This doesn't mean that I have abandoned my atheism, or my critical view of dogma. I still maintain that certain types of religion, and certain degrees of practically any religion, are the most heinous form of conditioning, as the ability to adapt or change due to new exposure becomes overwhelmingly limited (Saeed & Saeed, 2004, p. 02). I do deal with shades of grey and distinguish between various levels of certain evils before denouncing something outright. However, this philosophical principle doesn't change the fact that we are indeed manipulated, directly and indirectly, which can have far-reaching impact on our behaviour and decision making. This is only a natural product of being human while under the crushing force of information overload. Problem arises when individuals, organisations, groups, congregations, cults etcetera, decide to use such factors as a means to control people through calculating methods that distort their perceptions, and incite a certain kind of behaviour that will serve to benefit said group's agenda. It's a very interesting subject, and one that merits great lengths of discussion, not pathetic trivialisation attempts followed by repetitive apologies for the commercial culture that is chewing up the insides of our craniums faster than a bad case of gangrene.

Unfortunately, I find that before even daring to engage many of these amateur philosophers on such a sensitive subject – who really do express their elitist indignation with much aggression – perhaps I should beat them over the head with a copy of Skinner's 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity'. I'd ask 'em to read, but what I've found with this here lovely internet is that people are very busy talking past one another rather than devoting some quality time to first, shutting the fuck up, and second, taking in information, and analysing the contents internally. You see, I just find it incredibly alarming and troublesome when supposedly well-read individuals actually have the audacity to downplay and understate the impact of marketing and mass-media techniques, and their role as crucial elements in the habit-formation of individuals. It is atrocious thinking that absolutely spits in the face of so many maladies we face in the modern world (Harris, Bronwell, Bargh, 2010).

Yeah, sure. . . My doctorate friend – who only follows classical Enlgish literature as his cultural outlet – manages to produce a daughter who naturally gravitates to Miley Cyrus. It had nothing to do with the massive hours she spent watching Hannah Montana and associated Disney commercialism that drove her to chose such mind-numbing shit as her recreational stimuli, despite the fact that she started off as a Hannah Montana fan while watching that vomit-fest, and then progressed to the status of a Miley Cyrus fan. Hell, I was into Superman as a toddler because that shit was being forced on all of us; it was only my rather unconventional childhood cognitive dissonance because of which I found myself exploring darker themes and anti-heroes as opposed to one-dimensional clichés. So don't give me this bullshit that because I was fully aware of my choice on a very superficial level as an individual that it should be taken to mean that I had some metaphysical element that gravitated to Superman. It was a fucking marketed concept, and like the majority, I bought into the concept since it was designed and marketed with a certain appeal technique in mind! It worked! It was successful! Now imagine if these techniques are cross-transferred to other fields to achieve similar commercial ends, but at the cost of serious health risks. Oh, it can happen! And it does happen, otherwise the marketing world would evaporate overnight. Why the fuck don't people understand this shit?!” – Anecdotal Anomaly

An achievement in absolute ignorance has been met when we have people downplaying the notion that children are indeed very avid learners through repetition, and that an industry is built on this idea, including a splinter industry that seeks to exploit this idea; why else are members of the APA so caught up on the moral overtones of the subject matter (Clay, 2000, p. 52)? My lovely wife and I have no issues getting our kids to live a certain way and eat a certain way, and we're one of those very young parents who're typically underestimated on grounds of the age and experience factor, yet we've managed fine so far into the game. You see, our children get the illusion of freewill by being presented with a choice of picking between healthy choice A, or healthy choice B – thinking inside our own little makeshift Skinner Box where we don't even need to censor marketing. This is possible due to proactive strategies invoked from early days; anything on the idiot box is downplayed, so the children have a habitual tendency not to take much of it seriously to the point of influence. Of course, they're still young, so we do have an advantage at play, but I've seen my share of individuals on an equal footing who've done a splendid job at spoiling and screwing up the perception of their children.

Yes, they're free to chose, in theory, but between what? Under a preconditioned bias that we've instilled; they're left with two fucking arbitrary choices that we've picked for them, while limiting any other options. We've confined them to our preferred options from the very nature of the fixture, and added safeguards to negate the effect of certain types of external stimuli. This is an accurate and microcosmic representation of the greater picture because our information and options are indeed contingent upon a very concentrated and cross-linked media and commercial sector that don't even hide their – on the surface – symbiotic relationship (Wikipedia, 2012). People's perceptions can be distorted with clever marketing techniques, and their primary and accessible alternative is still limited to other branches of the same mainstream media, which treads very softly around these issues, and sometimes shares mutual goals with the marketing party, thus leaving the end-user – the individual – the consumer, more confused and prone to accepting the 'tacky' salesmanship of the bad marketed idea in the first place.

Critical thinking has indeed taken a back seat these days, and it's even more uncritical when I see some elitist dunces insist that the burden of being critical hangs squarely on the individuals who fall prey to clever marketing, or the people responsible for said individual. This is just naïve, ignorant, and asinine as quite a bit of any individual's present perception and social attitudes of others is highly contingent on a variety of social, climatic, and cultural factors that are deeply entwined with the market forces at play – this is the fuckin' 21st century, last time I checked. So the most reasonable – the most pragmatic – avenue is to assist in the empowerment of the individual, while also making certain that marketing tactics don't completely go rogue in this free market utopia that never really came to pass when we consider the fallout of labelled idiots falling prey to bad agendas, and apologists defending the agendas as benign elements while shifting the full blame on to the ignorance of the victim, also known as, 'the labelled idiot'.

It's even more disturbing how some of these free market zealots seem to shape their entire argument around an outdated constitution and ideals of freedom. I find it utterly nonsensicle when I hear someone declare that these elements can never be wrong and hold no such potential, and so the fault is in the execution. One could apply such a vague rationale to practically any ideology. Even Islamists and Jihadists believe the same to be true of Islamic legislation. So whenever I hear this tripe about freedom and constitution, I see a disturbing pathology at play, one that benefits no one other than these holier than thou anarchists in denial who really wouldn't be able to handle real freedom should all sense of order finally break down.

So I leave us with a classic video below, and an added note that it isn't always a matter of government versus business, as most simpletons like to present it in the argumentative picture. It's also not a case of how government is somehow the core evil that corrupts business. Look at the present model: they're both very equal partners – if not business having the upper hand – in a very dubious relationship. Both institutions of power and authority gaining increasing hold, while the apathetic masses – who should be keeping both in check – are at each others throats over a century long debate about quite possibly the most stupefying false dichotomy that has ever existed. Power is power, be it private or public – keep it in check, shit heads! A lot of present government, its goals, and its agendas, are grossly sponsored by corporate entities. It's wise to distinguish where required, but it's also wise to sometimes see the sheer overlaps that exist between both domains. Of course, we can also pretend that lobbying doesn't exist, just to continue living by our own constricted ignorance, because after all, the present market demand of idiocy is real high.

I end this post with the following clip from a video by the late and great, Bill Hicks. . .

And a quote of mine. . . Just because!

Freedom is only an abstract illusion, and to truly honour this illusion and achieve any remote sense of freedom, we must first start by honestly acknowledging that our actions, motives, and goals are heavily directed by a long concatenation of circumstances and events from the past. Then, and only then, can we move towards actually doing something about altering the environment or circumstances to bring about productive change for ourselves. Freedom comes foremost from the humility of acknowledging just how limited we are in the grand fixture at the initial stages.” - Closing Thoughts


Lafave - West Valley College, S. (2006, November 8). Free Will and Determinism. Free Will and Determinism. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from

McSweeney, F. K., & Bierley, C. (1984). Recent Developments in Classical Conditioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 619.

Saeed, A., & Saeed, H. (2004). Introduction. Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam. (p. 2). Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Harris, J. L., Bronwell, K. D., & Bargh, J. A. (2010, February 23). The Food Marketing Defense Model: Integrating Psychological Research to Protect Youth and Inform Public Policy. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from

Clay, R. A. (2000, September). Advertising to children: Is it ethical?. American Psychological Association. 31(8), 52. Retrieved from

Wikipedia (2012, June 9). Concentration of Media. Wikipedia. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from

Monday, June 18, 2012

Another Lesson in Middle Eastern Demo(Hypo)crisy

This will be a quick but early entry, which really does break the general procrastination ethic that I slacked so torpidly to establish over the course of the last seven years.

In the last entry, I spent good time discussing – with brutal honesty – some of the underlying issues that accompany the idea of Middle Eastern democracies, and Libya was the central subject of the post. Today, we hail the latest update from the Middle Eastern disaster zone by addressing the election update in Egypt. Perhaps I should focus on something a bit more relevant and of immediate concern, such as the Greek elections and how the whole situation has such a powerful bearing on the Eurozone crisis, but I think there's a worthwhile lesson – through repetition – to be learnt from what happened in Egypt as it aptly demonstrates what happens in nations that have a tumultuous history with that ideological disease known as Islam-o-fascism – the hypocrisy of Islamic democracy.

A quote from The Guardian to start things off.

“Preliminary results have placed the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi on the verge of the Egyptian presidency, but a standoff between the expected election winners and the country's military authority appears inevitable.” (Abdel-Rahman Hussein, Mohammed Morsi claims victory for Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian election, 2012) 

This seems to be a common trend in most of the Middle East and other Islamic countries in Asia that I won't bother to name. A false dilemma that breathes new life into the classic saying, “between the devil and the deep sea.” It's a dire state of events that often tend to unfold in such manner when countries with even a moderately substantial Islamist population and political movement are democratised all over again. It's like a chaotic race to a finish line with these revolutions, because any psychotic, extremist regime can join in and lay claim to power under the righteous guise of a revolution looking to breathe 'new life' into the land. Unfortunately, yet another cliché can be invoked in this case; goes something like, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Another interesting twist that can take place, sometimes, is military intervention. We have another Islamic country with an infamously totalitarian military that has plenty of blood-shed and regional instability pegged to its reputation. This country also happens to struggle with consistent bouts of religious fundamentalism ever since one of its military dictators decided to 'protect its ideological borders' by transforming it into an Islamic state. To this day, the unnamed state continues to stagnate at the mercy of a power struggle between the military, corrupt political parties, and religious fundamentalism. Perhaps we can look upon all these countries that seem to have both elements of dictatorial malice – military dictators and religious zealots – and accept an underlying and often inconvenient reality that some nations might not be ready to fully handle the tools of democracy. . . at least not without a very thorough international intervention to make sure the process goes through smoothly, and that the initial establishment of order isn't seized by the officious whims of backward barbarians or thugs in uniform.

Here's another excerpt from a Voice of America article.

“He (Mohammed Morsi) did not speak out against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces latest moves. But his supporters, along with liberals, activists and some more conservative Islamists decried the SCAF's actions as a "coup."" (Elizabeth Arrott, Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi Claims Win in Egyptian Election, 2012) 

As we can see, politics in this sphere is one muddy mess since progressives, and socially liberal folk can be found protesting alongside the very fanatics they want to overcome. How they ever manage to identify with fundamentalists is a mystery altogether that begs further investigation into such pathology, but I digress. Iran's already taught us a valuable lesson decades earlier about what happens when socialists and liberals decide to march forward alongside religious theocrats in support of a revolution: while they end up achieving the revolution, it is the theocrats who seize control and use their new found power to establish an Islamic state while purging it of all liberal thinking by either silencing their former allies, or outright eliminating their key players.

Perhaps this little stand-off in Egypt isn't such a bad thing; this indirect military coup might prevent religious zealots from making a bigger mess of a country that is in dire need of moving forward with a diverse public who would probably be incorrectly represented by a bunch of backward thinkers. Or maybe it'll all go to hell?! Unfortunately, this immediate issue is not crossing the mindset of the masses at the moment since the bulk of the local ire and indignation is being channelled at the SCAF and their control of the Egyptian constitution; even the liberals are marching alongside the zealots -- never mind the idea that without the SCAF débâcle, the country could  potentially transform into an even scarier Draconian state overnight.

“When will the social liberals of the Middle East ever learn? The self-righteous Islamists are not their natural allies!” – A Reoccurring Thought

Although at the end of the day, we're still left with what is a futile exercise in democracy, taking place in a region that has shown a repeated historical tendency towards democratic failure with regard to social progress and basic secular reform. These are the kind of essential elements that would allow a suppressed nation's starved public to finally breathe the wonders of basic, civic, and decent human freedoms of choice and speech that are simply unheard of in the stifling Islamic world. Without these elements being realised, democracy is nothing more than a battered road to hell.

While I agree with the belief that democracy is indeed a slow and delicate process, I also believe that it requires a certain level of social initiative and situational awareness in order to be put into action and remain protected from hostile elements.

The following from the Voice of America article, repeated again.

“But his (Mohammed Morsi) supporters, along with liberals, activists. . .”

The quote above demonstrates an acute absence of the kind of situational awareness that is key to realising a healthy and humane democracy. Instead of calling this an exercise in futility, I should, instead, call it a fucking demonstration of repeated failure on the part of some individuals whose egos and influence far exceed their depth in important matters.

All the best to Egypt in the future; it's certainly got its own share of mounting struggles given the nature of the present stand-off. Perhaps the actual people -- not just those representing the voting turn out -- should step out of their cowering zones and consider genuine alternatives to the same old redundancy of being caught between theocratic barbarians and autocratic dictatorial elements – each one, representing a slightly distinct form of social repression and political condemnation with deep repercussions.


Hussein, A. (2012, June 18). Mohamed Morsi claims victory for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt election. The Guardian. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from

Arrott, E. (2012, June 18). Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi Claims Win in Egyptian Election.Voice of America. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from

Friday, June 15, 2012

Looking Back at Libya – Which Country do We Fuck-Up This Year?

It's been about a year since Libya was 'liberated', and I use the word liberated very loosely in this statement as it was anything but a genuine liberation of the people, who are in dire need of refuge from their own dogmatic thinking before they can even begin to comprehend the concept of freedom of conscience that we all take for granted. In my view, any country that takes steps – even through manipulated will – backwards towards theocratic reform and outdated religious legislation as the fundamental law of the land, is not liberated – it is condemned to generations of misery and social regression.

In the case of Libya, I was one of those utterly disinterested cynics, but I was constantly reminded of the underlying error of such thinking by an old friend of mine who often says, “democracy is a delicate process that runs on slow wheels.” Regardless of my legitimate issues with what's gone down in Libya, I should make my position clear; my friend, who goes by the online alias, 'Fate', is very correct about the essential and steady nature of democracy – it's a process that requires time and effort. Unfortunately, I think that Libya's not on this course and headed in quite the opposite direction.

Note: I would like to say that ideally, it would've been nice had Libya taken on a true democratic course, because I admire my friend's view of democracy, even if I'm a bit cynical about the whole process these days; that is my own burden to bear and not a rational or practical outlook. Please, feel free to explore Fate's blog; he's got expert knowledge on a wide range of subjects, and is now developing stock investment strategies as a part-time hobby. What a ninja bad-ass, right?

The problem with the Libyan revolution, as with most Middle Eastern revolutions, is two fold. Firstly, these revolutions are usually spearheaded by the muscle and aggression of religious fundamentalists. Secondly, usually, it is these very people that end up securing majority power and establishing Draconian state laws that purge any chance for the society to achieve genuine process of democracy. Under such regimes that almost permanently transform the constitution landscape of a nation, with time, future generations are raised under the myopic ignorance of theocratic Islam and this kind of conditioning is a life-long curse for many who become doomed to pass it on to following generations.

Social engineers and psychologists already understand this phenomenon of fundamental conditioning through isolation and stern indoctrination at an early age, as it is seen quite effectively in the dynamics within extreme cults that perpetrate their agendas through multiple generations. This isn't an exaggeration, and I don't believe it needs citation; Islamic countries have a very narrow educational curriculum to compliment their narrow world view that is designed to protect the image and vestige of Islam and its embarrassment of a prophet with some of the most outrageous and biased philosophies, along with selective and skewed historical literature. This carefully slanted indoctrination is ingrained into children from a very early age through rule of law and the supposed 'education systems'. This is also a common sense strategy that has always been employed by Islamic states throughout history because it's effective at controlling people long term as it is awfully hard to escape fundamental conditioning (Levine, 1979).

In the case if Libya, there's nothing more defeating to the people than to have them herald a backward terrorist as their military commander and saviour upon being liberated (BBC, 2012). Abdel Hakim Belhadj is the fucking proverbial oxymoron for the word 'freedom', until and unless the world's become one confusing poetic metaphor, and freedom is taken to mean, 'free to be condemned'. At the whimsy of this man, and others like him, who continue to perpetuate the dazzling oxymoron of freedom through Islamic dominance, we now have a Libya that has taken even further leaps back in time into the dark dingy embrace of Islamic legislation (Spencer, 2011).

It's quite ironic how alternative music, rap, hip-hop, and youth culture helped drive dissent against an opportunistic scum bag like Gaddafi, only to hand over even greater power and naïve public confidence into the hands of genuine mad men who think they're furthering the agenda of one of the most pissed off tooth fairies with extreme holy righteousness. It'll be both sad, yet interesting to watch the eventual curbing of underground music and peaceful, passive, and artistic forms of dissent against the state because new wave and post-modern music is considered 'unislamic' and will therefore, be banished by some supreme clerics exercising the will of a silent, impotent God.

If only democracy was as simple as freeing the people and then allowing them to pick the humane and rational choice for all; not just their majority dogma/consensus, but also the minority who might not necessarily observe the same values. By allowing Islam, an archaic ideology, to take the place of what should be the will of the modern people, Libya is now going to pay a heavy sociological price down the road, but the far reaching consequences won't end with Libya.

I've already discussed this with another colleague who I used to work with from time to time, and she expressed this rather typically conservative desire that we as British, should just openly confess our intentions and exploit such conflicts to our advantage without making any apologies. Problem here is that we have yet to achieve any real benefit from Libya; hell, we already have one of their fanatical authority figures ready to sue us (Greenhill, 2011), and worse yet, once this state develops that confused and culturally backward conditioned identity, we'll also have another terrorist export site to worry about next to the other wonderful intervention disasters that we've created over the course of the last fifty or so years.

“Since we're always so eager spend even more money, time, resources, and blood, towards fixing shit that we've either started at some point in history, or shit that actually doesn't even need to be fixed, we usually end up having more shit on our hands and suffer the eventual fallout. Perhaps it's more appropriate that we revise the use of terminology and update it to a more honest, 'how to fuck shit up.' So, what country do we fuck up this year?” - Closer

I close this on a much sarcastic toast to a reality check and to realising that we are royally fucked, when in 2007, Donald Trump managed to grasp certain simple concepts of regional politics and stability that even our present political leaders remain ignorant of in pursuit of their ulterior motives, backed by emotional appeals and logical fallacies that they serve, ad nauseum, to a rather disenfranchised and distrustful public. So much for the sanctity and preservation of our own democratic culture when political leaders are full of shit and the trust between public and the government they create to serve their interests has all but completely gone to hell; irony is indeed an elusive and sometimes bitter form of humour that becomes hard to swallow when the joke comes at terrible expense. . . or reality checks.


Levine (1979). Role of Psychiatry in the Phenomenon of Cults. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 24(7).

BBC (2012, April 18). Profile: Libyan rebel commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj. BBC News. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from

Spencer, R. (2011, October 23). Libya's liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law. The Telegraph. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from

Greenhill, S. (2011, September 6). Torture victim to sue Britain: Libyan rebel leader could be in line for £1million payout. The Daily Mail. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from