I can't believe it. I simply can't believe this story. It is no doubt the beginning of a potential we've all seen before. It seems to always poke it's ugly head, Fascism



Comment made on Digg:

We're living in a most interesting era. We not only have to beware of an ever fascist government, but now we must contend with the naive, ignorant and ill-informed people who support these dangerous policies.

I suggest that everyone who recognizes these policies for the fascism they really are make contingency plans for when conversations like these are no longer possible without some risk of retribution. Learn now whom the persons are that you can trust. Learn now how to fool your way into fascist circles and how to best spy on them for the benefit of your brothers and sisters in freedom. Arm yourselves now. It is your right. Speak out now. It is your duty.

This is not a drill. Whatever this government turns out to be we will all have to live under it for several decades. Tyranny is not a myth and it does not discriminate. The freedom we've been so fortunate to live under is a historical anomaly made possible by the blood of millions of brave souls before us and extreme political turmoil. It may come to pass that we in turn must fight and die for the freedom of our future generations. That is not something to look forward to. It is not something to be taken lightly. But we must perform our duty, if need be.

The right to just insurrection is unalienable.
The right to just insurrection is unalienable.
The right to just insurrection is unalienable.
The right to just insurrection is unalienable.
The right to just insurrection is unalienable.

Do not be made to fear invoking your rights. Whomever they arrest, do not let that intimidate you into silence. The truth will keep us free so long as the brave are willing to give it a voice. Live Free or Die.

Labels: politics

A very interesting perspective on war. War Is a Government Program

As I read the article, I can't help but agree how well it compares to the current situation in the US with our "war on terrorism".

War is useful in keeping the population in a state of fear and therefore trustful of their rulers. H.L. Mencken said it best:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

As I always thought, anyone who declares war, wants war to begin with. Rarely if ever must a country go to war.

Labels: politics

I recently participated in what I think will prove to be a life changing program called The Landmark Forum. It is a weekend long conversation among 150 perfect strangers led by an extraordinary leader with the sole purpose of sharing the wisdom named The Landmark Forum.

Even now I find it difficult to picture the feeling associated with the idea of being in a large room with 150 people preparing for a 3 day, 39 hour long conversation about me. Through the influence of my peers led by precision in technique, they were able to show me the myself that I've been denying for as long I can remember.

This arrogance has kept me from loving anyone and made the will to accept the love of others impossible.

In this new context of freedom I just had the most disturbing conversation with someone close to me. Watching a television program about the technology employed in the US military. Incredible technologies designed with the sole purpose of domination. With eyes of excitement he began to describe a new machine that fires bullets at speeds so fast that if shot within a foot of your body will tear your flesh by it's wake in the air.

Before the Landmark Forum, I believe that I would have criticized his excitement, taking away whatever pleasure he might draw from his benign moment in time.

Thank you Landmark Forum

Labels: landmark forum, personal

Ok! This is some interesting stuff!

Now, most of you know I'm an atheist, and for those of you who know what an atheist is, here is the definition:

Atheist noun

somebody who does not believe in God or deities

I don't deny the existence of god, I simply don't believe that this god exists, in the same manor I don't deny the existence of unicorns, but I don't believe they exist.

So check out this video:
These Mormons come by on their bike's preaching about Mormonism to a Christian (believer in Christ as messiah). This Christian totally owns the Mormons. I admire his lines of argument.

Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons

Labels: atheism, religion, video

Was Jesus Gay? What a funny questions, LOL.

He could of been, homosexuals have been documented in our history way before Jesus ever showed his his face in our books. I found this interesting essay on the subject.

Pat Condell puts thing in perspective again:

Labels: atheism, gay, religion, video

Re: Facebook is the new AOL, Google the new Microsoft.

I think this is an unbelievable article! It talks about where things are going when it comes to the internet, and I think it is fantastic!

I'm really excited and should brainstorm on how I could be part of all this monetization.

Labels: technology

Re: CNN Article: Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest

Wow, $10.9 million dollars!

I really don't know what to say. Not even sure how to approach this. I think the begging question is where do we as a nation draw the line between what we should tolerate when it comes to irrational behavior, religious or not.

Religious belief is irrational by definition and under the protection of privacy and freedom, as it very well should be. Yet, it isn't tollerated when it leaves the realm of privacy which is usually where religious irrationality clashes in our culture.

So let me put myself in their shoes. Let's say that my worldview opposed something, such as the policy prevening gay's from being considered civily equal to heterosexuals in terms of civil union. I would gladly protest on this issue.

So what makes me different than this religious group? Lets see.

1. I would protest to the governing body responsible for this policy, not a person not responsible for the policy.
2. My protest would be based on a rational argument that shows at it's core that the policy is unconstitutional and based primarily on religious dogma and no other social predicament.
   
   ... just to name a few.

So if your beliefs are not based on something a rational person can understand, that belief should not be a basis for a protest.

Maybe this is too strong a line to draw. It might be too intollerant of me. If so, please tell me how. I know I'm bias when it comes to these topics...

Labels: atheism, gay, news, politics, religion