“It is irrational to argue with an irrational woman.”

- Xenocrates

Governor Sarah Palin

verybody loves a fiesty bitch - especially if it wears lipstick. Sarah Palin is quite possibly the cheapest in a long line of Republican tricks to win an election. John McCain is a clever bastard. He realised that the crowd was swooning for the younger, blacker, hipper candidate. Since Barack Obama forsook his bitch option (Senator Hillary Clinton) for a smartass (Joe Biden) and for very good reasons, he thought; ‘what better way to even the odds (or at least, attempt to do so) by selecting a hot, young, bona fide bitch for VP’. It’s a brilliant ploy that reeks of gimmick and sexploitation. Ever since this über-bitch took the stage, the media has suddenly stopped cutting John McCain’s speeches short for Obama’s. Now they’re cutting them short for hers. Even though she has proven that she is just as clueless as the president her ticket is hoping to replace, I suspect that some elements of the American idiocracy will swoon for her just the same - because that’s what idiocracies do. The only time Sarah Palin seems remotely in touch with anything that comes out of her mouth is when she’s not repeating memorised speaking notes as she plays the role of John McCain’s fiesty biting poodle. Good thing her bark is worse than her bite as was evident when Katie Couric showed her who’s the baddest bitch around - and Katie didn’t even have to get fiesty. Rawr. This proves more than anything else that Palin’s more MILF than VP material. I ain’t even gonna lie. I’d hit it.

Evening the odds

Now what better way to even out the ticket than picking a VP who has been officially implicated as abusing her power in the firing of Alaska’s Public Safety Official for his failure to fire a state trooper (who happens to be her sister’s ex husband) over allegations that the trooper threatened her family. Great choice John. You picked a bitch to fight a prophet. Clearly you’ve forgotten the Biblical story of Jezebel to know how that turns out. Well, at least she has great legs.

Now that America has matured Barack Obama from being the ultimate Affirmitive Action Poster boy, an old, cranky, white dude who is nothing more than a fossilised remnant of the old age of America only reminds the intelligible masses of exactly where they don’t want to be. That was an America where the world was run by old white men who sent young men to die in needless wars while exemplifying gross incompetence in economic mismanagement. John McCain took a while to realise this. He failed to capitulate quickly enough to the fact that Obama’s message of “change” is a systemic one - not some cheap campaign slogan. That’s where the Palin factor comes in.

The Republican Ticket

If John McCain really wanted to even the score though, he would’ve picked a young successful BLACK woman with just as much pretentious badass as Palin. Unfortunately, most of those women are too busy having five kids for dead beat dads. So Sarah Palin was the next best option. She has five kids for a dad that cares. Awww… how sweet. Now that she’s his running mate, it’s like the Republican party has almost completely dumped McCain. With the level of fame she’s suddenly gotten, Palin might as well run for president. McCain’s her bitch now. Not the the other way around. Meow baby…

Her opening speech at the RNC was pretty hot. Even I liked her - and I couldn’t even see her legs that time. I even thought briefly that the Republicans might actually win this. I applauded John McCain for this move - until I heard Palin virtually repeating her speech verbatim everywhere she went. That’s when everyone, including Bush’s dog, started to wonder if she’s got anything else under her belt. That’s when the Palin novelty wore off, and Katie Couric took off her gloves and took this biatch to the cleaners.

The Dumb Blonde Effect

So you might be thinking “pfssh - Another anti-republican, anti-Palin, blogster who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is just mouthing off for attention“. I scoff at thee, oh clueless one, if that’s how you feel. Clearly you have not been watching the events of the last couple of weeks on television. The Palin factor has demonstrated more than anything else, that she is nothing more than a pretty puppet - a dumb blonde of sorts who’s been shoved into a role that she lacks the experience and capacity to support. She, like the Bush factor before her, has become nothing more than an epic laughing stock for the media. I guess that’s why McCain no longer accuses Obama of being inexperienced. Haw Haw. You fcked yourself there buddy. Feast your eyes on this gem:

CNN was having a blast with that one. Saturday Night Live (which typically has mediocre ratings) has blown up and now has the highest ratings in seven years! Now think about this for a second: If SNL is making a killing vis-a-vis Tina Fey on this VP hopeful, that can’t be a good sign, can it? Did you get the joke from what CNN’s John King observed? He wasn’t sure if it was life imitating art or art imitating life. That is sad! The fact that SNL used what Palin said almost verbatim as material for their funny rendition illustrates the sheer dread that America needs to feel when considering that this moronic hockey mom might become President of the USA should the McCain croak.

Do you realise that nobody is making as much fun of Obama? This is not SNL being partisan (as was suggested by a Republican buffoon in CNN). Obama’s not that easy to make fun of because he’s not an intrinsic idiot. It’s hard to make fun of someone and make it genuinely funny if they don’t provide you with the material to do so. The media treats the candidates for what they really are. Obama gets a music video homage made out to him while Palin gets made fun of. It would seem that the Republicans of late are proof that the American Idiocracy is a self defacing, self lampooning engine that is inexorably bound to it’s own stupidity. But wait, it gets worse:

WTF?

Her childishness in her capacity to reason on simple ideas is remarkable. It makes you wonder if McCain is really serious about her as a running mate. I mean, seriously?!  If she gets into the White House, John Stewart, Saturday Night Live, Stephen Colbert and everyone else in between are going to have a blast and the last eight years of this over rated idiocracy will pale in comparison. The comedians will weep if Republicans loose this election. But seriously, that level of ignorance should FRIGHTEN you. What’s even more frightening is that there are so many people blindly backing this woman. Why is so much of the electorate so dunce? Now if that doesn’t scare you, this might:

Oh. My. God…

Have you ever sat an exam where you were required to answer a question that you didn’t really know the answer to and you just concocted a bullshit response that would come as close to the answer that you think it was? Doesn’t that seem eerily like what Governor Palin was doing just now? Jack Cafferty was right. That level of ignorance for someone going into one of the highest offices in the land is simply inexcusable. It is in this moment that the gimmick is exposed and the clueless cutie pie becomes fodder for SNL:

I said some time ago that there is a very good reason why men still rule the world. Apparently this new turn of events even more so validates what I said before. Consider the two women who’ve been profiled in this election. The Democratic female candidate hopeful, Hillary Clinton, ran her campaign to the point where she almost completely destroyed the party. The selfish bitch kept going even though she didn’t have a popsicle’s chance in hell of beating Obama. She gave lots of female voters misplaced hope and almost sent 18 million Democratic voters off the deep end. The idiot only put 18 million cracks in the Democratic party’s walls - not the ceiling. Then comes along this fiesty hot thang (with amazing legs might I add - oh wait, I said that already ) who has all but made a fool of McCain, the Republicans and the dumb blondes that support her.

I couldn’t help but make the incontrovertible observation that she sticks to the same nonsensical responses irrespective of what is being asked of her in the above mentioned interviews. She’s not very different from Hillary Clinton when she gets all fired up. That’s why women in these kinds of top positions rarely do well. All those electrochemical reactions discharging in their brains defeat their capacity to be rational. That’s why Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primaries and that’s why SNL’s Tina Fey has more material than she knows what to do with. It shouldn’t be considered an act of comic genius that SNL had a skit with her and Hillary sharing the spotlight. The point is that these two women have proven that it is irrational to argue with an irrational woman - crystalising what every man has always known about women in top positions. That’s not being sexist. It’s being realistic.

Barring her gaffs during interviews, Palin has uttered a lot of nonsense since she’s been shoved into the spotlight. I’m pretty sure that she’s being spoon fed this garbage. Clearly she doesn’t suffer from diminished cognitive capacity - or does she? As McCain’s campaign is flailing like a haemorrheging headless chicken, Palin’s job as ‘attack dog’ is pretty clear. As such, the campaign has resorted to hurling mud at the left since it effectively has no other substance with which to win the election. The latest of her accusations that Obama ‘pals’ around with terrorists is ludicrous to say the least:

The fact that Obama was eight years old when Ayers was on a bombing campaign automatically moots the accusation. Serving on the board with this dude doesn’t imply that Obama is a terrorist and it doesn’t mean that he agrees with Ayers. That’s just as ridiculous as the accusations that because there are family ties between Bush and Adolf Hitler that he is furthering Hitler’s agenda. It’s just plain dumb and reeks of desperation. Appropriately, all this mud hurling has backfired at the McCain campaign, and now he’s stuck with the job of cleaning up her puke:

Republicans have ‘officially‘ gone

These people support the Republican party for all the same reasons that the media swoons for Obama. They are not interested in facts - just what is being said. Now if you go around hurling mud at the left like that, especially using a dumb blonde like Palin to make these kinds of nonsensical remarks, what do you think is going to happen when a large portion of your supporters are uneducated, church-going, white trash, Joe six-pack, post civil rights grudge holders, living in backwater hick towns where words like “moonbat” are still being used? Now that the republitards actually believe that Obama is an Arabic terrorist, (how dumb can these people really get?) how is John McCain going to dig himself out of this crap? Way to go McCain. You just lost the election. Better luck in 2012.

Oh wait, you’ll be too old then. Nevermind.

Conclusion

Already there appear to be cracks in the Republican ticket. As far as conservatism is concerned, Palin and McCain are on the two far ends of the spectrum. If this ticket doesn’t get to the Whitehouse, it is likely that she will run against McCain loyalists in 2012 and all this garbage will come back to haunt her then. She will try to distance herself from McCain when issues like stem cell research and prolife choices come up and the Democratic team will use that to tie her to McCain’s flailing campaign. If Obama wins, it looks like he is already a shoe in for a second term if this is the best that the Republicans have to offer.

Senator John McCain may be a real American hero - but he doesn’t make much of a convincing politician. He was putting his electorate to sleep when he spoke and the news media (even Fox News! *Gasp!*) made fun of the fact that he is a lame orator. Let’s face it, Sarah Palin injected needed life into his campaign. She’s hot, young, sassy, pretty and has an annoying accent (is that Alaskan?) that seems to resonate with moms on the far right. McCain barely knew Governor Palin when she was selected, which adds to the conspicuous nature of this gimmick.

If I were a feminist, I would be rightfully offended of the exploitation of a skirt to make an old fogie look good. I’m not surprised that feminists on the far right however, have ignored this obvious abuse of femininity for political mileage - which clearly exposes the inextricable link between feminism and the bullshit I like to call ”double standards”. Is she really that dark that she doesn’t realise that she’s being used? She’s probably too excited about the possibility of being a VP to care about all that.

To that end, I’ve hidden an image somewhere in this post which exemplifies how many people truly feel about the Republican Ticket. It’s an Easter Egg. I must warn you that it’s not PG-13.  If you can find it, you will either be deeply offended or love it. (Hint: it’s a URL link). Ahh, the brilliance of manipulating feminine desperation. Happy hunting. Now in the true spirit of blatant misogyny, I leave you with this truly inspired piece of sexploitation which captures the dirty old man’s wandering eyes, as he tossing around the idea of removing that wedding ring:

Now that’s hot.

“Election Campaigns are nothing more than glorified popularity contests.“

- Xenocrates

Barack Obama

arack Obama is probably the most glorified political candidate since Bill Clinton. Not since John F. Kennedy inspired America with magical and profound rhetoric, has any politician captured the minds and imaginations of the American public as he. Barack Obama reminds me of the most spirit churning black preachers, like Bishop T.D. Jakes, who could rouse any congregation with powerful words and awe inspiring rhetoric that would make your spine tingle - whether or not you believed in God. Barack Obama iconifies all the reasons people love super stars and super heroes and Jesus Christ. Wait… now I’m comparing a politician to Jesus Christ? Clearly I’ve gone too far! (Or have I?) I see Barack Obama as a trendsetter and a profound spokesman - and little more. However, most black people (not just black Americans) like him for a wholly different reason. While I love this guy, I fear that their expectations of a relatively young African-American senator from Illinois are too high. He’s become something of a Black Messiah - the iconification of all the hopes of Black America brought to bear on one man. I’m afraid of this expectation because of what happened to the last Messiah. If you’re an Obama supporter and you’re not worried, you should be.

Another Famous Black Dude

Barack Obama is the latest in a long line of inscrutable black fame. I wish it wasn’t true but it is. Black people have always had a talent for gaining the attention of everyone around them - usually for all the wrong reasons. However, when they get it done for all the right ones, man do they shine. Most of the famous black folks in America were famous because of show business. Rarely ever does the black man become educated enough (or develops enough smarts) to become successful in something other than a role that requires him to make a fool of himself on TV. Then along comes Obama with the right set of permutations that skyrockets him to fame. You have to understand that the reason why Barack is so loved is not because of any of the individual qualities that he possesses. It’s all of them. If you examine all of the famous, well liked black men in history, you will note several discerning qualities:

1. Assertive - It takes a great deal of balls to do those things which differentiate famous people from ordinary ones, like relentlessly pursuing an objective (like ousting Illinois senate candidates or running for President).
2. Intelligent - Obama is probably smarter than most black men (or rather, most men, period - given his intellectual propensities) and history has shown that white America loves educated black people. This is especially true when one has been educated at schools like Colombia (NY) and Harvard (ILL).
3. Inspiring - Black men have a long history of having an uncanny capacity to use language creatively. Given the pervasive nature of this capacity, I’m inclined to think it’s genetic. Maybe that’s why black preachers command such large audiences and why black churches are so much more exciting. Barack Obama’s “Change we can Believe in” speech is an epic example of that trait. There hasn’t been an American president that has inspired people like that since John F. Kennedy and not a black man who could do it on such a large scale since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
4. Talented - His writing, speaking and organising skills are profound - almost savant like. It has caused Obama to become editor of the Harvard Law Review, champion community organiser in Illinois, the most sought after senator in Illinois, (winning by the widest margin in that state’s history) and the most widely covered presidential candidate.
5. Charismatic - How many presidential candidates can rouse THAT many people to a cause, rallying up a support of a paltry 16 million dollars for his campaign, with no support from lobbyists, none of his own money, and taking the Democratic presidential nomination by storm? That’s right: None.
6. Young - People care more about you when you’re young. That’s why an old fogie like McCain was quite literally undercovered by the media. Young people (especially young politicians) are always more exciting for all the same reasons why an older man craves a younger wife. That’s what made John F. Kennedy famous, that’s what made Bill Clinton famous and it’s also why Barack is famous. Youth does have its privileges.
7. Black - This is the quintessential trump card. Many people fail to realise it, but this is the key reason why Obama is as famous as he is. Combine all the other factors and assume him to be white, and he will still be widely regarded - but not as. JFK and BC were white - and they were suitable for a time when America was still largely pro-white. Bill Clinton was considered the first black president, but largely because he was more liberal and like most democrats, seemed to show more favour to black folks. However, in a post civil rights America, where younger white people have now become adults, effectively replacing their racist parents, having a black man sitting in a position traditionally held by white men triggers an orgasmic flair of excitement that is seconded only by being at a rap concert being headlined by a white rapper from Detroit. America loves when the status quo is defeated and that’s history making business that most people cheer for.

There have been many famous black men before Obama. However, they always had only a subset of a permutation of these seven qualities - never all of them. Barack Obama has exactly the right portions of all seven qualities and thus possesses the right personality permutation (of all the possible permutations) to rise to the top of this game of politics. Furthermore, that Barack Obama is the first successful African American candidate is the novelty selling card of the Democratic party.

The Messiah Complex

Jesus Christ, speaking to the masses

What better way to champion a political campaign for change by the dems than having a black man blaze the trail? It’s almost poetic justice in a way and a magnificent achievement if he wins the presidency. That’s unfortunately the crux of this issue. I feel that many white folks who support Obama also hope he becomes the iconic representation of the maturity of America. I also feel that many black folks support him simply because he is black and represents the historic end of racial inequality in America. It’s like everyone hopes that this one guy will come along, and because he’s an inspirational black man, he’ll magically fix everything. But where do people get these aspirations? Are they even reasonable?

What do people expect from a Messiah? In a word? Everything. When Jesus started his ministry among the Jewish folk, they were not terribly impressed. He was a carpenter boy who came to earth in less than Stephen Spielburgian grandeur. There was no epic Batman-esque entrance, no Jerry Bruckheimer type explosion in the sky, no Michael Bay type epic battle sequence at the end. In fact, Jesus Christ’s whole life on earth was more of a philosophical re-education more than it was an initiative to trounce the Roman empire, which is what the Jewish people were expecting.

The Jews were expecting a robed king coming down from the sky in chariots of fire, armies of angels and an epic Ridley Scott vs. Peter Jackson sword and sandals, digital surround sound, battle orgy where the Jews topple Rome in a massive revolt led by their carpenter boy turned super-soldier on steroids war general. All they got was more wine, some lectures, a fish and bread party, a zombie, and a wise-cracking wood hammering smartass who got his ass handed to him on a stick and 12 hoo-haas out to change the world by telling people to be more wimp and less chimp. What a let down. In fact, it was some 300 years after Christ supposedly lived before people finally got it. Can you see the epic fail in such expectations?

Barack Obama, speaking to the masses.

Fast forward 2,100 years. Enter Barack Obama. His words churn the hearts of many. He has a whole music video dedicated to him. 75% of Hollywood and the media (with the obvious exception of Faux News) get behind this guy and follow him all over the world. White people celebrate the first black man their conscience allows them to unequivocally root for and black people celebrate the first black man to get to the top. Everybody wants something different, but everybody wants something. With such immense pressure and expectation on his shoulders, I would not envy Barack at this time. But why do people have such expectations of this one guy? It’s simple really. Barack Obama, like Jesus Christ, is a messiah of sorts, a champion of hope and an icon of change in every conceivable way. The fact that he’s black plays a major role in this and I’ll explain why:

For Black People

After over 300 years of slavery, struggle, pseudo freedom, oppression, segregation, inequality and the obvious human propensity to treat people differently because of their skin colour, the fact that a black man could defy all those odds to become a real, authentic presidential candidate in the greatest nation on earth is truly epic. It’s not epic because he’s a presidential candidate. It’s epic because he is black. Even though slavery is relatively dead and racism is a by word, black people do get treated differently in America even today. But if a black man can wade through all that bullshit and make something truly awesome of himself, it creates something in black americans that wasn’t there before - HOPE. It would prove, categorically, that they can achieve these things. Indeed, the catch phrase “Yes, We Can” has gained the same level of pop culture relevance as “I have a dream”. It is interesting that both phrases were coined by black men. Some how, some way, this is only fitting:

However, like many human propensities, Hope is simultaneously our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Obama knew that. That’s why he entitled his memoirs “The Audacity of Hope”. It’s the iconification of the idea of having the boldness to hope in an obviously hopeless situation. That’s very powerful emotional stuff and that’s why almost every black man, woman and child (even those who support the Republicans), get behind this messiah, because like Jesus Christ, he gives them the hope, that even if he doesn’t win the presidency, a black man has a shot at the white house. This means that black folks will finally realise that they aren’t doomed to fail by the colour of their skin. There’s nothing more conspicuous about Obama’s existence than that.

For White People

It’s a little bit more complicated here. Barack Obama is one of those few black men who broke the stereotypes and made it - and made it BIG. White America loves a Black man that has broken the stereotype - at least unless he sleeps with and / or harms a white woman. Thankfully, Obama is not going down that route. Barack Obama embodies one of the few exceptions to the rule. This is what has made him America’s top guy and the penultimate favourite in this political contest. White America genuinely loves this guy - even if some their motivations are questionable.

So what’s in it for white people? At least initially, lots of white folks championed Obama because he paints a positive image of America to the rest of the world. Among other things, it’s the most conspicuous way of saying “See? I’ve matured! I put a black man in the highest office of my government!“. What many of them are also saying is “Now shut the fk up about racism and all that crap.” This is a double barrelled shot gun, because it pretty much says that Obama is America’s greatest Affirmative Action poster boy. In a way, I can’t blame them. You have to understand that White America is constantly being reminded of the sins of its past. So what better way to redeem themselves than putting a black man in the white house? It’s a win-win plan that works for everyone. Additionally, the White America today is not the same White America 50 years ago. This White America is more educated, more intelligent, more rational, more humane, less racist, less blindly religious, less conservative, more liberal, and thus, more likely to put a black man in the White House.

Where Barack touched the hearts of black men, he also touched the hearts of white men. Men are still men, irrespective of what colours their genes give them. However, where ever White America supports Obama, there’s a much higher probability that he serves a dual purpose. He represents the element of change for the next generation of White America and he is simultaneously the silver bullet that is expected to end racial presuppositions once and for all (or at least, give that impression) while hopefully repairing the American image after it was effectively ruined by the worst president ever. The message of Hope is strong with Obama, with even his polical rival copying elements of his rhetoric. Just as how Christ embodied that great sentiment of hope for life, Barack Obama embodies this messianic hope for change that has now become perpetually immortalised in pop culture:

Voting for the Right Reasons

Why are you voting for Obama? If you are voting for the Democratic Ticket this year, you fall into one or more of the eight possible categories:

1. Race - I want a black man in the white house. I would vote for Barack Obama even if he was GOP. I don’t really care about the issues. He’s a positive black icon and that’s all I need to know.
2. Politics - I want a Democrat in the white house. I vote Democrat all the time. I’m a die-hard liberal and I would back the Democratic party irrespective of who’s running or what issues they represent.
3. Opinion - I disagree with Republican ideas. I categorically dislike republicans. I’m probably a member of some demographic disenfranchised by the white religious right.
4. Personality - We need a good man in the white house. I don’t like either candidate for the Republican party. I’m more likely to vote based on personality and rhetoric than the issues.
5. Policy - Whoever has the better ideas, gets my vote. Politics means nothing to me. I only care about the issues. I’m one of those undecided or independents who only polls on election day.
6. Change - 8 years is too long. GOP needs to GTFO. SRSLY. I probably voted in the Republicans at least once over the past two terms and now I regret it.
7. History - The Democrats will make history this year by electing the country’s first black president. I’m really a band wagonist and I just want to be a part of that history.
8. Inspired - Obama restored my faith in American politics and that’s why I will ensure he gets his chance. I didn’t really care about poltics or who won - until Barack Obama opened his mouth. This is my first time voting. I’m so excited!

Now here’s a fun activity for you. Check all the choices that apply:

Then go back and drag your mouse over the selections 1 - 8 above the poll and highlight all the text, right down to where it says “Now here’s a fun activity…”. It will reveal some text that explains why you made the selections you did. It will be very interesting to see how these selections stack up.

Conclusion

Allow me to do for Barack Obama what should have been done for Jesus Christ. They say that a man is only as good as his word. That would make Barack Obama beneficent or even magnanimous. But he is neither. Barack Obama is just a man - not a messiah. He’s just a guy with hopes and dreams like anyone else. He is imperfect although he has done many things perfectly. He is brave, even though he has fears. He has weaknesses inasmuch as he has strengths. He can be broken emotionally like any other man just as how he inspires so many others. He can be compelled to do as much good as evil. He makes good decisions and many mistakes. He says things he should not have said inasmuch as he says things that should have been long said before. He misjudges as much as he has been misjudged. He tries to do as much as he can for the greatest good even though sometimes that could work out for just the very opposite.

My point is simply this: When we build our expectations from political hopefuls, we are setting up ourselves for a great deal of disappointment. We shouldn’t hinge so many of our hopes and expectations on one man. Political campaigns are nothing more than glorified popularity contests. The candidates must say what they need to say to win as many voters to their cause as possible using their charm and charisma. That’s how the system works. They can’t prove their performance any other way since neither of them are actually president just yet. They must therefore appear to be impeccable when they are possibly not. They must demonstrate that they are fit for the job without actually doing the job. That’s the issue here. When you vote in November, vote because of the issues, and not because of the popularity contest. Everything else is just a clever distraction.

“To become king in the land of the blind, the one eyed man must first pretend to be blind.“

- Xenocrates

eorge W. Bush is a genius. Yes, I said it. The 43rd President of the United States is an unparalleled savant. Never before in the history of the world has one man duped the greatest modern empire of all time into the greatest modern hoax of all time by manipulating the greatest man made act of terrorism of all time to sideswipe the greatest united committee of all time to foster the worst orchestrated war of all time using the greatest lie of all time for the most underhanded and nefarious act of self profiteering of all time while plummeting the greatest empire of all time into the worst economic slump of all time then duping the “greatest” nation of all time into bringing him back for round two and three. And to top it all off, he did it all while appearing to be the dumbest, most inarticulate, most average, most unsophisticated, most ineloquent, least charismatic and worst favoured US president of all time. This guy made Nero look like a chump. Now if that isn’t the work of pure genius, I don’t know what is. But that’s not the kicker. George Bush got away with what he did, because he recognised long before anyone else, that the American public constitutes of the largest, most powerful Idiocracy of all time.

Absolute Power Corruption

I’ve always known that old men dream up wars for young men to die in, but this is ridiculous. What’s shocking to me is that there are still people in the world (*cough*republicans*cough*) who genuinely believe that the war in Iraq was Justified, because somehow, Iraq poses the greatest terrorist threat to the United States That’s interesting, since Al Quaeda is not even based in Iraq. But never mind that. I’m pretty sure if the island of Jamaica had a ruthless dictator and they were sitting on monstrous coffers of black Gold, that somehow, the United States …er …George Bush …would’ve found a reason to declare the country a terrorist threat and invade the island. That’s called bullyism - ruthless dictator or not.

Now, the US of A has been doing this for decades. They are the world’s last super power and they got to that stage by being on a non-stop ass-kicking binge since World War II. Most Americans won’t admit it, but the reason why they do what they do is simply because it “feels good”. Yes I said it. Half of the wars fought since World War II needlessly involved the US in one way or another. Why does the US feel so compelled to be involved in every global conflict? It’s not because of they’re the most powerful nation on earth. No siree. They got to that stage by being a global bully. Rather, they feel compelled to do so, because like every bully who is desperate for attention, the USA feels the propensity to assert dominance for no other reason that just to repeatedly prove that they’re the baddest motherfkers this side of the Alpha Quadrant.

We see this absurd propensity in everything from movies to pop culture. The USA likes being on top and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. 300 years ago, it was the British Empire. Some 1600 years before them, it was the Roman empire and the cycle repeats itself for some 5,000 years all the way back to when the last great pseudo-negro empire ruled the known world. For some inexplicable reason (and I suspect it is quite probably genetic), empires built by white men have ravaged the face of the earth. They have always demonstrated a propensity to rule the world - and they have - and still do - at least until China rules the world in 2030. It is interesting to note, that there seems to be a progression of rule between the races, starting with the blacks (Egypt), the whites (Greece to present) and now the Chinese (present - ?). But none of that matters. The point I’m making here is simply this: The quest for power always ends in corruption and the Bush Administration of 2000 - 2008 is quite probably the single most corrupt government in the history of the United States.

The History of Deception

I find the last 8 years of US history to be very curious. Follow me for a moment:

• 1999 - President William Jefferson Clinton ends his second term as President of the USA. It has a great economy, there is a job boom, a 3 trillion dollar surplus and enjoys excellent foreign relations. He even got his knob polished by two different women while he was at it. Gotta love the guy.
• 2000 - Texas Governor George Bush inches out former Vice President Al Gore by 5 electoral votes in what has to be the single most ludicrous presidential election in the history of the universe. Florida votes were under scrutiny and if some overvotes were counted properly, it’s likely that the democrats would’ve won. It is curious that Jeb Bush, younger brother of George Bush, was Governor of Florida at this time. The long drawn out contention was so ridiculous that the USA became the laughing stock of the world for at least a month. So the US Supreme Court had to put this one away voting 7-2 in favour of discontinuing what was considered an “unconstitutional” recount. Y’know, I keep telling people that democracy doesn’t exist, but nevermind.
• 2001 - Al Quaeda is implicated in the single most successful terrorist strike on US soil in history. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that something suspicious was up as the remains of the World Trade buildings and the Pentagon do not corroborate what the government told the American Public. The debate continues to this day. The US launch an Operative into Afghanistan to flush out Taliban operatives said to be affiliated with Al Quaeda.
• 2002 - US forces pummel Taliban forces into the ground, scattering Al Quaeda forces and establishing an interim government after the fall of Kandahar.
• 2003 - George Bush inexplicably turns his attention to Iraq, I guess because he thinks the operation in Afghanistan was enough. He starts a war in Iraq, citing it’s purpose as “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” He frames this war as a “War on Terror”, playing upon the fears of the American public (for whom 911 is still fresh in their minds), using the 5 colour code national terror watch to frighten Americans, thus building support for the war thus gaining majority support for the war. He even sideswipes the UN security council resolution 1441 which effectively promoted no military action against Iraq and went to war anyway.
• 2004 - He trumps John Kerry in the elections without much trouble with Ohio being the contention state. The theme of the election was foreign policy. John Kerry never stood a chance. It doesn’t really matter now since Bush was already busy using 911 to gain sympathy from the American public to go out, kick ass and take names all over the middle east. Americans were too busy being bitter to care for diplomacy or any of that pansy boy bulltish - that’s why the Democrats lost. Americans wanted a President that would be willing kick ass and John Kerry flip flopped like a fish out of water. That epic asshole Sean Hannity sealed the deal by promoting George Bush as the president of choice and Fox News as the ultimate Republican propaganda machine. How fitting then that Hurricane Katrina hits later that same year and further demonstrates the inherent incompetence of the newly re-elected lame duck. It’s like God was punishing Americans for their profound stupidity. Sean Hannity should be shot at point blank range with a rusty nail.
• 2005 - Hoo boy - it gets worse: Al Quaeda regroups in Afghanistan. US losses top 3,000 in Iraq. Al Quaeda bombs the subways in London, the CIA declares that there are NO WMDs in Iraq and Mr. Lame Duck’s popularity goes right down the the toilet. To make matters worse, more and more evidence (like the Downing Street Memorandum) and claims from Bush officials seem to show officially what conspiracy theorists had been harping on for a long time - That the Iraq war was based on a lie that was justification for removing Saddam Hussein through military force. As to why Bush wanted Saddam removed, republicans won’t admit, but I, like every other half intelligent person in the world could’ve easily surmised - was oil. Yes siree. Remember that Mr. Bush is a Texas Oil man of the worst kind (he’s a poor business manager). What better way to “secure the energy future of America” (read: make his family and friends richer) by taking out the only militant state that would hinder the American addiction to oil in the middle east while assessing the Chinese access to the same resource.
• 2006 - Iraq is in a serious state of affairs, with over 1.1 million Iraqis dead since 2003, 2.2 million displaced from the country, with thousands fleeing to neighbouring countries on a monthly basis, an insurgence of Al Quaeda militia (after an earlier re-declaration of Jihad) which officially pits the United States as the single most hated country on the planet. Iraq is a mess of epic proportions and the USA becomes target numero uno of every Islamic extremist on the planet with access to anything that can go boom. Heh. Now national security becomes the US’ top priority since they now realise they are fighting an enemy with nothing to loose. The fact that Saddam Hussein is executed for crimes against humanity by the interim Iraqi government is little consolation. He is only a straw man. By this, his Patriot act and other acts of bending the law to suit his purposes while alienating the rest of the world earned George Bush the dubious title as the worst president ever.
• 2007 - Americans finally recoil and realise that “Hey, we’re fighting an illegal war here!” and that “we’ve been lied to!“. Heh, no sh!t, Sherlocke - that’s why Colin Powell opted out in 2004 after Bush explicitly told him to “find evidence that Iraq had WMDs”. Wow. Bush champions a cause to push for a surge into Iraq which, technically, is not so much strategy as it is wrapping several layers of band aid over a gaping wound. Meanwhile, oil and gas prices skyrocket as Bush’s friends make a killing, hundreds of thousands of jobs are shipped overseas thus leading to the systematic decimation of the middle class, thus making health care a luxury, while the US surplus is wiped out by a 10 billion dollar spending/month on the same illegal war in Iraq, inexorably causing the US to become indebted to China …can you believe it? CHINA! LOL!
• 2008 - Lame Duck declares that the US economy is “healthy” after giving tax breaks to his wealthy lobbyist associates who control the majority wealth in the US economy in an effort to boost spending and thus the economy. He sure boosted spending alright - a lot of that money has gone overseas. Now his protegé, John McCain (who proudly boasts that he voted with Bush 90% of the time) wants to continue the cause and to no surprise, Republicans (blind, religious and stupid) are championing the cause. John McCain declares that he would rather loose an election than loose a war and chants this as his mantra - the hallmark of relentless obnoxious American Bravado that has proven in the past to be their own undoing.
• 2009 - George Walker Bush will end his second term as President of the USA. It has a terrible economy, there is a job recession, a multi-trillion dollar deficit and suffers the worst foreign relations in the history of the country. He didn’t even get his knob polished while he was at it. Gotta love the guy.

The Anatomy of Deception

Now consider this: George Bush has been parodied, made fun of, ridiculed, and taken as a joke of epic proportions for much of the eight years he was in office. Think about that: EIGHT YEARS! Doesn’t that strike you as odd? If George Bush is as much an idiot as everyone made him out to be, then how come he managed to beat out two democrats who appeared to easily outpace him intellectually during the presidential debates of 2000 and 2004 respectively? At least the Brits were smart enough to get rid of their coward Prime Minister Tony Blair who was nothing more than Bush’s bitch. However, the Americans kept their idiot cowboy wannabe in office for eight whole years; that’s two whole terms, and they are now paying for it dearly. Who’s the fool now?

One wonders how the Americans could’ve made such an epic mistake - twice. Nobody considered that the oil companies that Bush ran as a businessman tanked - a testament to his sheer incompetence as a manager. You would think that the mere fact that this guy was an average student, a Yale and Harvard graduate because of his daddy’s money, a man who fabricated some of the facts of his military past to gain political mileage, who regularly used religion to justify his actions, who lied about evidence for an illegal war as being inherently dangerous to American society. But no… When you have people like the Republicans living in the world, you will realise that they are not substantially different from Islamic Extremists who, like George Bush would use religion to justify their actions. However, the inherent nature of religion is such that it can be used to justify anything - good and evil alike. But that’s just an aside. The real issue is this:

Wow. So let’s put things into perspective. When Bush took the oath of office, He declared that he was going after Saddam Hussein. So we all know that Iraq was in his sights. However, to go after Iraq, he needed a motivating cause. He needed a Machiavellian tragedy that would motivate the entire American public to back the war in Iraq (or any other war for that matter) since Americans like the sheep they are, believe everything they are told. So what better way to do that than using the worst terrorist attack on US soil to champion his righteous War on Terrorism? This is why he didn’t spend as much time or resources in Afghanistan as he should have. This is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large and also why Al Quaeda has regrouped and is posing an increasing threat in Afghanistan. The US forces have been fighting nothing more than a straw Man in Iraq (Hussein and Al Quaeda were enemies) just so that Bush could get at the oil in Iraq before the Chinese, while ignoring the real threat in Afghanistan.

How do you feel America? You’ve been duped by a dummy.

Conclusion

Now that he’s gotten what he went for, (foreign oil), his protege John McCain is going to tidy up things in Iraq, and refocus on Afghanistan - right? Wrong. McCain is a war Vet that has boiling blood for reclaiming US honour at any cost, since the US lost the war he fought in during the Vietnam war. He now feels compelled to WIN the war in Iraq at all costs (justification be damned) since winning is everything and he can’t stand to see the US loose a second major war in a row. It will be interesting to see if the American public has learned its lesson from its past 8 years of mistakes come November 4. Somehow, I doubt it, but I’d love to eat my words.

I said it once and I’ll say it again: George W. Bush is a genius. Not only was he able to accomplish what his father didn’t, but he also made the family even more wealthy for decades to come and toppled a Middle Eastern dictator while he was at it. He was able to pull this off because the American public are for the most part, the definitive Idiocracy. They are a kingdom of the blind; a society that is so self-absorbed and oblivious about the rest of the world that someone who appears to be a bumbling fool could get elected as the “Leader of the Free World” twice, even though he has wantonly and indiscriminately abused that freedom. George Bush became President of the United States of America because he realised a long time ago that for the one eyed man to become king in the land of the blind, he must first pretend to be blind. Needless to say, it worked brilliantly.

If McCain wins in November, it proves that the Americans can live with the fact that Bush lied to the American public, fought an illegal war, lost over 4,000 troops, mismanaged the economy, oversaw a mortgage implosion, brought on the first American recession in decades, all while appearing to be a bumbling, idiotic, buffoon:

Way to go George W. Bush. That was a fking brilliant show. I applaud you sir. Well done. 

“Women use men to validate their sexuality while men use women to satiate theirs.”

- Xenocrates

here are many situations I’ve heard of where guys complain that romance often feels like a game of sorts. Why can’t a guy simply approach a woman and indicate his intentions without having to jump through hoops and play these silly (perhaps even childish) mind games? Why do women like to play cock tease? Romance gurus are often no help. They make it seem really complicated. They often make it appear as though women are really highly sophisticated sheep such that wolves have to figure out a complex hunting algorithm in order to catch one. Are women really that complicated? Far from it. If you’ve ever had trouble figuring out why you a guy have had so much trouble just in the woo process, it’s not necessarily that you’re doing something wrong. Women do play needless mind games, but who says you have to play along? Read on to find out what I mean.

Girl Psychology

First you gotta ask yourself this question: Why are men inclined to be cocky? It doesn’t matter where in the world you go, you will always find guys who are cocky and every man has that potential. It’s hard wired into us. That’s part of the reason why men rule the world. Now for the same reason, why is it that women are constantly concerned about their self image? Think about it. How many remarkably, jaw dropping, amazingly, insanely, impossibly hot women have you ever met, who for some inexplicable reason believe they are:

1. Not pretty
2. Not hot
3. Too fat
4. [insert favourite self depreciating complaint here]

Too many right? It seems pretty ridiculous in comparison to the fact that you will find even guys with a pot belly who still have amazing levels of self esteem. You don’t find that with great regularity in women except in specific scenarios. So why is it that men have a greater propensity for displaying that quality of high self esteem (irrespective of what they look like) while women do not? The simple answer is, that it’s a part of their psychology. In other words, they’re hard wired like that. This explains several phenomena:

1. Why hot chicks complain about their image.
2. Why women would stay with abusive lovers or deadbeat fathers.
3. Why women in relationships often complain that they are not loved.
4. Why women are statistically quoted as being happier when in relationships.
5. Why many women still experience depression even when they’re young, successful & single.

Can you see a recurring trend here? No? Ok. Let me help you out. Compare the following to their respective numbers above:

1. Have you ever had a female friend ask you if she looks “fat” in a particular outfit or if she has a nice [insert body part here]? She’s not asking you to tell her the truth. She’s asking you to make her feel better.
2. Have you ever wondered why an intelligent, educated young woman would repeatedly become impregnated for the same dead beat father? 9 out of 10 times these women either never had a father around themselves or that dead beat dad was a very good lyricist.
3. Has your wife or girlfriend ever asked you that frustratingly annoying question out of the blue: “Do you love me?” or accused you of not loving her at all? It’s usually because you haven’t filled their daily quota of being reminded.
4. Have you ever wondered why some women get clingy in a relationship and say stuff like “You complete me” waay too soon? They actually mean what they say.
5. Have you ever heard of women “putting their lives on hold for a man” or “waiting to exhale”?

All of these are for exactly the same reason. It’s self esteem. Women generally tend to have a lower sense of self esteem than men. Those who don’t are usually single and very happy. The latter are usually those who will tell their gal pals that “you don’t need a man to complete you” while the former will usually fire back with “baby, I got a man - you just jealous”. The psychological factors that create both scenarios are exactly the same.

So what is so special about men that would create this difference? We’re cocky - for the most part, so most of our self esteem is generated internally. Men were engineered like that. Using electrical metaphors, men are like emotional batteries and women are like emotional loads. Women who are constantly complimented by men don’t usually have self esteem issues. You will find more emotionally balanced women who have had loving, doting fathers in their lives. Women who have pro-actively doting husbands never ask that annoying “do you love me” question. Women with positive self esteem never get clingy. Women who find love early tend to have a more positive outlook on life, family and career. Self esteem is a major driving factor in the   behaviour of many women - and this is also a key ingredient to why women play games during courtship.

It’s the same motivation that would cause some women to show off their sex appeal in several impractical ways. Whether they wear a controversially short skirt to work, sexually appeal to men they have no intention of sleeping with, incessantly play the role of a cock tease or even strip naked for a centerfold - women love to validate their sexuality. Every woman likes to know that at least one man finds her attractive - even if it is just an inappropriate cat call. When you commend a woman on her dress or her appearance, even if you have no sexual intentions toward her at all, it is usually very well received and you will quite probably earn her affection when you were just being a good guy. Try it on some unsuspecting woman at the surpermarket or at work and see what I mean.

Mind Games

Now that you know why they do it, now let’s talk about one of the ways they do it: Mind games. Do women play mind games? Heck yes! Are mind games necessary? Short Answer: Only when they don’t want to play for keeps. Usually when a woman meets a man for the first time, she immediately decides within the first 5 minutes whether or not she’s going to give him love. That decision is usually permanent. Whatever happens there after is just a highly sophisticated psychological charade. Now understand this; If you run into a woman that likes to play games, two things are true: 1. She likes you enough to keep you around (the more the merrier), 2. She doesn’t think that you’re annoying enough to turn away

The game she plays is not one that you can win. That’s the first thing you need to understand. She knows that, but you don’t. She plays the game by giving you hope (where there is none). Then you respond accordingly by enacting pursuit (when in truth, there’s nothing to pursue). This gives her that sexual validation she needs (hey, I’m still hot - this guy wants me) without her having to surrender anything to you. Afterall, she is not obligated to.

When a woman meets a guy that she wants, usually, he has very little to do to get to third base. In fact, men with integrity usually loose interest in a woman who gives it up too soon. When a woman meets a guy that she doesn’t want, if he is a nice guy, she’ll use him as her sexual validation tool, her intellectual whore, her psychological vibrator. So if you’re pursuing a woman that is playing with your head, giving you mixed signals, turning you on and then withdrawing at the last minute, she’s basically using you to masturbate her psycho-sexual appetite. The only vagina you’re gonna get, is the theoretical one.

Now while every woman knows they have this capacity, not everyone of them is aware of the fact that they’re doing it. In fact, these women would go as far as to take a man’s money, his heart, his time and use it to validate her sexuality without giving him so much as a peck on the cheek in return. I mean, let’s be rational about this. If you had a bunch of women who would join a line to have sex with you, would you necessarily go out there and tell all of them that you don’t love them, and that you only want to have sex with them? Nope. You’re probably not going to do it. Similarly, these women will keep their nice guys around to give them all the validation they need, using them without conscience, wantonly and indiscriminately.

Women use men to validate their sexuality in much the same way that men use women to satiate theirs. That’s why we have the expression that women want just one man to fulfill all their needs, while men want all women to fulfill their one need. I only say this to frame the situation fairly so you can see how this situation could be possibly reversed. Men do use women too - but it is not quite as inconspicuously duplicitous. At least every woman knows what’s on every man’s mind when he looks at her. It is far more difficult for men to do the same. But let’s get back to the issue at hand, lest you start wondering whose side I’m on.

How to Address this Problem

There are two ways to address this:

1. Play along
2. Clean cut

Most women prefer option one. However, you don’t have to play their game. You’re the guy here, so the onus is upon you to seize control of the play. Where you can really mix this up is where you play the same game - but you have to keep the ball in your court at all times to make it interesting. Women are emotional sponges. If they know they can go to a particular guy to charge their emotional reservoirs (only to leave him once they’re satiated), they will keep doing it over and over again until he looses the appeal. If you are a little sadistic and you don’t mind the attention, the best way to give these “playa” girls a taste of their own medicine is to give them none of what they require. Ignore them. Don’t flirt back when they flirt. Pretend you don’t care when they tease. If she has a female coworker in your office or if she has any girlfriends, go right for the jugular and flirt with them instead. When the jealousy sets in (and I guarantee you, it will), you can decide whether you want to use it to your advantage and extract more attention from her or just let it slide like you don’t care. Women love that bad boy mystique and it keeps them coming back for more.

But that’s not the mature thing to do and I don’t want to encourage any of you to become stone cold playas.

The best option is to make a clean cut. This option requires a lot of guts to recognize it and a lot of discipline to actually pull it off. In concept, it’s pretty simple actually. It’s about cutting off her dependency on you (thus saving yourself some emotional trauma in the process). You just have to call her on it - declare that you know what she’s up to and that you don’t appreciate the gestures. Don’t inject any of the “I still think you’re attractive/pretty” stuff. That’s the sort of thing that could be misinterpreted as false denial. You have to be pretty firm about it, because if you’re dealing with a girl who likes to play mind games, chances are, she’ll think you’re just playing hard to get. This is especially important if you are already seeing someone, are permanently engaged or most importantly, are looking for a serious relationship. You have to recognise that women who play mind games already have self esteem issues and that is the primary reason why they manifest this sort of behaviour. You have to remember that this behaviour is only a manifestation of immaturity and you should never seek to take advantage of that kind of situation. You may just pick up a clinger in the process - and no man wants that.

The Afterward

If you’ve made a clean break (which I expect you would have if you were even reading this in the first place), there will be a period of awkwardness - especially if her intentions for playing weren’t genuine. Usually this is where where she avoids contact (especially eye contact), keeps her responses to very short phrases, no longer laughs at your jokes, or just walks the other way if she sees you coming. This is just a manifestation of embarrassment. Don’t worry about it. Stick to your guns. She’ll come around and have a great deal of respect for you afterward. Don’t forget, women like men with spine - even if that means diffusing her psychological playtime and robbing her of the loot. If she doesn’t come around, then consider that she has let you off easily. Pat yourself on the shoulders because it means that you’ve done yourself a huge favour.

If however in the less probable event that the woman was playing because she genuinely wanted to be pursued, you will not run into this awkwardness problem. In fact, you may have to pry her off you with a crow bar if you pulled it off smoothly. I can’t say it often enough. Women love a man with spine. Can you imagine a man who has so much spine that he would cut down a woman’s mind gaming even if it means delaying the probability of sex? That’s the kind of man any woman can respect. If you’re the kind of man who doesn’t stand up for bullshit, even from a woman, then it speaks volumes about your maturity as an eligible male. She interprets that as a man that she can’t control easily. She interprets that as a man who will be strong for her when others present similar types of bullshit. She interprets that as a man who is self disciplined, mature and ready. All women find that very sexually attractive. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, shutting down a woman’s mind gaming is doing you more favours than you realise.

Gidderdun’.

“Atheists reject Religion because they secretly embrace the idea that death defeats karma.”

- Xenocrates

here’s nothing more profoundly silly than advocating disbelief in possible phenomena simply because they cannot be logically quantified. There’re a many things wrong with this ideology and it is inextricably bound to the innate arrogance of mankind. We’re so dangerously confident about our logic that we are often tempted to think it is fool proof. It’s this God complex that we’ve developed along the way that seems to inherently blind us to our ignorance. In fact, most Atheists are a perfect exemplification of this. They’re the type of people who’ve only proven a few things to be false, or have offered a rational explanation for a number of things and like a kid who solved his first math problem, went on a problem solving binge to reason away all of the vacuous things that have plagued humanity. Then, in a desperate attempt to validate their arrogance, they go around the world picking fights with silly theists who can’t prove left from right, like a bully who only picks fights with weaklings. Now I know that religion has its issues (heck, I dedicated four posts solely to tearing apart the false teachnigs in Christianity). However, atheism often makes all the same mistakes that religion does. This one is dedicated to all the people out there who believe that they’re so right that they can’t possibly be wrong.

Atheism 101

Before we get into it, we need to do our homework and examine the background of the various of schools of thought that make up atheism as well as understand what it is really all about. The word “Atheism” is actually a derivative of the Greek word atheoi, which loosely translates into English as “those that are without God“. The terms atheist and atheism (like christian) were coined as contemptuous epithets in the 16th century to express disdain towards anyone who disavowed belief in God or religion. However, irrespective of the origin of the word, people who collectively belong to this category have varying beliefs and are more or less inclined to the humanist theories of philosophy.

We can’t collectively lump all atheists together. There are actually different types. They can be loosely classified based on the specific nature of their beliefs. The following list covers the gamut of virtually all proactive non-believers. I say pro-active because it requires a certain conscious decision to go against the ubiquitous tradition of religion. People who are staunch atheists are not your ordinary everyday citizens. They are usually very highly intelligent, fairly well educated individuals who’ve taken more time than the average Joe to think about what they choose not to believe - even though they all have a primary human motivation. Therefore you won’t find many lay men who are atheists. Now there are basically four schools of thought which govern atheism:

• Pragmatism - These are atheists who believe that morality is not contingent on the necessity of either religion or deity of any kind. They propose that morality is a human trait that can exist without necessarily applying any kind of religious faith. They further contend that religion either inhibits a practical way of life or is impractical for modern living.
• Agnosticism - These are people who disbelieve in religion and dogma. They believe that the existence of some supernatural first cause, or “god” is contingent on proof that we may not be able to produce or even understand. As such they don’t believe in any particular human interpretation or personification of god, which we would collectively refer to as religion. However, they do not expressly reject the notion that some divine creator could possibly exist.
• Skepticism - These are people who only believe in what they cannot doubt. Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea. Their system of structured belief applies not just to religion but to science, philosophy, politics and everything in between. As such, they don’t argue against religion or theism as a matter of contention. Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted, especially from an empirical perspective.
• Naturalism - These are the more hard core atheists who believe that all things result from natural causality and that we live in a finite simulation. These people do not believe in the concept of a God as a creator or in any other supernatural manifestation of some controlling entity. They believe that reality was born of chance, that death is final and that there’s nothing more to it. These are the guys who champion evolutionary theory and smite any other that seeks to explain unscientifically what science itself cannot. They believe that the belief in God discourages scientific exploration and defeats the human initiative for cognitive evolution.

Please note that this list is non-deterministic as there many atheists which take ideas from multiple schools of thought. However, irrespective of where each atheist falls in this list, there is a range of personality types here. Atheists are not necessarily bad people. In fact, many of them are just individuals who’ve become frustrated with the fallacies and bigotry of religion in their genuine quest to find answers. It could happen to anybody quite frankly. However, along the way many of them have become cold, cynical, vitriolic and calculating towards their theist counterparts.

The people who become atheists are usually more left brained than those who are more inclined to be religious. This gives all atheists a clear cognitive advantage over most theists. Being predominantly left brained makes them smarter, more rational and better able to formulate solid, compelling arguments. They can see logical flaws in traditionally accepted arguments that are often overlooked by most theists. This is why, 9 out of 10 times, the average theist is no match for the average atheist in a full frontal religious debate as most theists don’t feel inadequate enough to question what they believe.

However, because they rely heavily on the left brain, atheists often lack that emotional propensity that would facilitate meaningful religious subscription. This strong cognitive affinity is also what gives them their often arrogant personalities. So if religion is right, people who are likely to become atheists would be doomed by virtue of being insufficiently right brained to possess any religious affinity. Never-the-less, among the many over lapping schools of thought shared by atheists, there remain two general categories in which they are allied:

• Weak Atheists - People who rationalise against religion, but not necessarily against God.
• Strong Atheists - People who explicitly declare that there is no God.

The latter category comprises of the kind of people who would outrightly launch an attack on organised religion. They’re the ones writing books, movies, giving lectures and so on in a concerted effort to expose the crimes of theism. However, it is not their actions that concern me. It is their motivations. The following is a break down of the most popular arguments atheists like to us to push their agenda. Let’s start off with the weak atheists and work our way upwards. First up are the Anti-Theists (people who are effectively against just religion).

Pragmatism

Pragmatic Atheism is perhaps the most popular agnostic concept. It basically says that morality is not bound to religion. In other words, you don’t need religion to be righteous. They assert that you can be a non-religious person and still be the most circumspect, upright, sober, righteous, law abiding person there is. They argue that there doesn’t need to be a God for people to become righteous and that the existence of religious cults is a psychological placebo designed to effect the psychological changes in people. For all practical intents and purposes, they are quite correct. However, while their arguments against religion are quite reasonable, they fail to take into consideration two things:

1. We’re not all wired the same. Some people need that emotional interface to change. That’s why some people need to visit a clinical psychologist (aka “shrink”) and other people do not. If all men were created with the same cognitive predispositions as atheists traditionally have, then religion would simply cease to exist. But not only religion. Most psychiatrists would be out of work and many other elements of society which thrive on that human capacity to emote. In other words, existence defines purpose.
2. Religion does change people. No atheist can deny that religion has changed many people for the better. As flawed as religion may be, that emotional placebo (whether real or otherwise) does work. There are many empirical studies which have been conducted on patients who’ve received prayer and others who have not. The data doesn’t lie. Those who’ve received prayer demonstrate a considerably greater probability of either living longer or making a full recovery. In the Bible, Jesus taught that it is not the prayer that makes people whole - it’s their belief (which we can verify scientifically). The will to live is driven by purely psychological factors. Those psychological factors often determine whether someone lives or dies. Clinical psychologists know this and medical doctors know this. So long as a thing is useful, it has purpose.

What is interesting to note however, is that many of the people who embrace this form of atheism tend to exhibit the most sexually experimental appetites, often indulging in hedonistic behaviour. One cannot help but feel that they hold to their position to justify being free from any moral obligation that would otherwise incite guilt (more on this later). It would also explain why many of these types of atheists see religion as psychological bondage and that disavowing religion is an act of freedom. It’s a nice thought - hypocritical, but a nice thought none-the-less.

Agnosticism

Agnostics assert that because there is insufficient evidence to believe in God, then they are rationally inclined not to believe in God. (We will examine this evidence later). It is not so much that they disavow belief in God. Rather, they assert that the burden of proof lies with theists to rationally demonstrate that God does in fact exist, using some methodology that is either empirically or logically traceable. Agnostics tend to use the “invent a God” technique to make theists understand what their position on the issue is. This technique can be described as specifying some ridiculous concept (I believe, designed specifically as a means of mocking theism) which in and of itself cannot be proven by virtue of how ridiculous it is. (e.g. “The Magic Teapot”, “fairies”, “The pink unicorn”, etc.). This they say is proof that they cannot prove any other ‘fictitious being’ to be true by virtue of the fact that this being is effectively indistinguishable from a magic teapot, fairies, a pink unicorn or anything else for that matter.

The major problem with agnosticism is that it assumes that the absence of knowledge of an idea is proof that an idea isn’t real. It is more a psychological argument than a rational one. To demonstrate this concept, consider a cockroach. If a cockroach could argue, it would argue that it doesn’t believe in pesticide, simply because it has never encountered any proof of such a thing. The problem with the argument is that any cockroach that has ever encountered pesticide has not lived to share the news. They all died. Similarly, if any agnostic had died and gone to hell, none of the other agnostics would not have received any news that hell is real, because any of them that have encountered hell have (obviously) not lived to share the news. There goes your rational demonstration.

It is therefore silly to say that because there is inadequate demonstration of some proof, that one therefore does not believe in something. Most of the things we know now in science were developed based on theories - which are effectively the same thing as a manifestation of faith in the existence of some phenomenon that we do not yet have the tools to prove. We believed in the existence of atoms for hundreds of years before electron tunneling microscopes were invented to prove they existed. What is interesting is that agnostic atheists will be willing to believe many scientific theories that are ages beyond proof, but aren’t willing to believe in any theory that God could possibly exist. Thus, the agnostic position is not one that is clearly defined for the purpose of objective rationality. Rather, it exhibits a certain partiality against any kind of theistic doctrine, which is more a psychological predisposition than a rational one.

Skepticism

Atheists who prefer to use strong empirical arguments can prove to be formidable opponents in a religious debate. This is largely because empirical arguments are difficult to refute because they can be easily demonstrated as ostensible phenomena. However, this is also why the basis of most of these arguments are flawed as they are attempting to use ostensible phenomena to disprove theoretical ones. Here’s a run down of the most common ones. For ease of differentiation, pro atheist arguments start in red and counter arguments in blue.

1. Inconsistency in Scripture

Argument: Theists claim that God’s word is inerrant and infallible. However, the holy texts are often inconsistent in their description of the qualities of God - many times citing God with human characteristics in one passage, with God like attributes in another, or commanding people to do things which God himself forbade them to. Because of this inconsistency, God cannot be a real being.

Counter-Argument: All holy texts were written by men. Therefore it is inescapable that they will contain inconsistencies or errors. Never-the-less, a flawed man does exempt the existence of a perfect God. The ancient men who wrote the Bible had no referent for the images witnessed in prophecies revealed to them which contained visions of futuristic machines, people and governments. This explains many of the outlandish descriptions in the book of Revelation. Concordantly, it is irrational to expect these men (who are lay men in comparison to even today’s children) to describe a God using consistently accurate philosophical descriptions. A moderately imperfect transmission of an important message does not invalidate the necessity of the message.

2. The Problem of Evil

Argument: The very existence of evil contradicts with the definition of God which says that He is both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good). If God is against evil but unable to stop it, then he is not all powerful. If He is able to stop it, but not willing to, then he is not omnibenevolent. If He is both able to stop evil and does stop evil, then why does evil exist? If He is neither able to stop evil nor willing to do so, then he is not God.

Counter-Argument: God is neither good nor evil as those constructs only exist in human minds. Good and evil are ideas which describe a state that is either beneficial or detrimental to the observer. However, this is only relative to the observer as what is good for one may be evil to another. As God is the only being in the universe of his kind, the definitions of good and evil do not apply. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent. That is a false teaching of Christianity. God is sovereign, which gives Him the right to do anything he pleases. This does not make God malevolent (or evil) for all the same reasons stated earlier. Furthermore, ascribing human attributes to God (i.e. anthropomorphication) automatically defeats the purpose of calling him God in the first place. What’s the point of being God if he is bound by the parameters of human understanding? That’s the whole point of being God.

3. The Imperfect Creator

Argument: God cannot exist because if God is perfect and he intelligently designed nature, then the fact that nature has flaws shows that God is imperfect, which contradicts with the definition of God. This is the traditional argument against intelligent design theory.

Counter-Argument: The definition of perfection is not what is ostensibly perfect as far as human cognition can fathom, but rather the definition of perfection that is relevant to God. The argument fails because it assumes that perfection is whatever we humans define it to be.

4. The Inefficient Creator

Argument: God cannot exist because if God is perfect, he certainly uses the most inefficient ways of winning people to his cause. Why is God invisible? God should show himself in the sky and cause people to believe in him instead of resorting to subterfuge and causing the deaths of millions of his followers.

Counter-Argument: First of all, God’s perfection is not perfection for human purpose. Rather it is perfection for God’s purpose. Ergo, while God could have devised any number of other ways to make the universe and carry out his business, debating that fact is like a bacteria complaining about its human host taking antibiotics. Such an action presumes that we are fully conversant with the secrets of the universe and thus could possibly postulate a better way to make it. It’s a form of arrogance that assumes we already understand the purpose for God creating the universe this way and not another way. Since we can’t read God’s mind (in the same way a bacterium doesn’t understand antibiotics), the argument is as useful as trying to stop a hurricane with a paper fan.

5. God is Redundant

Argument: God does not need to exist since science can adequately explain natural phenomena.

Counter-Argument: Science does not explain everything. Evolution doesn’t adequately explain how sentient life formed from organic compounds (hence intelligent design). The laws of Quantum physics break down as we approach the singularity event and go past the big bang (hence Superstring and M theories). Every time science tries to create the ultimate origin theory, its proponents come up with something that seems to point to a “magical” solution as science is inherently limited to the rules which define it (and they accuse theists of doing the same thing with God… wow). In fact, more and more atheists are now admitting that science was never intended to provide an answer for anything when evolutionists were previously championing it in the 60’s and 70’s to do just that. It’s a convenient cop out devised by people who should know better.

6. God is Not Provable

Argument: It is impossible to prove or disprove that God exists simply because there exists no methodology to quantitatively do so.

Counter-Argument: The absence of proof is not proof of absence. This argument fails because it is quite literally based on a flippant postulate. It is purely subjective and doesn’t give substantive rationale to disbelieve in God. One could easily counter argue using the same logic that because science cannot disprove God, then that is proof that God exists. Therefore picking either side is only a matter of personal conviction - not proof. This is a proof theists use to assert that atheism is also a faith.

What should be obvious from the counter reasoning is that each skeptical argument has been proven to have an ulterior motive by the sheer thinness of each postulate. Whether it is based on an already frail argument from a non-rationally inclined theist to arguments which seem to do nothing more than nitpick at silly details, it demonstrates a marked propensity for the “straw man” argumentative technique. This is where a position which serves to be more of a distraction is only held based on a point that requires significant cognitive gymnastics to accentuate in the first place. The mere fact that such an enormous calculative effort has to be exuded positively demonstrates that either atheists are trying far too hard to disprove the issue or they’re surreptitiously trying to mask their true intentions. As bad as that was, it actually gets worse…

Naturalism

These are the juggernauts of all atheists. They’re the defacto champions of most religious debates. These guys go right for the jugular and question the very validity of the idea of God. Their arguments directly attack God himself via deductive reasoning. This particular type of reasoning is incredibly difficult to follow for most lay persons who are naturally inclined to be theists just by virtue of their lacking the cognitive capacity to dance with these guys. Using the same technique as I did earlier, pro atheist arguments start in red and counterarguments in blue. Again, I’ve simplified the arguments so that lay readers can follow. Here we go:

1. The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit

Argument: God is too infinitely complex to ever be a realistically probable occurrence. This is a postulate by Richard Dawkins (pictured above) the Atheist messiah übermann as it were. He calls this argument the ‘Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit‘. It basically says that the probability of life occurring on this planet is no greater than a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747 simply by blowing through a scrapyard. Therefore the probability of a designer for this world would be so incredibly more complex, that the odds of his occurrence are phenomenally less so.

Counter-Argument: The necessity for there being greater complexity to cause lesser complexity is not empirically consistent. This is after all, the basic premise behind evolution, where simple creatures evolve into more complex ones. Furthermore, irrespective of the degree of cosmic improbability of an occurrence, the mere fact that it has occurred or could occur makes the original postulate intrinsically redundant. It only proves that God doesn’t exist as far as life on earth doesn’t exist.

2. Occam’s Razor

Argument: The belief that God created the universe and that nothing created God makes too many unprovable assumptions. Using Occam’s Razor, it is far simpler to say that the universe exists, as it achieves the same functional objective.

Counter-Argument: The assumption that the universe just exists creates the problem of infinite regression, where the cosmological argument of the chicken and the egg scenario presents itself. Tracing the origin of all things in the universe would create a recursive chain of cause and effect that would never end as it would not stop at the Big Bang. Infinite regression defeats the logic that the universe has a finite beginning. Using a far simpler premise (that an infinite creator created the finite universe) solves the infinite regression problem. There’s no use worrying about assumptions that cannot be proven by the infinite creator premise, as there’s no way to use human epistemology to substantially prove (or disprove) them anyway. They are defined by rules which do not apply outside of this universe.

3. The Omnipotence Paradox

Argument: If God is omnipotent such that he can do anything, then can God build a rock that even he cannot lift? If the definition of omnipotence is saying that God cannot cannot do something, then the paradox proves that an omnipotent God cannot possibly exist, and thus God does not exist.

Counter-Argument: There are several ways to destroy this argument. This argument fails automatically because it assumes that an omnipotent God could be bound by the laws of human logic, making the original question intrinsically redundant. Thus, to answer the question: Yes. God can make a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it, since by virtue of being omnipotent, God can “bend” the very laws of logic, thus accomplishing the feat anyway.

If one is to argue that this counter argument is being flippant, then a suitable counter-argument to that counter-argument would be to accuse the original argument of being likewise. For if we are to suggest that God is omnipotent, (and the question boldly accepts this assumption) then the very act of then asking about something God can’t do makes the question itself illogical and thus not deserving of an answer - at least not a serious one anyway. It is nothing more than a play upon words. In the same way, one could ask “If Bill Gates is the chairman and CEO of Microsoft, then can Bill gates fire himself?”. The second part of the question is rendered irrelevant by the first. Thus to assume that the question itself is logical (let alone to take it seriously) is in an of itself nothing more than a cheap parlour trick. Tricks are for kids.

4. The Omniscience Paradox

Argument: If God is all-knowing and all powerful, can God change his mind? If He is all knowing, then all things are predestined. If he’s all powerful, then he should be able to change his mind. However, if he can change his mind, that negates omniscience, since that defeats the definition of predestination, which automatically eliminates omniscience. But if God cannot change his mind, then he is not omnipotent. This proves that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and thus by definition, God does not exist.

Counter-Argument: God can change his mind, but he doesn’t need to by virtue of perfect predestination. If God needed to change his mind, it would mean that God is not perfect, as it would imply that he made a mistake. If God made a mistake, then it would defeat the definition of a perfect God and likewise make his existence impossible. Therefore, the question is intrinsically redundant for all the same reasons why the universe exists this way and not any other way. Ability doesn’t not automatically imply necessity if there is perfection. While you can drive a car with your feet, it is not necessary as the care was perfectly designed to accommodate you in a natural seated position. The design of the car makes any alternative use unnecessary. Similarly, because the universe was perfectly predestinated via God’s omniscience, this eliminates any necessity for God to change His mind.

5. The Free Will Paradox

Argument: If God is omniscient, that means he already knows every possible outcome and thus humans don’t have a