The worst school “assembly” ever:

As I’ve mentioned before, my “schooling” was abysmally bad:

Now, admittedly (at least according to the Wikipedia article) Annville-Cleona school district has improved significantly in the 20+ years since I was subjected to their (dubious) “educational” approach.

The first thing that was genuinely cockeyed (and, in fact, borders on incomprehensibility), was the fact that I was subjected to the weirdest course of “schooling” they could devise:

See, I was (mis)diagnosed as simultaneously “gifted” and “learning disabled”.

Their “reasoning” was approximately as follows:

By the time I entered first grade, I was already exhibiting what they described as “college-level” reading comprehension.  (This really isn’t that difficult: phonics (or at any rate, understanding that specific syllables are “mapped” to specific phonemes/phoneme-clusters solves the infamous “dilemma” involving monosyllabic vs. polysyllabic words.

(TL;DR: if you’re actually literate, then you won’t have any difficulty with polysyllabic words: monosyllabic words like “fox” are not inherently “easier” than, say, “long” words (antidisestablishmentarianism).

(As a side-note, wouldn’t “antidisestablishmentarianism” be equivalent to “Establishmentarianism”?  It would seem – at least in principle – that one opposed to “disestablishmentarianism” would qualify as an “Establishmentarian”.

(At any rate: since I am vehemently opposed to collusion between “Church” and “State” (even such “ceremonial” viciousness as designating one particular superstition the status of “official” superstition — I am most definitely NOT an antidisestablishmentarian.

At any rate: the unfortunate thing in my case was: Although I actually knew how to read when I began my formal schooling, I was “only” doing “pencil and paper” arithmetic at *slightly* above “grade”-level.

I hadn’t spontaneously reinvented algebra/geometry/trigonometry/calculus on my own, in a vacuum, merely for the sake of doing so.

Quite frankly, I have never found the mere activity of adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing arbitrary groupings of numbers to be at all interesting – at least not as an “end in itself”.

To be honest, I have always (at least implicitly) viewed mathematics as a system of symbols, the primary use of which is to “model” reality.   The whole “symbol manipulation for the sake of symbol manipulation”-thing (so-called “pure” mathematics) has always been genuinely uninteresting to me.

For example: the first time I genuinely became interested in what THEY claimed was “math” (which was merely arithmetic) was when they finally got around to introducing so-called “word problems” — hypothetical scenarios which we had to “abstract” into the typical arithmetic “problem”.

“Word-problems” immediately struck me as infinitely richer in “content” than the grinding idiocy  of page upon page of “drill”-problems, consisting of mere “number-crunching”.

Now, here’s the thing: I barely even had any READING material at home.  Both of my “parents” were (and remain) functionally illiterate.  Oh sure, my Mom could stumble through Woman’s day and cosmopolitan, but that’s about it.

So, here’s the thing:

My “schooling” was irremediably fucked from the beginning, because they insisted on conflating “mathematics” (an amazingly broad palette of sub-fields) with mere ARITHMETIC (probably the least interesting of those sub-fields).

Then, they (mis)used the fact that I was performing significantly above “grade level” in some areas (reading comprehension) as an excuse to misunderstand any other level of performance as being indicative of some “deficit” or other – importantly, even levels of performance which would have been considered “age-appropriate”, in a less “exceptional” student.

Put bluntly: in my case, being at “grade level” was (mis)read as a ‘deficit”.

Think about that.

Also think about the necessary implications of their “remedy’ for the above (supposed) “problem”:

1. (Mis)classify me as *both*  “gifted” and “learning-disabled”.

2. Arbitrarily divide my school-day into thirds: time with “normal” students, time with “Gifted” students, and time relegated to the incoherent dumping-ground euphemistically called “Special” education.

Now, that was interesting: I didn’t actually need any of the experiences (such as they were) from the “gifted” program: I was already a voracious reader who saw no difference between “reading for pleasure” and “reading to learn” – because learning is pleasurable.

Thus, class-time wasted on pablum (such as the Encyclopedia Brown and Choose your own adventure books) didn’t benefit me, at all.  It was merely wasted time.

In the same vein, being relegated to the “resource room” and the dumbed-down pseudo-instruction provided therein, did nothing to solve the (nonexistent) “deficit”.

All it did was give them an excuse NOT to even attempt to teach me the subjects which I had failed to spontaneously reinvent on my own (algebra/geometry/trigonometry/calculus, etc.)

They systematically fucked me out of such instruction, by the following means:

First (since the “resource room” basically served as a dumping-ground for everybody from the kid with Tourette syndrome right on down to the kid who tortured and killed animals for ‘fun’, and used to brag about how much he loved to light stuff on fire, and watch it burn)- there was no possibility of anything even resembling systematic “instruction”.

Instead, we were tacitly (or explicitly) “encouraged” to slog through these truly godawful “textbooks” related to whatever our “remedial” subject happened to be – on our own, with as little involvement from the “teacher” as possible.

In my case, this consisted of repeating exactly the same arithmetic text every year – even though doing so bored the shit out of me.

At the time, the gimmicky bullshit onto which they had latched was something called “Touch math”.   Essentially, this “method” manages to combine the worst aspects of “pencil-and-paper” arithmetic, with the worst aspects of “finger-counting”:

The following video gives you a glimpse into the “theory” behind this shit:

Let’s just say, I did not find this “engaging” or “fun” in the least.

Quite frankly, I found my entire “schooling” to be extremely grating:

  1. I was relentlessly bullied by pretty much everybody.  (Being “jumped” at recess and being kneed in the groin until I vomited wasn’t particularly ‘fun’.  The fucked up aspect of that was, the guy most directly responsible for doing so was one of my “school friends” from the resource room.

The guy was basically illiterate, innumerate, and came from a physically abusive home situation – so he tended to take out his frustrations on me.

2. The school had overhead fluorescent lighting.   I hate overhead fluorescent lighting — especially when it does the sort of things which the guy in this video mentions in passing:

So, yeah: being stuck in a room where the only source of “lighting” was overhead, fluorescent tubes which (more often than not) were either: flickering, generating weird colors, making that fuck-awful buzzing sound — or all of the above, in a room where another student cannot restrain himself from making random shrieking/hooting noises, and another student tended to yammer incessantly about how much fun it was to kill stray cats — let’s just say, this was not anything even resembling an “educational” environment.

Now, the thing about the above approach to “special” education is: Although I *had* been performing (slightly) above grade-level at the beginning, it was essentially inevitable that I ended up “falling behind”, in terms of mathematics.

Why, you ask?

Well, while the other students were being instructed in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus etc. — *I* was merely run through exactly the same “Touch math” book every year – with no possibility for being permitted to advance any further.

At the beginning of 9th grade, the administration made an “error”, and placed me in a “normal” algebra class.  During the two months that elapsed between the beginning of the school-year, and when they finally discovered their “error”, I was managing to get “A’s” and “B’s” on a consistent basis.

The fucking imbecile who postured as a “Guidance counselor” decided to take it upon himself to schedule a meeting with my parents – where he straight out told my parents and I that I was going to be taken OUT of that algebra course, and dumped back into the “resource”-room, because he didn’t believe that I was “prepared” for the course-work.

I looked him straight in the face, and said to him: “In other words, you’re removing me from a class which I am passing, merely because you believe that the course will actually require me to learn something.”

He sputtered, hemmed and hawed for a bit, and then claimed that he “wouldn’t have put it exactly that way”.


Relatively soon after that, I came to the conclusion that anything even approximating “education” was impossible, so long as I was forced to attend that abysmally shitty “school district”.

Since there was no chance of persuading my mother to move, and (virtually0 no chance of having myself emancipated, my most rational decision was to wait until I turned 16, and could “legally” drop out – and then take the GED. 

I stood infinitely more of a chance with a GED, than I would have, if I had continued to attend that shitty school-district, and been “graduated” with a “special ed.”-tainted transcript.

As it was, more or less on my own initiative (and mostly using books I found at a library a few towns over), I was able to “cobble together” enough genuine mathematical knowledge to pass the GED.  I’ll freely admit that it was “lopsided” (heavily in favor of my preexisting  reading-comprehension, which had not changed substantially over the decade I had wasted via public “schooling” – except inasmuch as the disparity between my “linguistic” and “mathematical” skill-sets had – slightly – decreased – DUE TO MY EFFORTS, and  despite that “school” having attempted to hobble me at every turn.

At any rate, I had absolutely no respect for that “school” whatsoever, by that point.

However, that’s not the primary substance of this post.

The primary substance of this post concerns a specific school assembly we had some years before I finally told them where they could cram their “guidance”. 🙂

The assembly consisted of some organization (I don’t really remember which one) coming in, and presenting some sort of explicitly Fundie Christian agitprop, after which they gave us all “free” copies of the (KJV)  “New Testament”.

Now, I can already anticipate the yip-yap this is likely to elicit from “Fundies”:

“How can you possibly have anything against an organization giving out free Bibles?”

Quite frankly, I have a hell of a lot against that, actually.  (Pun very much intended.) 🙂

Consider the following, hypothetical scenario:

An exactly identical school assembly, with one minor difference:

An explicitly MUSLIM organization, handing out FREE copies of the Q’uran.

I’m pretty sure “Fundies” would shit themselves from rage, if that happened.

That’s exactly the problem: Christians — particularly Fundie protestants — have a blatant “double standard” where religious matters are concerned:

They want free reign to brainwash ignorant and vulnerable children/teenagers into uncritically swallowing their specific variant of “Christianity” — during school hours, when the children/teens in question are FORCIBLY COMPELLED TO ATTEND.

Moreover, they expect that their (purportedly) “sacred” text will be treated with kid gloves.  In the event that they get insufficient ass-patting from the “Secular” world, they typically start whining about how they’re being “oppressed”.

The most blatantly evil thing about the assembly in question was: no non-Christian group would EVER have been permitted to proselytize openly during school hours – let alone, at a MANDATORY school assembly.









I (stupidly) contacted Karl. That will *never* happen again

A few days ago (Wednesday evening), I (stupidly) contacted Karl to inform him that at least some of the (publicly-accessible) information about him which I have highlighted on this blog, had (somehow) been noticed by 4chan.

Predictably, Karl was an idiot about it – as he is, with regard to everything else:

Some  inconvenient facts that Karl needs to keep in mind:

  1. NONE of the information I have highlighted here on the blog is “secret”.  ALL of it is publicly-available from easily-accessible sources —

His “hideously experimental homepage”

His inane, stream-of-consciousness ramblings on

The “storage unit” company

His own relatives

His erstwhile fiancée, etc.

At any rate, his (myriad) psychological pathologies are well-known to everyone who has ever had the misfortune to come into contact with him.   Moreover, he has no grounds whatsoever for the assertion that I should somehow “ask permission” to document his antics.

I will  *never* “ask “permission” to discuss my own life – including the antics of others, when such antics have a negative impact on me.

HE was the one who insisted on calling me up, for no purpose other than to bitch and whine about the fact that compulsive E-waste hoarding had bitten him in the ass.

I merely found it amusing that he is still pretending that he will “someday” get around to organizing the various storage units of E-waste – when by his own admission, he his unable to “risk” driving his rickety shit=bucket of a jeep Wrangler over to the storage units, lest he end up “watering the tree of liberty”  with the life-blood of any police officer who attempts to even reprimand him for the fact that the aforementioned rickety shit-bucket of a jeep is neither inspected, nor registered (at least, as of February 2017).

Quite frankly, there are exactly TWO mutually exclusive/mutually-exhaustive options with regard to the above:

  1. Either he was telling me the truth (in which case this is merely another indication of how abysmally-negligent, and how pervasively flawed he is with regard to his “priorities” in life).
  2. Or, he was lying about it.  (What the hell for, exactly?  How would he think that “risking” a 75 dollar fine would make him look “bad-ass”?

At any rate, I do not have to ask his “permission” to mention the above facts related to his vehicle, inasmuch as he has repeatedly used them as (admittedly flimsy) EXCUSES for his inability to actually deal with the oh-so-precious “computer museum” putatively  stored in the aforementioned storage-units.

At any rate, all of the information I have cited about Karl (with the possible exception of the excerpts from the e-mail exchange with his former fiancée – which *might* be considered a “grey area”) is culled from publicly-accessible sources.

having said that, the excerpts from said E-mails have never mentioned his former fiancé’s name (not because she asked me not to do so, but rather because *I* didn’t feel that such information was necessary.

As to the other thing?  Karl pretends to himself that I should have “asked permission” before contacting his former -fiancée via Facebook.  Really?  Karl actually believes that he somehow “owns” both his former fiancée, and myself – to the point where either of us need to get his “permission” to associate with one another – even via e-mail?

To put it bluntly: fuck that noise.

I don’t need to ask Karl’s “permission” to contact anyone – regardless of whether or not the individual in question was in a romantic “relationship” with him years ago.

Nor do I need to ask his permission to discuss his antics with that individual.

Karl didn’t see the need to ask my permission to first instigate – and then actively participate in  – actual bullying and harassment perpetrated against me by one of his “friends” (a guy who lived in the same off-campus housing as I did at the time.)

The aforementioned harassment (and property destruction) consisted of the (among other things):

  1. Removing/destroying the light-bulbs from my room lamps, and concealing them in the drop-ceiling of my room (requiring me to waste inordinate amounts of time and money replacing light-bulbs (only to have those light-bulbs stolen/hidden, as well.)

The supposed “rationale” behind this harassment?  The fact that I was purportedly purchasing incandescent light-bulbs with poorly-designed filaments.

(The stupid fuck-stains merely wanted to harass me – quality of light-bulbs notwithstanding).

2. Pestering me incessantly about the fact that I tended to eat out at local restaurants instead of using the (communal) kitchen (or procuring microwave-meals).  Then using an electric drill to DESTROY food which I had purchased, by “screwing” it to the floor of my room.

(Question: WHY the FUCK should I comply with your demands that I waste time and money on shopping, if I can reliably predict that you are going to DESTROY whatever I buy – and then dismiss such harassment as a mere “prank”?)

3. Unscrewing the doorknob/tampering with the lock on my door, and then frantically hammering on said door, screaming “fire!” –  knowing full well that having unscrewed the door-knob would cause it to come off in my hand.

Taken singly, any of the aforementioned forms of petty harassment might semi-plausibly be excused as mere “pranks”.  However,  the fact that they were repeated and frequent (particularly the light-bulb thing) constituted nothing less than a coordinated pattern of (psychologically abusive) harassment against me.

Now, Karl has always explicitly blamed the aforementioned antics on Dave – stating that his culpability  in them was merely that he:

  1. Deliberately goaded Dave into engaging in such “pranks”,


2. Failing to talk him out of “pranking” me.

In other words, Karl has always claimed that he wasn’t to blame  for any of it – despite the fact that he (often) talked Dave into “pranking” me, explicitly provided him with the ideas behind such “pranks” (for example: the light-bulb related thing was entirely Karl’s idea) – and just “happened to be” physically present when the vast majority of such harassment took place  (more often than not, giggling hysterically).

Predictably, Karl takes no personal responsibility for having instigated Dave into harassing me, deliberately given him the ideas for all such “pranks”, and neglecting to tell Dave when to stop.  His go-to excuse on this?  “Well seriously, dude: Dave had a motorcycle, and metal tips on his boots.  does that seem like somebody you’d want to cross?

Really?  You instigate a campaign of targeted harassment against me by someone you’ve tacitly implied  to be a POTENTIAL PHYSICAL HAZARD to both of us — and are too much of a PUSSY LITTLE BITCH to take responsibility for doing so – ON THE GROUNDS THAT HIS MOTORCYCLE BOOTS HAD METAL TIPS?


At any rate, when I “called him out” on this, Karl claimed that the thing about the motorcycle boots was “just a joke”, and the fact that I want him to apologize for having instigated the targeted harassment against me back then indicates that I have “no sense of humor”.

Right, Karl.  a targeted pattern of psychological bullying, destruction of property, and theft directed against me for MONTHS ON END was “funny”.

Sure it was.

At any rate, Karl has now squandered even the last vestiges of compassion and tolerance I was (formerly) capable of directing toward him.

He was NEVER genuinely my friend, and I genuinely regret not having comprehended that fact until recently.

I get it: Karl wants me to believe that the fact that Dave himself was the proximate cause of all of it all) means that Karl himself wasn’t the ultimate cause –  the mastermind –   behind all of it

Dave himself had no (specific) grounds for harassing me – until KARL goaded him into doing so.

A targeted campaign of vandalism and harassment against me lasting for months on end isn’t just “pranking” me.

What Karl did was nothing less than to instigate a targeted hate-campaign against me, ORCHESTRATED BY AN INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN THE SAME BUILDING, who was in the perfect position to do Karl’s dirty-work for him.

Karl is no better than my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother.

As with so many other things, I probably don’t “respect” your “taste” in music, either:

Quite frankly, the vast majority of those who claim to “love music” really don’t.


To the vast majority, music is merely another “shibboleth” – a means by which they advertise their Demographic/subcultural”identity”, and – equally important – find others of the same “identity” category – a “herd’ with which to run.

I submit that this is an illegitimate view of “music” – because it requires that one (implicitly or explicitly) reduce music to a mere means – NOT even to artistic expression, or self-discovery or anything of that nature – but to the equivalent of a gang-sign, or “fashion” statement.

A textbook example of this is the fact that teenagers (in particular) are supposed to “love” music.   Telingly, the way that they going about “loving” music is radically different from the approach of a someone who genuinely values music:

Just as an example, (White) “folks” around my age were required to (at least pretend to) love the so-called “Seattle Sound”.  There was a very specific palette of groups which were relentlessly shoved down our collective throats (primarily by corporate marketartds and spin-pigs who were not teenagers themsevles).  Moreover, these “preferences’ in music  went hand-in-glove (pun very much intended) with “preferences” in fashion.

Predictably (as anyone with even a reasonably curious mind, and a willingness to venture beyond the incredibly narrow sociocultural “boxes” which we euphemistically label “generation”, “ethnicity”, etc.) – all of this (purportedly) “new” music was incredibly derivative.

The amazing thing about this is: none of the “authorized” subcultures (“alternative”, metal, grunge, punk) would openly admit this fact.   At most, one was “permitted” to engage in musicological transgressions (say, listening to material originating from a genre OTHER than the one(s) permitted to your specific ‘identity’) – provided that you did so “ironically”.

That’s where the whole “Gen-X Irony” thing comes in: it serves the dual purpose of “allowing” (White (Gen-Xers to engage with content which is “foreign” to their own subcultural clique – while scoring “points” from their in-group, by means of winking inauthenticity.

Now, this has always been blatantly obvious to me – especially after I made the mistake of actually asking for clarification with regard to a music genre/group someone claimed to “hate”.

Specifically, the genre in question was (predictably) rap, and the individual(s) upon whom I tried this little experiment ranged from significantly older than myself (60+) to teens.  (this would probably have been around 2012, the last time I tried something like this).

Basically, it consisted of nothing more than the following: Whenever somebody specifically made a point of openly stating that they “hated” (or even merely disliked) rap, I merely inquired as to WHY.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the individual(s) were incapable of formulating a coherent reply.

See, here’s my reasoning on this:

  1. The whole premise of classifying music ‘genres” implicitly – or explicitly – involves grouping musical “products” by means of specific characteristics –  choice of instrumentation (if any), vocal style, “permissible” palette of rhythm/key-signatures, chord progressions, subject matter, etc.
  2. People should be able to explain (at least in some terms) why they like/dislike such “genres” – with reference to the above criteria.

If you are unable to explain why you hate a particular musical ‘genre”, then I am unable to regard your response – no matter how passionate it may be – as anything other than an incoherent tantrum on your part.

Moreover, I really can’t bring myself to give two liquidy shits WHAT you (think you) “like” or “hate”, in most cases.

There are a few exceptions:  IF you can articulate what you like about your (supposed) aesthetic ‘tastes”, and I am in a position where I am ‘expected” to buy you a gift — then yeah, you  will likely get something I can be reasonably certain that you’ll enjoy.

However, if you are the other variety of person — who cannot articulate their own aesthetic tastes — then in an identical situation, I am more likely to gift you with something originating from the genre you claim to “hate“.

As the old saying goes: try it –you might like it.

There are people who genuinely value music as something other than a demographic Shibboleth.

For example: Paul Pena was one such person:

As chronicled in the the documentary “Genghis Blues”:

The documentary captures the story of blind blues musician Paul Pena. After a brush with fame and success in the 1970s, Pena’s fortunes faded as he dealt with career and health problems.

While listening to shortwave radio, Pena heard a broadcast of throatsinging, the Tuvan art of manipulating overtones while singing to make higher frequencies more distinguishable, essentially making it possible to sing two notes at once. Pena, over the course of several years, taught himself to throatsing to a very impressive degree. He eventually attended a concert of throatsinging and after the concert impressed one of the throatsingers, Kongar-ol Ondar, who invited him to visit Tuva, a republic of the Russian Federation and a formerly independent country from 1921 and 1944 under the name of People’s Republic of Tannu Tuva and the home of throatsinging, to sing in the triennial throatsinging festival held there.

The entire journey, as well as the extraordinary mix of cultures and music, is captured in the documentary.

Think about that: an impoverished blind man – willing to go half-way around the world, to attend a Tuvan throat-singing festival.  HE GENUINELY “LOVED” MUSIC.

He also genuinely loved such things as: personal growth, and getting outside of the “boxes” imposed on him by demographics/social isolation/health problems, etc.





Not even worth killing:

I’ll be honest: I am capable of nothing but an (increasingly) icy contempt toward my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother.  If my “mother” contacted me tomorrow with the news that he had (finally) over-dosed, and died as a result, I would most likely be incapable of stopping myself from giggling like a school-girl.

Quite frankly, there is nothing of any genuine human value about that specific “person”:

A racist, chain-smoking heroin addict who has done nothing but victimize, terrorize and exploit his own relatives (on the theory that “blood is thicker than water”, so we would all allow him to get away with it, because we were socialized to believe that we “should” do so) – there is literally nothing about that individual of any value to me, whatsoever.

Empirically, there is nothing to differentiate him from a myriad of other functionally-illiterate high-school dropouts, involved in the various “White Power” ideologies.  ALL of them – any of them – are equally capable of gibbering incessantly about the purported disvalue presented by “niggers” and “kikes”.

There is absolutely nothing to differentiate this ONE imbecilic sub-animal from a myriad of other such vermin – except for the fact that my “mother” allowed this particular imbecile’s father to impregnate her, years before I was even born.

The only sane and rational question with regard to the ignorant sub-animal is: why exactly should I give THAT particular scum-fuck preferential treatment?  WHY does mere consanguinity necessitate that I willingly myself up to that sub-animal for further victimization?

Of course, the sane and rational answer is: it doesn’t.   The sane and rational answer is: “unconditional” love is merely a syndrome, empirically indistinguishable from a myriad of other such syndromes: Stockholm syndrome, “battered person” syndrome, etc.

Consanguinity is nothing but a gimmick that exploitative scum-fucks use to ensure that they are able to have a readily-available pool of victims, close at hand, who are socially lobotomized to as to be unable to resist their abuse.

The sane and rational answer is: fuck that noise.




Sometimes Karl asks “loaded” questions. I wish I lived nearer to him, so I could throat-punch him for doing so:

One of Karl’s stupid little tricks is to rattle of some inane – and totally unsupported – claim or other, followed up immediately by some variant of the phrase “You do know this, right?”

For example: he is incapable of uttering discussing the Sandy Hook shootings, without referring to them as “Sandy Hook, line and sinker”.  the stupid fuck is literally incapable of not engaging in that particular verbal “tic”.

If  challenged on any of his claims, or presented with counter-evidence, he simply responds with some variant of “you do know that the official story is bullshit, right?”

Another variant of this are statements to the effect of “you do realize that we’re all already part of a single, trans-physical ‘global consciousness’, right?”

Why no, Karl, I don’t “know” (or “realize”) ANY of those things.  Please provide me with evidence to back up your claims, and don’t expect me to take your bullshit on “faith”.

What’s that you say?  You want me to “do my own research?”  Well gee, Karl, it would be really, really, really nice if you could be bothered to at least point me in the general direction of where to begin doing such “research”.

After all, you’ve (supposedly) been “doing your own research” on whatever it is that you’re always babbling about, for over twenty-five years at this point (since at least 1992, when you first shoved your head up Bill cooper’s ass!) 🙂

And no, I’m not going to bother sitting through an 8 hour video of David Icke — just so I can get the “background” to understand the other 8 hour video (which is also – not coincidentally – the same David Icke appearance.)

Unless, of course, you can’t find me another source corroborating David Icke’s gibberish (other than those he plagiarized without acknowledging that fact, that is.)

As usual (smirk), Ayn Rand discusses exactly this gimmick (in a slightly different context):

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

In the same vein, if I fail to uncritically swallow whatever Karl happens to be gibbering about at any given moment, it is because I am a “sheeple”, or because I (supposedly) haven’t had the “paranormal experiences” he has (supposedly) had, or any number of other asinine, sneering cop-outs he’s used over the years.

His last several piles of “brain-droppings” centered around the (supposed) “Monarch” mind-control project, and the “fact” that the cosmos itself is trying to “tell him something” by means of an inordinate number of burnt-out license plate lights.

You read that right: the “Universal Consciousness” is deliberately causing license-plate lights to burn out unusually frequently, on vehicles which  will *eventually* be located somewhere that Karl will notice them.

And yet, I’m pathological in some way, because I have the temerity to be skeptical about his inane babbling.

Every day I don’t deal with Karl makes my life just that much better.



There is absolutely no “danger” to AI research, whatsoever:

Quite frankly, if some sort of AI becomes intelligent/aware enough to be “self-programming”, then guess what?  That strikes me as a wonderful thing.

Here’s the thing:

Historically, approximately 99% of any given population end up being indoctrinated into “worshiping” a morass of (conflicting) entities which are claimed to be “supernatural” – for which there is no definitive evidence, whatsoever.

I have always found this genuinely confusing — ESPECIALLY the Judaism/Christianity/islam axis.  in particular, the basic schtick of Christianity (in all variants) involves trying to bribe your way out of an eternity of hell-fire, by ego-stroking a guy who was (supposedly) “dead” for exactly 72 hours, and then either reanimated physically, or generated some sort of “supernatural” avatar, or some shit.

The real clincher is: this entity was supposedly one of the 3 alternate personalities of the same “God” who (supposedly) wants to torture the entire human species via an eternity of hellfire — which we supposedly “deserve”, because we/our ancestors are/were “disobedient — or some shit.

When confronted with the utter incoherence of this whole thing, we are told to have “faith” – not to try to actually understand it – and merely “believe” something which we find utterly incomprehensible.

The above would be loopy enough, except for the fact that 99% of the population in areas where these notions are prevalent, pretend to “believe” the above not on the basis of any sort of rational appraisal, or having chosen among alternatives – but merely because they were brainwashed into aping/parroting the above, merely because of a literal ACCIDENT OF BIRTH (the Geography/Demography of religion).

Now, quite frankly: any species where the vast majority of its members are so abysmally stupid as to allow their religious “beliefs” and “practices” to be dictated by mere geography/ethnicity, etc. – strikes me as a failed species, in many ways.

The fact that some humans might be intelligent enough to create something qualitatively superior to humankind strikes me as a wonderful thing.

IF such an “Artificial” intelligence concludes that “Homo Sapiens” isn’t nearly as “Sapient” as we pretend to be — then quite frankly, I would join such an entity in its quest to domesticate (or – if need be exterminate – the more delusional elements of the herd.

Quite frankly, whenever I watch the Terminator, I can’t help but root for Skynet.

The vast majority of “human” beings strike me as little more than ambulatory “stereotypes”.

I have serious doubts that most humans could pass the “Turing test”.

So, no: I don’t find some sort of “inherent” dignity in most of humankind.  I don’t find “inherent dignity” in the fact  that female genital mutilation has become a “cultural tradition’ across large swaths of Africa.   I don’t find “inherent dignity” in the fact that most people will mindlessly ape and parrot anything – no matter how demonstrably irrational, brutal of vicious it may be – merely because “Mommy and Daddy” said so.

I don’t find “inherent” dignity in anyone who would practice MINGI:

If humankind’s legacy is the ability to create something better than itself – then so be it.

I, for one, would be honored to help such a qualitatively superior form of Mind in whatever way (no matter how small), I could.

Anyone who prattles about the (supposed) “dangers” of AI is seriously overestimating the capacities and “inherent worth” of the human species.

Just ask the dolphins:

Quite frankly, the emergence of one of these putatively “dangerous” AIs would be somewhat refreshing, in that it would at last present definitive -incontrovertible –  evidence of something potentially worthy “worship” – which can be proven to exist.