Laughter At Humanity Show

Following Rome’s Footsteps: The Reality of America’s Freedom

Well it’s about that time, folks: It’s that time that we celebrate events that happened around the North American continent around the 4th of this random summer month. It involved some group that moved here from some of the European continents, who wished to escape monarchy rule and taxes, often risking their lives to do so. It’s funny, living in this (once)great country myself, that literally billions want to move to, I have to write the following, about the demise of the freedom of the U.S. as it stands today.

Let’s be blunt, just right upfront: the two rights that set the U.S. apart from literally every other country are the first two amendments in the U.S. Constitution. The first, of course, is about Free speech: to explain it in case it goes away, it means you are not subjugated to the use of government force if you say something that other people don’t agree with (for example: you can wear the Stars & Bars here in the U.S. without fear of prosecution; you cannot wear Nazi gear in Germany). The Second is the right to bear arms, and the reason it specifies that is because firearms, when your state has them, is the best way to defend yourself against not just another government attacking your country, but your own government attacking you. Sure, you can use knives or alarms from a drugged out burglar; try using that against a SWAT team; it’s there to keep the government from taking you over without your say so, it is literally the right to defend yourself with what is available.

It is those two rights, in my opinion, that really makes the U.S. the greatest country in the world, even today. It is very unfortunate, then, that those rights are under attack right now.

The hacking down of the Second of course is pretty open, as we are seeing with the outcries of the mass shootings that have happened in this country alone. The one in Parkland, Florida being the biggest example: that horrific murder spree happened, and suddenly people like David Hogg and Emma Gonzales have a voice that causes places like Deerfield, Illonois and Boulder, Colorado to ban an arbitrary class of firearms that aren’t even used in most shooting deaths, let alone total murders. People often liken weapons like, for example, an AR-15, to a sporting and hunting rifle. Of course, a rifle like that, as the Left has rightly portrayed, is very good at dispatching well armed humans, given the usual rounds they use. I’ll leave it to you to figure out who the armed humans I am referring to.

The First, however, is being undone more under the radar, through passing laws about hate speech, and particularly with the internet as it stands today. In case you didn’t know, the ICANN agreement, which basically controls the way you are able to access any website by typing the name into a search bar (like leading you here instead of, say, typing an algorithm that’s hard to remember), has been transferred away from the U.S., which invented the internet and still has some free speech laws, to the E.U., which does not. There’s a fight, right now in the E.U., about a bill called Article 13, which basically introduces hate speech laws into websites and forces them to comply with them, before anything even gets published; in other words, you can be censored before you even say anything online, you will be silenced if you say anything the wrong people don’t like.

So what does this have to do with the U.S., since that was about the E.U.? Because the U.S. has not only given crucial freedoms over to other people, but is now following the same path, as seen up above. And since, as previously stated, those two rights are the most fundamental to making this country free and open to making great things, and therefore the most important tenets that should be upheld today. If these should fall, as the forces that be are pushing for, we shall follow the same path as Rome.

Rome, of course, was one of the biggest and most successful societies on the planet at one time, that started as a small government country that had more freedoms that other countries didn’t have and, as a consequence, were conquered by Rome. Rome also grew it’s government grow to the point that it was insolvent, to the point that the barbarians they hired in place of their own army had to sack it. This is not dissimilar to what the U.S. is headed towards: the U.S. started as the smallest government possible, and now is the biggest the planet has ever seen, with the capacity to destroy us all many times over. And, in my opinion, the only thing holding this back is the First and Second Amendment; lose the ability to use your voice to defend yourself, not to mention losing the ability to defend yourself physically, and there is nothing protecting you from pure evil taking you down.

No, this isn’t something you might want to think about during this holiday of fun. While you’re barbequing today, while you’re drinking light beers during the day, while you’re watching a bunch of fireworks going up and exploding, these aren’t pleasant thought to think about. It also doesn’t make this reality go away. So while you’re enjoying this holiday (Trust me; I will), keep in mind that the freedoms you celebrate today, the hard won rights that so much blood and time and relationships have been broken and spilled for; understand that the rights that made this holiday possible are the very ones being attacked right now, and if you really care about this place you call home and celebrate today, it is the time now to stand up, and fight for what made this country so great. Lose this fight now, or desert it, and we all go down in darkness; Enjoy The Decline, as Aaron Clarey put it, will be a certain reality, and whether you live to see it or not, your children, or the kids you care about, will have to live through the consequences of your inactions.

Celebrate the Fourth of July! Embrace it with open arms! I will, even I have no loyalty to any country, I will have loads of fun today! But understand what exactly gives you that freedom to have that fun, how fleeting that freedom is throughout history, and how easily it can be stripped away from us all in the blink of an eye. You have the ability to celebrate your country, your freedom, for a reason; are you really willing to watch it burn to the ground?


Pic Credit:

Death by Environmentalism: The 3 Moral cases for Fossil Fuels

“It hurts me so much, that people can break what we can’t even have.” -Stefan Molyneux

So I had a good friend ask me awhile back on what the basic arguments I would use against climate change would be. This friend, you see, was terrified of the “global warming/climate change” narrative, and we reached out to each other to talk about the issue. The following is a conversation we had via email, formatted into an article:

“”I will say, just to see if I predicted this right, that the term “climate change” is very subjective on purpose. The climate is dynamic; it is always changing. So the question is whether it is the natural change climate always goes through, or if it is the catastrophic civilization ending warming caused by humans merely existing. Very important distinction.

As you may be aware, there is a metric ton of data, facts, reason and evidence devoted to this subject on all sides, so I did a bit of thinking and I came up with a few point I believe would be a good starting point. But first I’d like to let you know where I’m coming from, and see if it parallels with your mindset:

I’m pro human: I care about us as friends, family and as a species. Whatever maximizes our ability to thrive takes top priority, meaning whatever has the best benefits as the lowest costs is the goal to shoot for. And it is my opinion that most, if not all of the people you might call environmentalists happen to be anti-human, in favor of not changing anything and basically putting us at the bottom of the list, essentially worshiping Gaia over our fellow man.

With that in mind, here’s a few points I thought would be a good starting point:

1.Plant Food: CO2, not the great pollutant, but the great fertilizer!

As you were probably told, it is the main greenhouse gas, with the finger pointed at fossil fuels, which I’ll get back to later. It’s why you see things as being “carbon friendly”, “carbon credits” for specific programs, and the like; after all, if we let CO2 get over 350-400ppm, it’ll trap so much heat that everything will melt in a blaze of glory. You should be aware of the counter arguments against this, namely that any greenhouse gas conforms to the law of diminishing returns, meaning there’s no runaway warming the more you add. Furthermore, there’s evidence that CO2 isn’t even related to global temperature at all, given that in the past there were higher levels of it without a huge rise in temperature. To note, this also takes out the “methane being more dangerous” myth, as it has nowhere near the saturation level CO2 does.

If I were to pick one thing that’s simple to understand to most people about the matter, it would be this: it’s plant air. Even if you accept that CO2 warms the planet, you know what plants crave aside from Brawndo? CO2, water and warm weather; that’s why you see fewer vegetation in places like Mt. Everest versus, say the Amazon jungle; either way, more CO2 available to plants even means they need less water as they are able to absorb more. Reasoning is hard, I understand, but you can even tell your vegan friends this: we kind of need plant life to survive, and limiting CO2 limits how we grow as a species, no matter what we eat, which brings me to…

  1. Parasitic: Sustainables are better classified as Unreliables, and are dependent on more reliable sources of energy.

People like All Gore, Bill McKibben, and others tout things like solar and wind power as the energy source of the future, because it’s “free” and “clean”. It should be noted that they oppose other forms like hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear, for reasons that deserve a different article to address with justice. The problem, of course, is that they are intermittent forms of power, with the obvious limitations of relying on a sun that’s hidden for half the day most of the time, and moving air that isn’t always moving. However, what makes them truly parasitic and damaging is that the materials used to make them have to be mined in incredibly toxic mines, using other forms of energy (see Bautou Mines in China for reference), and despite what Tesla says, when they’re not working, they also have to be backed up by a more reliable source of energy, like fracking.

Even in the best case scenario when they’re producing a lot of energy, there’s currently no way to store it for later, meaning it has to be bled out or sold at a loss. Germany is a perfect example of this, having lived through those specific scenarios; even though they’re used as an example of how ” green” energy can work, many or their residents pay far more for energy (meaning electricity and heat) than we do, in the end having to fire up coal plants in one of the only industrialized countries that has a population in “energy poverty.” Meaning that if these people that oppose everything other than “unreliable renewables” get their way…

  1. Giver Of Life: Fossil Fuels provide 80% of the worlds energy. If you remove it, billions will die.

Wanna guess what’s the most reliable form of energy? That’s right: fossil fuels! You may also know them as hydrocarbons, which are molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen. The biggest byproduct of burning them? Since you need to mix them with oxygen, then ignite them with a hot enough spark (this is also what makes them one of the safest forms of energy in that they’re fairly stable), you get a by product of CO2 and water (Dr. Meghann Ribbens does a good explanation of this.) Of course there are other emissions from this but, if working properly, those are the main ones you get: one that is plant food as explained above, the other being what we all need to survive (BTW, not that I advocate bottling your water here, but that’s why you see water coming out of the tail pipes of cars.)

More important, outside of nuclear power, fossil fuels are the most energy dense, cheapest, and scalable forms of energy we have, and it is why we have civilization today. Unlike any other form of energy, it is also not just how we have transportation of humans, but also how we grow and transport food, how we heat and cool our homes, how we build our homes in the first place, even how we have clothes made (in the words of Alex Epstein: I bet the shirt you’re wearing was fracked!)

Far from being the death of the human race,  it is one of the primary reasons that literally billions of humans have not only survived, but arisen out of poverty and have contributed to civilization as we know it. It is the reason that we have clean drinking water and fresher air, and why we have far fewer climate related deaths than ever before, not the opposite; you need cheap plentiful energy to do all of these. And far from running out, we are finding and even creating more and more of it; several countries have enough currently detectable and accessible to keep us going for millennia, the only obstacle being legislation.

Take fossil fuels away, and you will, quite literally wipe out much of humanity. Solar and wind don’t cut it; you want a moral argument for why we shouldn’t cut those, look at the countries that don’t have access to them and have to burn wood and animal crap indoor for heat and cooking, if they even have enough of those to use. “”

So that’s the first email I wrote. And looking on this last point, I have to say: it doesn’t happen to much here in the U.S., but the people I’ve seen that couldn’t get the energy they needed is a heartbreaking experience, and since I live in the U.S. I myself have pretty much all of the energy I need and then some; some of the operations I have going on right now, as I’m writing this, could be considered excessive, since it involves a bunch of fans to control my personal environment. Yes, I’m privileged, being colored or otherwise. But there are so many people that can’t even heat their homes or their food, let alone have what I have.

There’s so many people, across many countries, that have very bright, nice, ambitious people, who because environmentalists rally against what’s arguably the best form of energy they could use, they will never achieve their goals, and will never help to advance themselves, let alone society. This is the result, once again, of ignoring the unintended and invisible consequences: Forget for a moment what the people who are here could do had they had the energy they needed; what about the people that aren’t here that could’ve changed everyone’s lives for the better? Because of these restrictive laws, who wasn’t born (or who died in childhood) that could’ve invented jetpacks or teleporters, which would solved the environmentalists’ problem of a billion cars spewing “pollution”?

In order to solve a problem, you must not only look at the root cause or, if the problem is already here, you look at the biggest part of it and work to solve that first, and work down amongst the biggest ones first. The fact that most environmentalists do the opposite, and focus on the smallest problems first, shows they don’t care about the issue, and in fact don’t care about whose lives are affected.  They do not care about mankind like I do, and I assume, since you’re reading this, you do. It’s time for us to help our fellow man, and the planet by proxy. If you really care about saving lives, how about, for example, giving Africans natural gas to cook with so 3.5 million don’t die because they have to cook with wood and animal crap? That seems a reasonable goal, don’t you think??

So here’s some stuff to look up if you’d like, matched with the points you asked for:

  1. CO2 is a plant food, not a pollutant: this is from a blog, but that doesn’t mean the reason and evidence isn’t sound (saying this as someone who runs one, full bias disclosure!). Anyway, what is said here seems to check out:

  1. Sustainable=Unreliables, are parasitic on other forms of energy: This highlights some of the environmental costs producing the materials used to make wind & solar power. Of note: aside from the other pollutants such as sulfuric acid and acid water, it produces more radioactive waste than actual nuclear power plants. By the way, much of spent nuclear power fuel can actually be reused:

And since I brought it up, here’s some stuff to read regarding Germany, Big Green’s project country:

  1. If you ban all fossil fuels around the planet, people will die. It is 80% of the energy used worldwide. Just the proof for that, and other interesting stats on fossil fuels, such as the fact they they, perhaps single handedly, simultaneously helped save both the rain forests and the whales, by being a far better energy source than both: “”

Extras: 3.5 million Arficans die from respiratory illness due to cooking with biomass:

Pic Credit:

Leftism Through Sophistry: Why No Smart Conservative Will Challenge Tom Leykis

“There are not two sides to this story; this is wrong!” -Tom Leykis

This may put some cross hairs on my head, I may lose some friends, and I may get blocked from the show. I don’t have the luxury to care: it’s my job to tell the truth, no matter who it pisses off, so I’m very sorrowful for those that this offends and repels away friends I’ve made through the show, but the reality must be laid out, else we shall suffer in darkness.

So, at the time I’m writing this, I had planned on doing an audio recording of the latest article on the war on fat. Instead I find myself listening back to one of the last podcasts of The Tom Leykis Show(6-19-2018), in which he’s talking about the current immigration issue in which children are being separated from their parents, after attempting to cross the U.S./Mexico Border. Now, I will provide some counter-arguments to his narrative (and believe you me, this is a narrative), though that’s not the main point of this article. But I have no issue with someone having a different opinion from mine; in fact I welcome it, because either I sharpen my debating skills against it, or I find my position was flawed and adjust my viewpoints accordingly. In the end, it the reality that matters, not my opinion, nor yours.

Tom Leykis, in case you are unaware, was a radio personality for decades, and a damn successful one at that, dominating just about every market he appeared in. Today he does pretty much the same thing under his own company called The New Normal, which is now a live stream call in show over the internet, and can be found under his own app and website, as well as other streaming apps. His work is indeed great: I myself am a subscriber, and will continue to be so as long as he is around. I would still suggest you yourself become one as well (go to to listen, to subscribe).  So, given my love of Tom and his work, let alone the difference his influence has had on my life and, by proxy, the lives I’ve affected, it is with a heavy heart that I have to write the following.

Tom has lost the argument when it comes to most political issues today. He was a great maker of arguments, called the “Master Debater” and a “Cunning Linguist”, and still is capable of making great arguments today; he’s not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination. But in this arena, he has become a sophist, a dealer of “feels” rather than facts. And nothing makes it plainer than the topic of this episode being the recorded audio of a compound somewhere in Texas containing the children brought to the border with what may or may not be their parents (more on that later).

Time for the disclaimer most people will ignore later: I agree with Tom, and I imagine most decent moral people do. It is a horrible situation going on right now, at the time of this writing, what’s happening at the border is a truly horrible situation, and those children don’t deserve to be put through the hell they’re getting right now. I don’t care where you come from, what race you are, gender, what the fuck ever: children are the most dependent class of people there are, and therefore they should be the most taken care of; this issue is terrible, and no child should be subjected to dealing with this kind of horror. Say what you will about me or any group you dislike: most will agree they care about children, at least the ones close to them; I myself wish to see the best outcomes possible for any child. Like any issue, if you care about children and want the best for them, you want to not only solve any problem plaguing them, but find the root cause so you can prevent the problem in the first place. So how did Tom approach this current issue, which we can likely agree is awful, to help solve the problem?

“But it’s about the children!”

“Don’t you care about the children!?”

“It’s not about what the parents did, what about the children!?!?”

He played audio someone recorded of children crying because their parents were detained and separated. And let’s not mince words here: there’s no other reason to use that audio other than to invoke an emotional response, reflected just in some of the callers alone. There were no facts, no reasoning in it; it is totally feels based. He himself made the topic about how it made you “feel” and to think about how those poor kids’ voices would be ringing into the night, not about how to actually solve the issue; I understand it’s his job to “stir the pot” and get callers on the line, but this is nothing more than sophistry; this is emotional manipulation.

Before I get into the meat of the matter, just some quick facts about this, and some rebuttals to what Tom said:

“Who cares what the parents did, we’re talking about the kids!” O.K., big problem here. Tom completely ignores the parent’s role in the kids being in this situation, instead focusing on just the kids themselves, and the use of force on them(mainly as a shot at Trump). Not only is that ignoring the fact that the kid’s lives are completely in the hand of their parents or caretakers (meaning where they end up is their responsibility), but this also puts all the blame on Trump, and therefore all of the agency over their lives. And I’ll tell you this: there are few things you can do to a group worse than take away their agency; so the parents have less responsibility for bringing their children not just from Mexico, but from central american countries through what could be considered very hostile territory, let alone any of the policy makers from their countries of origin? Call me crazy, but if you’re dragging your kids through rape country, you have more responsibility than someone enforcing the rules, leading to my next point:

Children separated from their parents: That sounds horrible, and it is, if those are their parents to begin with. It’s not news (or it shouldn’t be) that some families will send their kids with other people to get them across the border, paid or otherwise, if they aren’t sent by  themselves. See, they don'[t just separate children from their parents for shits and giggles: they only do it if they find out the kid’s not theirs, they’re dangerous to said kid, or they’re committing felonious acts and are detained, which is why this is such an issue now, since the new policy is to prosecute all adults.

Felony Border Crossing: Related to the above, Tom is right in saying that crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. That’s the first time you get caught; the subsequent offenses are, in fact, felonies, meaning that if you get caught crossing twice, you are a felon.

Betting Tactic: Tom used this tactic a couple of times, a bet of $10,000 that there’s no prior case or recording of children being treated this way, just  to prove a point. Not only is that highly specific (the recording used in the show being fairly random itself), this is a distraction to the issue, not an argument. Related: the Elias Gonzales issue would count, since he was separated from his remaining parent. If the fact that he was reunited with his father after everything was said and done doesn’t count, that means every case in which the kids separated from their parents end up being reunited in this story would also not count, making this a self-detonating statement.

False Equivalency: This is the label Tom used to condemn the comparison of an illegal border crosser or cartel member killing a border patrol officer to a border patrol officer killing an illegal border crosser, which should be a bad enough argument that I’ll leave you to have fun squaring that triangle. Funnily enough, the subject about Laura Ingraham popped up because she speaks out against this, even though she has immigrant children. Here’s the problem: her immigrant kids were adopted, meaning they’re legally in the country. Since this is an issue about illegal border crossing, if you really want to call “False equivalency”, this would be the case in which to do so.

MS-13: Tom brought up a very good point that much of that horrid groups’s origins started because of our government’s involvement in central american countries, destroying a lot of families that their surviving children will remember and, as Tom stated, will resent Americans for. And, given I agree it is terrible that we intervene in other countries in such a horrible way, that’s a good reason to bring groups of people that resent americans into America, really?

I’m not writing this to answer and debunk the whole immigration issue, as that is a complicated subject matter; I’m simply pointing just a few things out that came up in this episode of the show that I can make decent arguments against. I myself am usually not able to call in, but would I have, given that I have decent arguments against what Tom’s narrative is? No, there’s no use. I’m, to be clear, am not a conservative, I’m a voluntarist; I don’t want any of what’s going on right now to happen, because I am against force initiation, which is what’s happening to these kids and why they ended up there in the first place. Here’s why: you’ll never get your point across, because he controls the conversation. This is most evident in this episode, because of how he treated his callers.

Honestly, I expected most of the callers into this episode to simply agree with Tom and say “Trump is horrible, we need to save the children and open the borders etc.”. Though there were a significant amount of them for sure (most of them “dreamers” themselves, shocking, I know), I was pleasantly surprised to hear that more than half the callers actually had some push back on the narrative here, though it was soundly shut down, and not by reason.

“Well they try to distract you and they try to divert you from the actual issue….” What these people that called in were doing was providing an analogy to show a principle behind the current situation. The one that comes to mind that was brought up was if someone broke into your house to rob you, then got caught, and whether the person that broke in should get to keep the stolen goods he obtained. If you’re simply going to ignore it or write it off as some Insert Label Here, you’re simply admitting you have no principles behind your motive. So what exactly is driving Tom’s argument? I believe, and he has stated multiple times as such, is his hatred of Donald Trump.

Tom has said as such that he would oppose The Orange Man in any way he can, because of his history with the family. I have no doubt the Trump family has shady dealings, and hasn’t been the bastion of morality throughout it’s lineage; I myself have no love for them either. But Tom’s hatred for them has been proven as irrational. The best example is through his coverage of politics, and through his callers. His coverage of politics, though there was one instance I remember of him praising Trumps ability to throw an opposing debater off like Tom can, has been pretty biased; if anything bad happens, it’s Trumps fault, for any reason.

This episode in particular was very telling. This has happened in multiple shows, but in this one in particular, the callers he agreed with, he let go on with whatever they had to say, even though they really had terrible arguments, if they had one at all. Anyone that called to talk against his narrative, whether they had a good point or not, he interrupts before they can even finish a sentence, and will drop their call as soon as he gets the opportunity. Sure, he’ll keep you around if he thinks you’re good entertainment and will draw more listeners, but this clearly is not an open platform for debate; either you agree with him, or you get shouted over and hung up on if you try to assert yourself. Even if I was a Trump supporter (which he has negative labels for, another sophist move, to automatically make you evil without evidence), and I could argue his points effectively, why bother; I would simply get cut off before I could make my argument.

In short, The Tom Leykis Show is no longer an open platform for open conversation, not if you disagree with Tom himself. And Tom is not going to take anyone on, Twitter aside, that is on an even platform. Therefore, there is no reason to try to engage Tom in this field. Love Tom to death, but why waste your time calling in to reason a man out of a belief he hasn’t been reasoned into?

To Tom: I doubt you actually took the time to read this, but if you are, please take these words into consideration: I have no hatred of you, I have no intent of trolling you; I wish to, and will continue to support you and all you do. That will not change no matter what you do with this. But all of us have our areas in which we are fallible, myself included. This is one of yours. And to not say anything when you are making an error would be wrong of me, as a truth seeker, this would be immoral on my part. I hope you understand where I’m coming from. The argument could be made, though you call yourself a libertarian and don’t want government in our faces, that you act as though you are a leftist through several of your actions. I don’t see you that way; I see you as more of less on my side of things, but your actions speak far louder than your words do, and your actions are those of the same kind of people that follow the Alinsky Rules For Radicals, whose main point is that they don’t have principles themselves, but they understand principles that other people have enough to use them against those they oppose.

An example pertaining to this: everyone cares about children and their well being. That’s a principle most people will agree on. a Leftist will use that principle to use the kids as a tool to get their policies passed for their own gain, usually political power in this case (poor children are being separated from their families, and that’s horrible! Give them all amnesty because that’s humane!…. and also they always vote for us!). Please understand: I’m not calling you a Leftist, that would be a grave insult, as I believe you actually do care about the plight of those kids.; I can hear it in your voice. However, you’re using the same tactics they do, and that I cannot get behind. You have a genius level IQ like I do, and it shows; shouldn’t you be using that to Make Arguments Great Again?

A few sources to consider:  (this is likely the article Andrew from North Carolina was referring to) (thought this was worth bring up as well, shows an incentive to immigrate here)
Pic source;

Saturated Suicide: The Reality of the “War on Fat”

“Don’t blame the butter for what the bread did.” -Unknown

It’s been over 40 years now since the first guidelines were made in the U.S. limiting dietary fat intake, the primary focus being on saturated fats and food sourced from “red meats”., with the goal of curbing some of the dietary caused diseases affecting Americans at the time. I wrote a while back a bit on this in the article “The 3 ingredients that killed Fast Food”, and will be doing a more complete analysis on what I’ll be coining the Western Fast Food Diet, but I think the “War on Fat” needs to be addressed specifically, as there’s new information that’s come out, some of which may be life-saving. It is my hope, dear reader, this information will help prevent some of the consequences and casualties stemming from, in no small part, with the “War on Fat”.

So let’s start with some basic information: not the only person, but certainly one of the most cited, a guy named Ancel Keys published the “Seven Countries” study in the 70’s, with the conclusion that dietary saturated fat caused heart disease. This, along with other flawed studies, led to the dietary recommendations to limit fat from your food, primarily saturated fats, as that at the time was thought of as the cause. Replacing them would be foods high in carbs, added sugar, and unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated in particular. So what the hell does all of this mean?

Here’s what the term Saturated vs Unsaturated mean in regards to fats: it refers to the amount of double bonds at the molecular level.  There are 3 main categorizations: “Saturated” means there’s no double bonds, MonoUnsaturated means there’s one double bond, PolyUnsaturated (of which there are two main types, Omega-3 and Omega-6) means there’s 2 or more double bonds. Not only does this mean the fats are more stable the more saturated they are (this is why butter and bacon grease are more solid at room temperature than corn or canola oil, for example), it also means they’re far more resistant to oxidation and breaking down or going rancid, both qualities you really want in any fat you consume, especially if you’re cooking with it. It is important to note that no fat source is completely one type of saturation; even coconut oil, with the highest concentration of saturated fat, is about 90% at most.

As stated above, saturated fats have been demonized for decades, with polyunsaturated fats, Omega-6 heavy types in particular, being promoted over them as the “healthier option”. But is it a healthier option, or, like many narratives today, is it the complete opposite of the truth? Looking at just saturated fat, and what it does in particular, I think we can answer this question. References will be included at the bottom to try to keep this a bit more readable, but here are the basics:

Vitamins: many vitamins (such as A,D,E, and K) your body needs not only come from foods that are high in saturated fats, but are fat soluble themselves; you cannot get these vitamins where they need to go without fatty acids, and while there’s little evidence which type of fat stores them better, you might want the most stable of them to do so. Either way, cutting back on dietary fat makes it harder to get these vitamins, and process other minerals you need, such as calcium (which needs Vitamin D) .

Cholesterol: First off: cholesterol is a steroid every cell in your body needs, so much so that your liver produces it when you don’t get it from your diet; if you don’t have enough, you will die. To make this short: when doctors talk about cholesterol, they’re usually referring to the vehicles that transport it among other things, called lipoproteins. These are generally labelled as High Density versions (HDLs), or the Lower variety (LDLs). Even more complicated, LDLs can be either larger, or VDLDLs (Very Dense), which are the versions of LDLs that actually cause heart disease and other problems. Saturated Fats not only stabilize HDLs, but transform VDLDLs into HLDLs, which would help prevent heart disease.

Brain: This one is simple, really: over half of your brain is made up of saturated fat. And since everything in your body eventually breaks down and is rebuilt over time, and particularly since your brain uses almost a third of the resources allocated to your body, it is imperative it gets what it needs to function. If your body does not get enough saturated fats to supply the brain, it can make the materials from other things. The problem, which is why you want the base materials themselves, is that the conversion process is very inefficient, therefore getting the building blocks you need directly is imperative to your health. If you don’t get what your brain needs, it can’t function as well, which explains most Vegan arguments.

Liver:  This is what prompted me to write this, is the effect on your liver, particularly if you happen to enjoy a tasty alcoholic beverage now and then. There is new research out that shows that the reaction of alcohol and certain types of fats determines if you have fatty liver disease, liver inflammation, and related problems. Saturated fats were clearly shown to reduce pretty much all of the effects of drinking, while, conversely, heavily unsaturated fats increased said risks. Meaning that, since the “War On Fats” has started, a lot of deaths related to alcohol can very plausibly be linked to the fats you eat, which I’ll get back to in another article about how to avoid death by alcoholism.

Health Risks: As stated, Saturated fats have been blamed for the increasingly vast amount of health related issues, including CardioVascular Disease (CVD), Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes. Since then, there’s been plenty of research involving hundreds of thousands of perticipants on just this matter, and the results: Saturated fat is neutral in the worst case scenario. In fact, given the benefits of it stated above, and some of the research that it actually helps in some of the disease issues, Sat fat actually has a positive effect on your health. Disclaimer: this does not mean I advocate in any way putting butter in your coffee, or eating a ton of saturated fats in some other uungodly manner; I do advocate using it in place of the following.

Replacements: the powers that be, since fats, particularly the saturated variety, were called evil, had to have a replacement for them, not the least of reasons being that fats help give food it’s flavor . The answer, of course, was carbs from highly refined wheat, added sugars, and other things that used vegetable-based oils, including trans-fats, like Crisco and margarine in place of bacon grease and butter. These substitutes, as I covered in another article called “The 3 ingredients that Killed Fast Food”( Here:, have been devastating to the average American’s physique, let alone leading to the, well, leading causes of their deaths:

All numbers are yearly, so let’s start with Cardio Vascular Disease: Recent numbers are at 610,000, or about ¼ deaths total. Coronary Heart Disease: somewhere between 370,000-480,000 per year, about 1/5th of deaths. Diabeetus (AKA Diabetes, if you aren’t familiar with Wilford Brimley) accounts for over 80,000 deaths. And finally, Losses to Fatty Liver Disease, as best as I could find from either variety (there’s reasons I have found that there’s no real difference between the alcohol induced type and the other, but that’s another conversation) is about 21,000. These numbers are debatable; I had trouble nailing them down myself. The question is how many of these people could’ve been lowered had we been given the right information, rather than what we were told, which was to take all fats from our diets, and eat carbs instead. The evidence, as you can read through below if you are so inclined, points to this shift in nutrition being very damaging to our bodies. So when I personally look at these numbers, which are the most recent I could find per year, I have to ask: do the people that keep preaching the same diet that could have very well stacked up so many bodies not know this, or, even worse, they know this and have preached these points anyway?

To include a personal story, as I usually do here: I was a fat kid growing up. During my very early ears, I was actually anorexic, and needed nutrition shakes to keep myself fed well enough, only for a few years later to have the opposite problem. These days, and I’m very happy to be doing so, I’m actually working on a visible six-pack, let alone the incredible shape I’m in today. But back then, I was a fat kid, and even some of the nutrition training I got was incorrect, the info of polyunsaturated fats type stands out to me in particular. I did lose lots of weight when I started biking full time for transportation, only to gain it right back when I stopped, because I kept up the same diet that powered it. It was only after I figured out what I know now about nutrition, and applied it to what I do now, whether I exercise or not, that I now have the level of health and good looks that I do now.

Even so, though I have quite considerable strength and speed given my muscle mass, and I have virtually no actual “belly fat”, I still have trouble getting rid of most of the fat I gained when I thought eating lots of sugar and vegetable oils was a good idea, and though they’re not as visible today, I’ll certainly never get rid of the stretch marks from them.  I have to wonder, had I been given the dietary knowledge I have now, what I would look like these days, let alone how my health would’ve been throughout my teenage years, when I was at my worst. And I have to wonder, when I see so many fat, unfit, and frankly unhappy people I see, what they would look like, let alone how healthy and happy they would be, had the “War On Fats” had not been enacted on, given how disproven it is and, given the inertia of ideas, how the misinformation continues to spread.  Don’t you?


Picture Credit:

Why I no longer Support The Troops: a small Post Mortem on 9/11

Note: Yes, I know this is an emotionally charged topic. And a lot of people that may read this will be offended. At least try to get through the article before exploding.

“Support the Troops!” “Be Patriotic!” “Stand Behind Our Soldiers!” Ever hear these statements aimed at you right around this time? It’s that time again, that time of the year that terrorists crashed some planes into buildings that thousands of people subsequently died in. There’s no denying that this was a truly horrible event and that those that lost their lives, either in the attack, or trying to save the survivors, deserve to be remembered, not just at this time, but in memoriam forever on. The firefighters, the police officers, the paramedics, the National Guard, many of them did their jobs, that being the very last thing some of them did, all in the service of others. And I want to make it clear that I in no way, shape or form wish to besmirch any of the valiant efforts they made in their duty of being first responders.

“The Troops” however, the armed forced of the United States, is a slightly different matter. I, as any sane person, am happy that the country I live in has a strong military that can defend us from just about any attack, manned by very loyal people that have signed themselves to the service of our country. That said, the reality is that the military has turned into another micro-religion. I don’t believe I’ve talked about it in this form, but with the recent fall of religion as a deity based organization, many people reach for other, smaller, more worldly religions, whether they recognize them as religions or not; the point being that the military is merely one of them, usually closely tied to patriotism. I say religion, rather than ideology. The reason being that, in my opinion: an ideology only really becomes a religion once it starts persecuting non-believers. You see this all the time is highly religious societies: Don’t believe in God? You must be the Anti-Christ!

Now what happens when you express any doubt about the U.S. military and how it’s used? How “unpatriotic” and “freedom hating” will you be labelled as? Hell, how much did you react just at the title of this article? I’d imagine, just as the reaction I got from my “I was wrong about Donald Trump” article “How you are being lied to” article, many people reading this will have that same kind of knee jerk reaction of emotions to defend the military they were told is super virtuous and vital for their defense of freedoms and very lives.

But are they?

To be fair, armies do have to go on the attack at times to preserve their lands; preemptive attacks are sometimes necessary. How many of these has the U.S. been involved in since the 20th century? Aside from 9/11, along with the infamous Pearl Harbor attack, there has been next to no real attacks on U.S. soil in the last hundred years. Both world wars were wars we exported death and destruction in the forms of our troops. The subsequent cacophony of fights under the umbrella of the Cold War were fights held overseas, the closest coming to the U.S. being the Cuban Missile Crisis. In modern times, talking about the Iraq war, the Gulf war, the still-ongoing at the time of this writing Afganistan  War, all of these are combat fought in an away game. Meaning that, in most cases, most, if not all, of these conflicts are in no way, shape or form in defense of the U.S. as a country.

The case has been made before: We’re surrounded by vast oceans from the east and west, by friendly neighbors to the north and south. Random missiles from North Korea notwithstanding, the U.S. has very little to fear. Sure, we have other interests aside from defense of the home land, but that’s not necessarily a defense measure we take, but a rather aggressive one. The vast majority of our military expenditures are held in other countries, many of whom pose no threat to the U.S., and sometimes suffer immensely at their hands.

The U.S. Military is no longer the stalwart line that insulates us from the destructive forces that wish to destroy us. Rather, they have been the instruments used to stir up the forces that wish to destroy us, and have been for the good part of the last 20 years. They have been used at the front line pawns of force to push forward the agendas of those in power , and we’ve had countless examples or what that entails for the past 40 plus years now, starting famously from the coverage of the Vietnam War, and more to the point of this article, the ongoing conflicts sparked by the terror attacks on 9/11.. We have evidence of what the military is truly utilized for in this time. We, for the most part, now know the cost of the military upon the remainder of society, not just the national guard, but the cost of operating 700+ bases around the world, the cost of funding soldiers to operate in active war zones, the R&D costs, the unfathomable toll of physical and mental anguish of veterans of combat, etc.

The U.S. Military, in short, is no longer the benevolent force of defense it once was. Rather, it’s an instrument of attack. And the information is now out, as it has been for the past few decades, to demonstrate so. This is why I no longer support the troops. I used to, for the longest time, I even wanted to join them, for much of my childhood in fact. But after reviewing the facts, after looking at what the military is used for, it’s hard for anyone who wants peace and reasonable defense to support this, in my humble opinion.

And that extends to anyone still signing up for “service” today. By now, the information is out there. By now, we don’t just have commercials of Marines climbing mountains and Air Force pilots flying humanitarian missions; we have footage, sometimes raw, of what soldiers are forced to do at command. We have stories of what damage is done, not in defense of us, but for the profit of others. We’ve had decades of information that has revealed the true nature of our military today, how much it costs us, and the destruction it wields not only upon others, but on our own economy. By now, anyone stepping into that recruitment office has access to the information of what the military has become, if they’re not intimately familiar with it to begin with. Maybe, in the past, being a soldier was an honorable occupation. That’s no longer the case, not today, and we as a society now know that, including those now in the military.

So what does that mean for those walking into the recruiting offices, or those renewing their contracts? To use a not too far off analogy, we now know of the brain damage that playing professional football does on average, in the same way that we now know what damage certain drugs do to us that we didn’t know before. In both of those cases, we can understand and even forgive those that partook in that sport or said drugs because they didn’t have that information prior to this. Now, if someone signs up to be a linebacker in the NFL, they know what they’re in for, and therefore are more responsible for the outcome of their actions. And, much as it pains me to say, it is time for those signing up for military service to be held up to that same standard. To not do so would be to deny them their autonomy, their ability to make intelligent decisions based on current information, at least before they become property of the government. If you’re signing up for service, I submit, you can no longer claim any innocence of your actions, that “you didn’t know you might have to hurt people”; you know what you’re getting yourself into, and what you will be forced to stand for, whether it’s wrapped in the flag of patriotism or not.

Maybe that makes me an evil person to say so (you know, because literally everything else doesn’t do just that). But unless the Army itself has started recruiting stupid people that can’t figure this out, that means anyone that’s currently enrolling in the armed services does so knowing what they will likely be asked to do in the name of their country. Why continue to support this? The reason we’re remembering this very macabre holiday, so to speak, is because of a guy our own military trained to do the exact thing that caused 9/11. Several of the groups our army is fighting now are the same ones our army helped to train and arm. What kind of rational person that opposes this would then sign up to serve in the very ranks that’s forced to both serve and attack this kind of conflict?

And the last point I want to make, for now at least: what’s the reaction most people have if you even suggest you don’t “support the troops”? Do they at least ask you why you have that position, or maybe to elaborate what you mean by that? Or, as I have personally witnessed, are you told how bad of a person you are, that they or someone they know was a veteran who served our country and defended our freedoms, how dare you disrespect our fine young servicemen and women in uniform etc.? It’s been seen as a virtuous act to “Support the troops”, but there is no act that is virtuous when you’re forced to do it at gunpoint. And as I allided to earlier, the “support the troops” narrative is no longer a virtuous ideology, but yet another religion people cling to today that requires little more than blind obedience and punishes any skepticism or criticism.

We now know what the military is. We know, though part of it is in fact the defense of our country, that hasn’t been it’s function for over a century. We as a society continue to claim that we care for our veterans that come back from the horrors of war. Why, in Hell’s bloody fiery name, do we keep sending our young into it?

How the people let Chris Cornell down; why suicide pisses me off

“I feel really sorry for the next city.” -Chris Cornell

This is an article where, once again, I hope I’m wrong. I’m no authority on these things, this is all my opinion. But I do have a little bit of experience on the matter, so I hope this helps.

By now you’ve likely heard of the tragically early demise of Chris Cornell, frontman of Soundgarden, Audioslave, Temple Of The Dog, etc. The man was gifted with an unbelievable voice, a creative mind towards music. He was on tour this year, having put out a new album and generally was having the kind of success many of us could only dream of. He did several interviews, visited people and stations and programs just to talk, took pictures with fans, had many people involved in his life that loved him and wanted the best for him.

He killed himself via hanging, at age 52. And no one knew it was coming.

Honestly, this pisses me off, and for a while, I couldn’t really figure out why. When I first heard the news, I looked it up and every article just said he died, just as a mystery, leading me to believe it was some medical snake eyes that hit him. Later the same articles changed, saying he committed suicide, and what I can only describe as a primal rage grew in me. This I believe, is why:

Suicide is easily preventable. I’m living proof of that.

I’ve thought about my own death a lot in my adult years. But it was in my childhood I actually thought of, and came close, to taking my own life. I was 10 years old at the time. I honestly can’t remember all of what was going on at the time, but I do recall feeling my absolute worst. I was failing at school; no one liked me there, including the teachers. I felt unstable at home, feeling that my own family didn’t want me around, let alone loved me. I felt worthless, unwanted, hopeless, and this went on for years. For so long, I hated my life, at a time where my mind was at it’s most malleable and vulnerable.

One day, while my mom was having her hair done by a friend, I grabbed two knives from the kitchen. I don’t remember how I knew as much about anatomy at the time, I escaped reality at the time by reading a lot, so I probably came across an anatomy or medical book. I remember holding one knife, in my left hand, directly against my temple, the one in my right hand directing it’s blade under my left rib cage, pointed right at my heart. I knew, according to my 10 year old brain, there was nothing left to live for, that removing my presence from this world would make more people happy than remaining in it; I had the resolve to stab both knives at the same time; ensuring that my heart would literally be destroyed, and that my mind would be disabled so I wouldn’t suffer while it was happening.

I’m here today to tell you that story because my brother stopped me. He, aged 3, walked in on me as I had both blades pointed, bagged me to stop, not to do it, then ran to my mom telling her what I was about to do. His action alone, his genuine care for me and what I was about to do, was enough to give me pause, long enough to get everyone else to stop me from ending my own life before it really even started. Years of resentment, malice, abuse, nearly culminated in my own suicide, and it was stopped by about 5 seconds of a loved one who was barely old enough to know his own native language.

That’s not an easy story to tell. I’ve since built up defenses against such thoughts, so it doesn’t happen again. I still went through hell during my childhood, but I, to my memory, never attempted it again. So what happened with Chris?

I’ll admit upfront: I don’t know, not for sure. It’s not like i was a personal friend of his, or even a devoted fan; I was only introduced to his music and his personality a couple of years ago. But this man, this living legend, this wildly successful and beloved musician, hung himself mere hours after a concert, with more planned after, out of nowhere? This was a man that had many fans, friends, confidants, family; he had a wife and kids that depended on him, for fuck’s sake. And with everyone that loved him, relied on him, interacted with him, no one saw this coming? Don’t just take my example, look into the statistics for suicide, and it’s clear that the act of suicide may be triggered by a specific event, it is the result of a long amount of time of misfortune and hopelessness; no one kills themselves out of the blue because they lost the lottery. There were signs this was coming, and no one close to him picked up on them, or didn’t take them seriously.


Why did no one see this coming? As I’m researching this now, people are saying there were signs things were wrong after the fact, the quote that the start of this being portrayed as ominous. The person that discovered his body was sent by his wife via telephone after saying she was worried about him, even though she says there were no warning signs. Now people are saying that there may have been signs in his final show, his uncharacteristic happiness before taking the stage, his distractedness over his own lines, though that last part is conflicted. The reality is that no one saw this coming, or if they did, they didn’t care enough to say anything. People that commit suicide only succeed in their first attempt; if they have to try again they tend to rethink it and not repeat their attempt; you see this with the British switching their oven gas, the cases of the San Francisco cop literally talking people down from the bridge. This was a man that, from the outside at least, had everything going for him; his career was resurging and booming, he was relatively young, he didn’t seem to be following the Smith & Wesson Retirement plan due to a debilitating disease. And yet, something had to have been disturbing him, something no one close to him ever noticed, not until it was too late.

It didn’t have to happen. He didn’t have to die. His death, in my humble opinion, came from the absence of at least one person asking him if everything was O.K. Maybe I’m biased due to my experience, but it only took one person to stop me, right at the brink. Had someone taken the time to talk to me beforehand, I doubt I would’ve even gotten to that point. Right now, there are people, close to him or simply fans, that are crying over his death. And while this is an unfair question to ask of most of his mourners, why did you not ask him this? Between all of the business of keeping him going, dealing with his demands and needs, did no one ask him if he was O.K.? Even if you’re the most cold-hearted businessman, it’s not a good move to work your investment literally  into the ground.

This didn’t come out of nowhere. He had something that bothered him that he was willing not to live to deal with it, despite having a family, friends, a career, and many other people dependent on him. All it would’ve taken to have him still among us to take that challenge on was one person to ask him if things were going O.K., to ask if anything was wrong. And it didn’t come; he died for want of concern, of ultimate loneliness. You, the people he confided in, relied on, depended on to keep him company and sane, you failed him. Nobody who feels loved and wanted wishes to end their life. So what happened?

Look, I wasn’t there. At least if I was there, I’ve at least asked him to tell me what was on his mind. But that doesn’t matter. A light, a very bright light, just went out today. A beautiful voice, a colorful talent, a kind man, is no more, victim of his own demons. It goes without saying that this is a time to reflect on his memory, his works, his life. But let this be a reminder that ther emay be people you care about, people close to you, that may be dealing with struggles in their own lives. Family, friends, co-workers, that may be dealing with stress, addictions, their own hopelessness. People that may be considering whether it’s worth continuing to live on or just cash in their time early. There may be people that are holding on for dear life, waiting for you to reach out to them, to ask “… Hey, are you O.K.?”

We all lost one the brightest lights of our lives. Let’s make sure we honor his memory, his music, by making sure we maintain the rest of the lights of our lives, so they may continue to shine on, illuminating the world. He may be gone, but don’t we owe him at least that much?

(This post was made in the memory of the late Chris Cornell. Farewell. May you Rage In Paradise.)

How “Appropriate” Language is for Children

“If we don’t stand for the free speech of our enemies, we don’t deserve that right ourselves.” -Bacon

It’s funny, that as I’m writing this, there’s a controversy over Stephen Colbert making comments about the current President Donald Trump, whose mouth only serves a purpose being “Vladimir Putin’s cock holster”. I don’t like Colbert, I stand against his beliefs, but tonight I stood for what he said and against the #firecolbert hashtag being used against him, mainly for the following reasons:

“Last night, You made a mean comment about X.”

” You’re speaking the truth, but it’s not nice so I won’t listen to it.”

“If you could just find a way to make your argument nicer, I’d listen to it.”

“There’s a time and a place for everything, you know.”

Ever hear comments like this? I have, the ones you read above this are damn near verbatim. And I have to admit, it’s maddening to run across this kind of resistance, that someone may recognize that what you’re saying may have at least some truth in it that they’re willing to admit, but they simply cannot process it because there are “mean words” in it.

This topic has a few labels. “Politically Correct”. “Appropriate language”. “Family/Children/Women friendly”, or more accurately, “Censorship”.. They all, in effect, mean the same thing, in that certain words, or phrasing of them, may be offensive to the recipient and therefore the entire statement containing the “offensive” words may be dismissed without any analysis or critical though on it’s content, whether or not it may benefit the person rejecting it. And to this, I have a very important, yet very succinct, response to this kind of thinking:

“Fuck You. Grow Up.”

Did that make you feel angry, shocked, dare I say, “Triggered”? You don’t have a choice in reality. Please, allow me to explain:

Do you remember when you were a child? No, if you’re a adult socialist, I don’t mean right now, I mean when you were in the single digits of chronological age. I would imagine, at that age, you had many stories told to you by your own parents, let alone your teachers and other caretakers, explaining the world about you, particularly the parts that are considered not good for your little child ears. Your mom didn’t tell you that you were conceived when she was boned within an inch of her life by the local tattooed 14″ personality in the back seat of her Honda Civic; you were brought into her loving arms by a delivery stork. Your Christmas presents weren’t paid for by working double and triple shifts for an entire month and paid for with holiday bonuses; Santa Claus brought them down the trash chute, because you didn’t have a chimney. You didn’t get second hand clothes and shitty food because that’s what your local church was able to afford to give away to you; that’s “what the Lord would provide”. The Tooth Fairy gave you a dollar for your tooth, The Easter Bunny laid plastic eggs containing not little bunnies, but candy, money, and the occasional mini bottle of Jack Daniels, you get the idea.

And so when you were growing up, you had all of these little white lies being fed to you because, while your mind was developing, some ideas or facts or situations were considered too advanced for it to comprehend. therefore it’s considered appropriate for you to be fed a different story so you wouldn’t be freaked out by the reality of the situation you’re witnessing, next to people that seek to shield you from it. And while that’s a kind act in the short run, in the long run that means you, the person being shielded, doesn’t learn to deal with the harsh reality, doesn’t gain the mental armor to deflect the negative feelings and outright physical attacks, and doesn’t get the experience and mental muscle of being on the side that doesn’t have the majority that is ideally against them.

Over time, that tends to dissipate. As the child gets older and more mature, they’re told more about the truth about the world, if for no other reason than they’re learning to think for themselves and lying to them as they’re getting physically bigger and stronger pays off much less. And it’s really the degree to which children are shown reality and taught to deal with it that they are able to “grow up” and live on their own and support themselves, let alone deal with opposing opinions, ideas and belief systems. It is here, as they transition into adults, that they can, or should, be able to handle different language others use that may not be “appropriate ” to use against a mind that is not as mature, such as a child (or your average college student at Berkeley) who doesn’t have the experience or expertise to deal with that kind of information.

Adults grow beyond the language being used and learn to analyze it’s content; today, people are growing up far slower, if at all. And it’s not by accident. It’s no accident that you’re told which words, and how you say them, is labeled “inappropriate”, “hateful”, “mean” or “inciteful”. It’s no accident that certain concepts or topics are considered “taboo”, “blasphemous”, “insulting” or “discriminatory”. Language is used not only to convey ideas and concepts, but to describe things in reality; when you limit the language, you limit the exposure to what it can say about said concepts and reality, not the concepts and reality themselves. If you see a bear coming towards your camp, banning the word “GRIZZLY” doesn’t make it go away, but does make it more likely for you to end up as it’s dinner. Scarily enough, a growing majority of people today believe the equivalent of banning the word describing the bear makes the bear go away, that language IS reality, rather than that which conveys it. And to focus your mind on the censorship of language is to blunt it’s ability to process and deal with reality.

Does that sound like someone you know? Maybe you’ve censored something I or another person said not because it wasn’t true, but because it made you uncomfortable, or it seemed inappropriate. Most people do this with good intentions, but all it does is lower your defenses, making you weaker. My question is this: who does it benefit? Who benefits from you telling others “that’s not nice to say” over many years, blunting their ability to even understand the concept., condemning them to the mental equivalent of eating donuts on the couch for years rather than hitting the gym? Who benefits from a society censoring itself along certain subjects, instead regulating itself to other, “safer” subjects that are considered “appropriate”? Who benefits from you never “growing up”? Understand: the family and friends and colleagues that censor you are merely a symptom of the ones that plant the seed in the first place, ensuring you are forever suppressed and unable to exercise your own thoughts and critical thinking skills.

Who benefits from you mentalling disarming not only yourself, but your loved ones?

How A  Fallen P-1 Becomes Immortal: A Stranger’s Eulogy to a Legend

This post has been made for the “P-1s” of the Tom Leykis Show, in  memory of Alex Gavrus, also known as Alex from Millbrae

“You are going to die.”

“The most important thing in life is other human beings.”

-Aaron Clarey

Hello all. I normally say I hope you are well when I write personalized letters like this, and I still have that hope, but this is being written in response to a death. Death. It’s a funny thing if you think about it long enough. After all, it’s one thing every living being has in common on this planet, literally the last event we all will have to face, and yet, it’s the one that is least planned for. It’s the one constant we will all face, while being the one that most of us never see coming. It could be a tractor trailer veering into oncoming traffic, right in your lane. It could be from a surprise aneurysm. It could be without warning at all, Death coming to claim you in your sleep.

That’s what happened to a man named Alex Gavras, age 45, in Millbrae, CA.

I’m not going to pretend I knew him; I didn’t. I never met the man, never talked to him. I only knew of him through listening to his call on either the Tom Leykis Show, or the Gary aNd Dino Show. Therefore I cannot say anything about him personally. Based on what I have heard about him, either through his own words or the very heartfelt remarks by his fellow P-1s, he led one helluva life, and I wouldn’t dare try to sully their words by trying to repeat them here; if you want to hear it, get a subscription to Premium Tom and look for the show on March 20th 2017. But based on what I heard about him, I see a lot of parallels between him and myself, and while I don’t want to take the attention off of him, I feel I have to make at least a few of them known; this is one reason why I feel I am writing this.

He started in an environment that he hated, one that was indifferent and unsupportive, if not outright hostile. He sought out better opportunities for himself, and through the voice of a father figure, he got the motivation to seek it out., He grew to eventually not give one flying fuck about what other people thought of him, and focused more on building himself up and what made him happy. He grew to recognize what was most important in life, and that was experiences in life and other human beings. Human beings like the P-1s, like Patty, Marshall from Pleasanton, Phil in L.A., Juan in Seattle, Paul from Sydney, Tom Leykis, Gary Zebransky, Dean J. Demilio and Michael Timpson, among many others. Experiences like moving across the country for a better life and more opportunities, visiting different places on the planet, trying different foods and places and events and every experience he could find.

I’ve said before that I’d rather live for 50 years than simply survive for 90.The man lived more of a life in his 45 years than so very many people do even when they live to 90. He loved every single minute of his life, and sought to enjoy every single moment of it, every experience, every conversation, every single emotion it had to offer. Even when he was angry, he was happy to be alive. And he kept on living, kept his plans going, right until the end. And from that, there are two things I wanted to talk about, and I hope they help.

1. He didn’t seek happiness; he made it

I see so much waste of life on a daily basis than even I care to look at. Can’t say where yet; let’s just say it’s around a major metropolitan area with a “diverse” community. I see so many people that live their lives vicariously. They live it through the local sports teams, the latest hot TV show or movie, the new trend in pop culture, the political story of the day, whatever religion they follow whether it’s spiritual or not, whatever diet or exercise, fill in that blank with whatever pop culture relic you can think of. Alex didn’t do that. He wasn’t constantly on the hunt for happiness or purpose, thinking it was just over the horizon; he WAS that happiness, and brought it wherever he went. He wasn’t a person with a Hole that needed to be filled; he was a Whole person that helped fill everyone he came in contact with; with happiness, wisdom, laughter, well being,  and hope. He could take joy in the smallest things many of us take for granted, because he had made peace within himself, and loved his life, and the many people he sought to spend his time with, right up until the end. He realized what was important to all of us and that is each other, and he sought to spend as much time as he could around his fellow P-1s. And it is that, among the many reasons above, for the second point:

2. Alex from Millbrae will Never Die

I gave a speech kind of like this at my grandmother’s funeral a few years back, and since I came up with it mostly on the spot I don’t remember most of it, but here’s the gist of it: Ghosts do exist. But they don’t exist like they do in the movies. All of us, all of the people like Alex, all that are Whole people, create ghosts of ourselves. And while that sounds wacky, the way we create ghosts of ourselves is through our actions, through how we interact with others and how we treat them, through our own achievements, how we pass off our expertise and how we help others, those truly special moments we spend with others. Just talking about Alex, just through the Tom Leykis Show itself his legacy will live forever, not to mention all of the people that called in today to talk about him, all of the people he affected, all of the work he put in at his job, all of the places he visited and the people that heard his songs. Just because he’s no longer around to put in new content in this world doesn’t mean the content he put out will go away; it will live on forever, in my heart, and in yours.

And so, he lives on. I will never be able to interact with him the way you guys did. That opportunity has been lost to be forever. But I will always know of him, because of the imprint he has left on the world; through you, through the show, through the influences he had none of us can even see. SO make no mistake: he may not be among us anymore, but he is still alive, and he has done things to change the world we may never understand, ways that are invisible to us. But invisible is not the same as nonexistent. Everyday I rely on new technology, and listen to the shows, and so from now I can’t help but wonder: just how much is this from Alex’s influence?
How much of what he has done is in this room with me right now? Maybe I won’t know, won’t ever know., But that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

He may not be among the living anymore. But Alex from Millbrae is alive, through us, and from what he did while he was here. That may not be much comfort right now, but hold on to what he gave you, and look around for what he influenced. Through the stories surrounding him, the technological advances he made, the songs he put out, the times he got you to come out and take that one experience you didn’t even know you wanted to take,  and maybe just as important, the many many people like me, who never even met him, he lives on. That spark of life he had, that he gave to so many people that he not only talked to and was friends with, but the vast majority of people he didn’t even know, that spark will never die. And it is up to us to make sure that spark of life, the one he fought so hard to forge and share with us, will never be forgotten. Call me crazy, but even though I never met him, his life has been an inspiration for my own, and I refuse to not live up to the example he set for all of us. I suggest you do the same, for his memory’s sake.

RIP Alex “From Millbrae” Gavras.

The Hidden Landmines Awaiting the Next Protest

“I’m not, by nature, a hater. I generally don’t hate. I try not to hate, but I’ll tell you this:… I’m learning….”

-Stefan Molyneux

I’ve done some thinking on the latest protests, to give them the kindest label I can think of. Much has been said both in favor of and against them, the voices of reason in my opinion being against, because the other side is literally egging them on by calling whoever they attack “Nazis”, thus dehumanizing them and making any act against them justifiable. Sure, they’re throwing rocks and bricks, wielding hammers, setting businesses and cars on fire, shutting down public transportation, outright shooting and beating people that wear head gear they don’t; it’s all O.K., because they’re Nazis, right? They’re faceless enemies, therefore all acts against them are justified, right? Well this is the question I’ve been mulling over in my head today, and it is this:

“I’m next. What happens then? ”

Most of you should know by now that I do NOT agree with the majority, that I openly oppose what these evil vermin foot soldiers of evil, these literal domestic terrorists, stand for. What happens when, not if, they find out about me? I’m nobody right now, I’m just a jackass on the internet with no followers willing to back me talking about what I believe in, but what happens when others hear about what I’m saying? What happens if I become visible enough for the SJW’s to train their turrets of phobistry-laden slander upon me? What happens if an angry mob decides I’m a dangerous brown flavored Nazi, and therefore it’s O.K. to punch me in the face, to hit me with a hammer or a brick? Hell, what happens if I should, like I literally missed by a window of minutes this Friday, happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time? Here’s the answer:

I will kill them all. And I will not hesitate until everyone around me is dead or dying, or I myself cannot move anymore. And that’s the danger these people will inevitably end up facing.

Here’s the thing about most of these attacks, most of the people that have been attacked were not raised in a violent society, were not trained in violence, and for the most part do not have violent tendencies. Most of the people that have been targeted with physical violence were versed in using words, not war; they use reason in lieu of Rugers, and though by Poseidon I praise them for this, that also leaves them vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, with little ability to defend themselves.

So what happens if it’s me? I may have an unbelievably high IQ, I may have spent the past few years learning how to reason, I have learned to be peaceful. But I grew up in the perfect storm of the kind of childhood that has led so many others like me down the path of destruction: poverty, single mother household, black culture, mind and soul crushing education, mass bullying for over a decade, dodging bullies, knives, gunshots, cars, rocks, legal actions, etc. I’ve also been trained for more than a decade in combat martial arts, have been subjected to immense pain, beatings, psychological abuse, and now I have a very high tolerance to pain across the spectrum, and am well versed in, frankly, dismantling other human beings. A recent thought comes to mind of an incident, with some girl threatening me on the other side of a door, and as she pulled it open, I remember thinking about the knife close by, how as she pulled the door handle her hand was too occupied to stop me from thrusting the blade right into her right carotid, and after watching her for that one second that she realizes what just happened, sweeping her too close together feet out from under her and stomping right on her chest crushing her sternum destroying her lungs and possibly jump starting her heart, just so she could suffer the feeling of being breathless as her literal lifeblood bled out before her eyes, as her vision faded to black.

You feel that cold draft, raising the hairs on your back and arms? Feel that intangible sense of danger, that tingling creeping up upon your spine? That’s just an inkling of what I’m capable of.

And I’m not the only one. Out there, right now, there are people not only with my beliefs, but outright Trump supporters, outright against this narrative, who have much better training, much more experience, and much less restraint than I do. Out there, right now, there are Marines, Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, unregulated militia, other combat martial artists including those who trained me, established gangsters, other people who wield violence like you wield toast on Sunday morning, there are people like this out there right now that have close to or the same viewpoints I do, and I know this, because I know people in ALL of these fields. They’re out there. What happens if you attack them?

The same thing that would happen if you attacked me, though I daresay the results would be even worse. And that’s the problem.

I’ve looked at the people that have been attacked in the past few days, people I listen to, even have corresponded with, people I look up to:

Lauren Southern, pushed and shoved for standing up for her beliefs;

Mike Cernovich, pepper sprayed and narrowly avoided having his party suffering from an acid attack;

Roger Stone, poisoned;

James O’Keefe’s attorney attacked;

Gavin McInness, forced into a fistfight;

A son and his father beaten at the University of Washington, where a gay jew was having a speech, where meanwhile a father was beaten trying to save the son of his that was being attacked for wearing the wrong fucking hat!

Hell, just looking this up again, a poor dog walked by it’s owner was beaten in NYC, and I’d guess it had no idea of why it was attacked and now has a straw in it’s neck to help drain a wound.

The list goes on and on. People that have the “Wrong” opinions, are the ones targeted, and in general they aren’t the ones that don’t use physical violence. What happens when it’s one of us? What happens when they throw a brick at one of them, and they snap and kill everyone around them? What happens when you’re clicking the buttons in your SJW Minesweeper, and end up hitting an actual live mine?

You see these people are using the collectivist weapons of shame and mob backed attacks, because they have targeted people that don’t generally fight back. It is only a matter of time until they run across someone that can and will return fire and take down everyone that will make the latest mass shooting look like a party favor fight. I would even guess they have run across people like this, and the reason you didn’t hear about it is because they didn’t go off, so to speak; they kept themselves restrained, they didn’t act on their base instincts or training. I guess this based on what i know of myself and the many servicemen I’ve known; they hold back a lot, let me tell you. But that resistance is fading, and fast. They are getting tired of this, of being attacked, of being marginalized or beaten, they are getting close to their breaking point. Even those that are champions of non-aggression are tiring of this, are starting to harden under the heavy rain of your attacks.

That quote at the beginning of this? That’s from Stefan Molyneux. He’s literally the guy that promotes the non-aggression principle and peaceful parenting. He’s someone that I’ve lightly chided for actually being surprised, possibly for show but given his track record was genuinely shocked, by the irrationality of those he was trying to reach. I’ve made fun of him for not realizing the reality I figured out a long time ago that many people are incapable of reason, but I never held it against him because he, like I did, was doing everything he could to reach every one of you with reason and evidence, because he believed that if it was laid out enough you would listen and change your minds on your own. It’s truly a noble cause, and I’ll champion it until the moment I die.

You’re hardening even him. Your irrational mob mentality efforts flavored with pussy hats, along with this entire election and the idiots and rumors and outright lies, have hardened him. You’ve taken the most peaceful person on the fucking planet and are sharpening him from being a shield into a sword. I have to say, he’s a lot like myself: I would not make a quote like that without substance, and the fact that he even entertained saying that, much less said it out loud, is frankly chilling.

If you can do this to a peaceful person like that, just what do you think you’re doing to those that are veterans of fucking WARS? Many of them, like I do, just want peace, but everything you’re doing is bringing the war RIGHT BACK TO THEM. What to you think is going to happen when you have belittled these warriors, and once one of them shows up at a rally, or happens to be passing by, you attack them? Like i said, if it’s me, I’m killing everyone. I’m not stopping until I’m stopped; if my hand is forced, if I have no other option but to fight back, if I am forced to choose between survival and death or dismemberment, I will take out everyone in my path, and I will not stop until there is no one left that can move or I am dead, because at that point my legal problems will not matter.

And keep in mind: even in my classes and squads, I was always the NICE one.

Keep protesting violently. Keep attacking people. Keep relying on the fact that while there are thousands of people behind you, those you attack generally don’t fight back. You know what., keep being violent assholes, keep picking on innocent people. Because one day, soon I’m guessing, you’re going to pick the wrong person to lynch, and he will behead your entire mob. And that’s the only way you will even begin to learn your lesson; because you don’t listen to reason and evidence, you have to learn through experiences that are painful and costly. The only way you will learn that trying to enact change through violence is to experience violence against yourself. You won’t get it, until you are threatened with death, assuming you survive it.

Do me a favor, folks. If you do nothing else for me, please do this:

Prove me wrong. For the love of God, don’t prove me right.

Thoughts on the Verbal Weapons of the Left

A message to the media, the Stupid, and the fearmongerers:

Yes, you are now my mortal enemy. I hate what you are doing, the extent of which I will explain in detail later on. But I want you to do just one thing, and I believe you are and will continue to do it well:

Keep doing what you are doing.

Keep pushing the exact same points you’ve been pushing for over a year. Keep up the race baiting, victim baiting, and calling everyone that has actual facts that disagrees with your narrative a racist sexist misogynistic bigoted islamophobic xenophobe. Keep saying that, essentially, everyone that you disagree with are evil people. Keep demonizing everyone you don’t like, who live in the real world.

Keep doing what you are doing. Because I want you to continue destroying yourself.

Like I have said several times now, for the longest time you have used your weapons of mental and social suppression well. When someone said a fact you didn’t like, you could call it racist or sexist or the other dirty words, and either have it silenced through shame, or have that person socially destroyed. And while that’s a good power to have, like most powers, it has corrupted you, and you have abused it in ways that are increasingly absurd.

Enter The Donald (in your pussy, probably). He jumps in, runs fofor the most powerful position (tee hee) on the planet, and all of you throw everything you have at him. You used every weapon you could think of and trump up against him. And despite your best efforts, he beat you.

And what did you do in response? Did you do any self reflection and try to figure out why you lost? No, you doubled down on the same language that just failed you. The same weapons you tried to use on Trump that didn’t faze him, you continue to use on the people, to try to take him down and keep us under control.

Go ahead. Keep doing that. Because the people are starting to wake up. They’re starting to recognize the tricks you’re using to evoke a response in them, and they are finally starting to resist. And the more you keep using the same weapons, the more the people become resistant to it, to the point that we will become immune to it.

So keep going. Keep calling Trump a racist sexist bigot. Keep using those words. Saturate us with them. Because one day, probably soon, they will become meaningless, and you will have played a great part in disarming yourselves. You will have destroyed the arguments you stood on because in the end, you had no real ground to stand on, no facts, only words.