Sour Grapes - The Fruit Of Ignorance

How Well Do You Know Your Bible? – The Work of Dr. Bart Ehrman at a Glance

2026-09-12T04:54:52.050-07:00

As a religious scholar, I’ve long been fascinated by the history of the Christian Bible – its flaws, contradictions, its turbulent history – and how most Christians came to believe that it was always one complete book, that it is “inerrant” (without errors) and somehow perfect. Many even still believe that the Bible was “written by God” or by Moses, or Paul even. Or that it was written by other men who were not only anonymous – but also “divinely inspired”. Some still view the Bible as a historical record of everything – which is how some people actually believe the entire universe is only about 6000 years old.

Not that I place any stock in the Bible as a history book, or even as a religious text – I am an atheist who once was a Christian. Nevertheless, the study of the Bible as a document – and not literal “Bible study” in the Christian sense – is an area of study I’ve always found fascinating. Of all the scholars who have made the Bible the focus of their life’s work, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is one of the most prominent and accessible scholars writing today, and his work systematically challenges traditional views of the Bible’s origins, accuracy, and historical reliability. His arguments are drawn from decades of rigorous textual criticism, historical analysis, and linguistic study. More importantly, he is also one of the most down-to-earth and approachable scholars, making his work easily understandable to non-scholars. He has at least one YouTube channel, is on Facebook, and his video series’ on the subject are not only freely accessible online, but detailed, eye-opening and thought provoking. If you’ve made it this far into my article, this is clearly a topic you find interesting – and I highly recommend you go have a look for yourself.

As a scholar and as an activist writer, I’ve also undertaken to follow that example, because I believe that important information (as in scholarship) should be free first of all, and secondly, broadly accessible to everyone. (That won’t be a very popular principle with any academic publishers I’ll be dealing with in future, but it will work out in the end – just so you know!)

The problem with most scholarship is that it uses elevated language, jargon and technical terms that most people would not understand and be thoroughly confused by. They also generally wouldn’t find those terms in a regular dictionary. Sometimes it’s not intentional, it’s just that these various technical terms developed over years and years, are more precise, and save the writer from using ten words instead of only one or two. Sometimes it is intentional and is meant to preserve the knowledge for an elite group while excluding everyone else, for whatever purpose. It’s called “exclusivist language” – because it excludes people who don’t grasp the language of the discussion, from the group who does. Whether intentional or not, the effect is still the same.

So let’s move on. Here’s a comprehensive, topic-organized reference guide to the major categories of biblical problems Dr. Ehrman identifies, drawn from his major works and public debates. There are plenty more problems with the Bible, but let’s see how your understanding of it holds up against the in-depth scholarly scrutiny of an expert.

📜 Textual Corruption & Scribal Changes

Ehrman’s foundational argument is that the modern Bible we have is not the original text. It is the product of centuries of copying by fallible and sometimes theologically motivated scribes. (For historical context, scribes of course, manually wrote the entire text over by hand, copying it from another older copy, in the period before the invention of the printing press. For most of that time, these scribes were often monks or friars or priests.) Ehrman demonstrates this in works like “Misquoting Jesus” and “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”.

The Fundamental Problem: No Originals, Only Error-Ridden Copies: There are no known original manuscripts (autographs) of any biblical book. What there is, are thousands of later copies – and these disagree with one another in countless places. Ehrman notes there are more variations among manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament itself.

Accidental Errors: Many variants of these manuscripts arose from simple scribal mistakes: misspellings, accidentally skipping a line (haplography), accidentally repeating a line (dittography), or confusing similar-sounding words with each other.

Intentional Theologically Motivated Changes: Ehrman’s key thesis is that scribes sometimes altered the text to make it conform to their own theological views or to combat what they saw as heresy (“orthodox corruption”).

Key Examples of Scribal Alterations:

· 1 John 5:7–8 (The Johannine Comma) – The explicit Trinitarian formula (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) is not found in any ancient Greek manuscript. It was a later Latin addition designed to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Ehrman calls this one of the most important “late additions” affecting doctrine.
· Mark 1:1 – The phrase “Son of God” is likely a later addition by scribes aiming to affirm Jesus’s divine status from the very beginning of the Gospel.
· Passages Limiting Women’s Roles – Ehrman argues that certain verses, such as 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 (which commands women to be silent in church), are scribal insertions designed to suppress women’s leadership in early Christian communities.
· The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11) – This entire beloved story is absent from the earliest and best manuscripts, and is a later addition to the Gospel of John.
· The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) – The long ending, with its resurrection appearances and signs, is not in the earliest manuscripts. It was added later to provide a more satisfying conclusion.

✍ Forgeries & False Authorship

In “Forged” and “Forgery and Counterforgery”, Ehrman argues that many books in the New Testament were not written by the people whose names they bear.

Definition of Forgery – Ehrman defines this as a writing whose author falsely claims to be someone else. This was a common practice in the ancient world, but he argues early Christians embraced it with special enthusiasm.

The Scale of the Problem – Of the 27 books of the New Testament, Ehrman contends that at least 10 are almost certainly forgeries:

· Six Pauline Letters: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.
· The Letters of Peter and Jude: 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude are widely considered to be pseudonymous.
· The Number Climbs to 13 if one includes Acts (falsely presenting its author as Paul’s companion), 1 John (misleadingly claiming eyewitness status), and Hebrews (which may imply Pauline authorship).
· The Seven Undisputed Pauline Letters – Ehrman accepts that Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are genuinely by Paul.

🌍 Historical Inaccuracies & Contradictions

Ehrman argues that the Bible contains numerous historical errors, contradictions, and legendary fabrications, particularly in the Gospels and Old Testament.

Contradictions in the Gospels

· Jairus’s Daughter – In Mark 5, Jairus says his daughter is sick and dying. In Matthew 9, he says she has already died. Ehrman argues this is a clear contradiction, not a mere abbreviation.
· The Crucifixion – Mark says Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9 AM); John says it was the sixth hour (noon). The accounts of who carried the cross and what Jesus said on it also differ.
· The Resurrection – The accounts are “hopelessly contradictory” regarding who went to the tomb first (one woman? multiple?), how many angels were there (one? two? a young man?), and where Jesus first appeared to his disciples.
· The Birth Narratives – Matthew and Luke provide mutually incompatible genealogies for Jesus. Matthew has the flight to Egypt; Luke has the presentation at the Temple. Ehrman sees these as independent, later inventions.

Historical Problems in the Old Testament

· Moses and the Pentateuch – Ehrman argues that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch), as they contain multiple, contradictory sources and describe events after his death.

· The Conquest of Canaan – The biblical account of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan cannot be historically accurate, as archaeological evidence does not support a sudden, total conquest.
· Historical Errors in Genesis – Ehrman points out “lots of mistakes” right from the beginning of the Bible, including contradictions in the creation and flood narratives.
· Who Killed Goliath? – The Bible presents contradictory accounts: David (1 Samuel 17) and Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

📖 Doctrinal & Theological Problems

Ehrman shows how textual and historical issues have profound implications for Christian doctrine.

· The Trinity – The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be supported by the original text of the New Testament, as its key proof text (1 John 5:7–8) is a later forgery.
· The Divinity of Jesus – In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke), Jesus is portrayed as a human Messiah, but in the Gospel of John, he is presented as divine. Ehrman argues this is a major theological contradiction and a later development.
· The Atonement – Some key passages used to support substitutionary atonement are, in Ehrman’s view, later scribal additions or modifications.
· Women’s Ordination – Passages used to restrict women’s roles are, according to Ehrman, later scribal insertions reflecting a shift in church politics, not the original teachings of Paul or Jesus.

🚫 Omissions & Editorial Changes

Ehrman also discusses how later translators and editors have either omitted or changed original texts.

· Omissions of Jesus’s Words – Ehrman notes that some modern translations omit words of Jesus found in later manuscripts, as they are not in the earliest texts.
· The “Misquoting” of Jesus – The title of his bestseller, “Misquoting Jesus”, refers to how the words of Jesus have been changed, omitted, or added to by scribes over centuries.
· Modern Translation Errors – Ehrman has also critiqued specific translation choices in modern Bibles, such as the NRSV’s use of inclusive language where it changes the meaning of the original text.

📚 The Canon: Included Books, Excluded Books, and Contradictions

Ehrman’s work on the canon is a central pillar of his broader argument. In "Lost Christianities" and "Lost Scriptures", he shows that the 27-book New Testament was not a divinely guided, inevitable collection but the product of a long, messy, and politically charged process. The books that “won” were not necessarily the oldest or most authentic; they were the ones that best served the theological agenda of the group that eventually became “orthodox.”

🏛️ The Criteria for Inclusion (and Exclusion)

Ehrman explains that the “orthodox” church fathers who decided the canon applied several criteria to determine whether a book should be included or excluded. A book had to pass the following tests:

· Apostolicity – The single most important criterion. A book had to be written by an apostle (Peter, Paul, John, etc.) or by someone very closely connected with an apostle (e.g., Mark, the translator of Peter; Luke, the traveling companion of Paul).
· Antiquity – A book had to be ancient, going back to the time of the first generation. Even a great book, if written recently, would not be counted as canonical.
· Orthodoxy – A book had to “toe the line” theologically. No heresy was allowed. If a book’s contents seemed aberrant, it was rejected.
· Widespread Use – A book had to be widely used across various geographical regions, not just a local favorite.
· Centered on Christ – A book had to have a Christology that viewed Jesus as possessing both a divine and human nature.
· Continuity with the Old Testament – A book had to reflect continuity with the theology of the Hebrew Bible, particularly monotheism.

The problem, Ehrman argues, is that these criteria were applied inconsistently and often retrospectively. Many books that “made it in” did not actually meet the standards, while many that were excluded did.

📜 Books That Almost Made It In

Ehrman highlights several early Christian writings that were widely popular and considered authoritative by various Christian communities but were ultimately left out of the New Testament canon.

· The Shepherd of Hermas – A popular apocalyptic work that was included in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, one of our earliest complete New Testament manuscripts. It was eventually excluded because it was written too late to be apostolic and because it was associated with prophetic figures that the emerging orthodoxy wanted to suppress.
· The Epistle of Barnabas – Also included in Codex Sinaiticus, this letter was highly regarded in some early Christian circles but was eventually deemed non-canonical.
· 1 Clement – A letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. It was included in the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and was considered Scripture by some early Christians, but it was ultimately excluded.
· The Gospel of Thomas – A collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. Ehrman notes that many early Christians valued it, but it was excluded because its theology was seen as Gnostic and heretical.
· The Gospel of Peter – A gospel that was widely used in some communities but was eventually rejected because it contained docetic Christology (the view that Jesus only appeared to be human) and was seen as heretical.
· The Apocalypse of Peter – An apocalyptic text that was considered by some to be canonical but was ultimately left out.
· The Letter of Paul to the Laodiceans – A letter claiming to be by Paul that was circulated in some early Christian communities but was rejected as a forgery.
· 3 Corinthians – A correspondence attributed to Paul and the Corinthians that was not accepted into the canon.

⚔️ Contradictions Between Canonical and Non-Canonical Books

Ehrman’s central point is that the books that were excluded often contained theological views that directly contradicted the books that were included. The canon was not a neutral collection of the best and earliest Christian writings; it was a weapon in a theological war.

The Nature of Christ

· Canonical View – The New Testament presents a range of Christologies, but the dominant view that emerged was that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.
· Contradictory Views in Excluded Books – Some excluded books presented Jesus as purely divine and not human (Docetism), while others presented him as purely human and not divine (Adoptionism). The Gospel of Peter, for example, was rejected because it seemed to teach that Jesus did not suffer on the cross (a docetic view).

The Nature of Salvation

· Canonical View – Salvation was understood as coming through faith in Jesus’s death and resurrection.
· Contradictory Views in Excluded Books – Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas presented salvation as coming through secret knowledge (*gnosis*) of one’s divine origin, not through faith in a crucified Messiah.

The Authority of Peter vs. Paul

· Canonical View – The New Testament includes letters attributed to both Peter and Paul, presenting them as unified apostolic authorities.
· Contradictory Views – Ehrman notes that different Christian groups claimed different apostolic authorities. The Ebionites claimed Peter and James as their authorities, while the Marcionites claimed Paul. The proto-orthodox claimed all of them, but in doing so, they had to harmonize conflicting traditions.

The Role of Women

· Canonical View – The New Testament contains passages that restrict women’s roles (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15), which Ehrman argues are later scribal insertions.
· Contradictory Views – Ehrman notes that the Acts of Paul and Thecla (an excluded book) presents a very different picture of women’s leadership, with Thecla as a prominent teacher and evangelist. This text was rejected by the proto-orthodox because it supported women’s authority.

The Resurrection

· Canonical View – The canonical Gospels present contradictory resurrection accounts (who went to the tomb, how many angels, where Jesus appeared).
· Contradictory Views – The Gospel of Peter contains a very different resurrection narrative, including a giant Jesus emerging from the tomb and a walking, talking cross.

🏛 The Historical Process: How the Canon Was Formed

Ehrman emphasizes that the canon was not formed in a single moment but over centuries. Key stages include:

· Marcion’s Canon (c. 140 CE) – Marcion, a wealthy shipowner and influential Christian teacher, was the first to propose a fixed canon of Scripture. He accepted only an edited version of Luke and ten letters of Paul, rejecting the entire Hebrew Bible. His actions forced the proto-orthodox to define their own canon in response.
· The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-200 CE) – One of the earliest known lists of New Testament books. It includes most of the books that would eventually become canonical, but it also mentions disputed books like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas.
· Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 325 CE) – In his Church History, Eusebius categorized Christian writings into “recognized,” “disputed,” and “rejected” books. He noted that some books, like James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, were disputed but eventually accepted.
Athanasius of Alexandria (367 CE) – In his Festal Letter, Athanasius provided the first list of the 27 books of the New Testament that exactly matches the modern canon. He also listed books that were “not canonical but useful,” such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Wisdom of Solomon.

📖 Summary

Ehrman’s analysis of the canon reveals that the New Testament is not a unified, divinely inspired collection but a human artifact shaped by theological controversy and political power. The books that were included were those that supported the emerging orthodox view of Christ, salvation, and church authority. The books that were excluded were those that presented alternative views – views that were eventually labeled “heresy.” The contradictions between the canonical and non-canonical books are not incidental; they are the very reason why the canon was formed in the first place: to define what Christianity would be and to exclude everything else.

I hope you find this article helpful. If you’d like a deeper dive into any specific area, feel free to look up books by Dr. Ehrman, or videos on Youtube.

📚 Further Resources

For those wanting to dig deeper, here are some of Ehrman’s most relevant works:

· Misquoting Jesus – A layperson’s introduction to textual criticism and scribal changes.
· Jesus, Interrupted – Focuses on the hidden contradictions and historical problems in the Bible.
· Forged – A compelling case for the prevalence of false authorship in the New Testament.
· How Jesus Became God – Traces the historical development of the divinity of Jesus.
· Did Jesus Exist? – A response to “mythicists,” in which he defends the historical existence of Jesus while critiquing the reliability of the Gospels.
· Bart D. Ehrman (Youtube) – https://www.youtube.com/@bartdehrman

The Mirror, Darkly: Understanding Christianity-Created Pseudo-Satanism

2026-06-25T01:59:01.545-07:00

To many Christians, especially evangelical Christians, anyone who is not a Christian – even an atheist – is understood to be "trapped" in some or other form of "devil worship." This absolutist, exclusionary worldview even extends to other Christians who do not share their particular radicalized religious perspective.

The fascination with a literal, Christian version of "devil-worship" is traceable all the way through the generational horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, right through to the popular American hysterical evangelical religious literature that emerged in the 1970s – such as “The Satan Seller”, (Warnke et al, 1972). Written in the wake of the founding of the Church of Satan (1966), these texts capitalized on evangelical Christian anxieties, and inspired spin-off equivalents in other countries – for example, Doreen Irvine’s “From Witchcraft to Christ” (1973) – where the Satanic Panic took firm root during the 1980s and 90s.

Scholar of religion Ruben van Luijk (2016) describes this historical, pre-modern use of the word "Satanist" as an attribution or accusation – a weaponized term used to deride opponents, even to place them at risk of harm. Yet it was only since the late 1960s that the term began to be used voluntarily by individuals to self-identify themselves and their personal religious beliefs, and broadly speaking, 1966 is regarded as the year in which modern Satanism (NRM) was founded in its present form.

Yet, despite decades of modern literature written from within religious Satanism as a New Religious Movement (NRM) – including foundational texts by Anton LaVey (1968, 1969a, b) and Michael Aquino (1975, 2005) – many scholars consistently overlooked these emic sources, and continue to do so. Instead, they lay out their perceptions of these movements as interpreted for them through a pre-existing Christian lens – focusing almost entirely, often unwittingly, on the perception of modern religious Satanism as constructed by Christianity.

To challenge this distortion, I have previously broached the topic of pseudo-Satanism, specifically defining the term "Christianity-created Pseudo-Satanism" (CCPS) across two papers (see Engela, 2021a and 2023). This framework broadly delineates the difference between authentic, independent religious Satanism (NRM) and the reactive phenomenon of pseudo-Satanism.

The form of alleged "Satanism" portrayed and perpetuated by sensationalist Christian moral panic literature – which claims to be factual accounts and which are readily accepted as such by their audiences – is extremely problematic. Not simply because they cast religious Satanism in a bad light by associating it with negative, violent connotations, but because they – and their underlying dishonesty deeply unsettle my sense of fair play and justice as a longtime human rights activist. As a scholar, and as an individual who has walked the left-hand path, when confronted with claims such as these, I would love to say that there is no such thing. I would love to tell you that these claims are entirely false and that the dark conspiracies they describe are totally fictitious. The truth, unfortunately, is far more complex than that, as I will now explain.

The fact is, there are indeed people who believe in Satan in the exact context portrayed in those evangelical books. Their faces appear in front page news when they are caught committing horrific crimes – murder, ritual killings, and the like – and they tend to be anything but shy about claiming to be loyal servants of the Christian Devil. On the other end of the same scale, we find those caught vandalizing churches, desecrating cemeteries, digging up human remains, or committing acts of cruelty toward animals. At the same time, details of these individuals’ mental states – or whether they suffer from the range of mental disorders frequently associated with “conspiratorial Satanist” claims – tends to receive less attention.

Just as some have asked the question "which Christianity?", we must ask the question "which Satanism?" Sadly, this is a question most critics of Satanism seldom pause to ask themselves, or those making accusations of criminality. Real-world evidence of criminality is sufficient to convince the average layperson (and even some scholars in fields unrelated to Religious Studies) that these criminals ought to be taken at face value – as "proof" of the "criminality" of Satanism. It is undeniable that it is sufficient to encourage and motivate what I term “anti-Satanist activists” (ASA’s) to redouble their efforts to spread more warnings about the “reality of Satanism” – and then act as though subsequent discoveries of teenage delinquents caught carving pentagrams in their school desks, vindicates them. The public assumes that because these individuals claim to be Satanists, their acts must represent authentic Satanism. These perceptions are, and have been reinforced by decades of propaganda and indoctrination fed to them through the IV of sermons, popular Christian culture – including disingenuous books like Rebecca Brown’s “He Came to Set the Captives Free” and “Prepare for War”. This Christian-formed baseline – though discredited later – became the foundation of the broad public understanding of Satanism: a belief that the religion is inherently linked to violence, cruelty, and criminality. Beneath the surface, however, these criminal motives and behaviors have absolutely nothing in common with authentic religious Satanism.

This misunderstanding stems entirely from the Satanic Panic. The beliefs of both these supposed "Satanists" AND the rest of society were formed by the exact same source. This is why I termed the phenomenon Christianity-created Pseudo-Satanism: Christianity-created, because it was birthed in Christian beliefs, propagated in Christian popular fiction, and preached from Christian pulpits.

CCPS began as a warning by Christians to Christians about a vast, international, human-sacrificing devil-worshiping conspiracy, propagated without providing a shred of evidence, relying entirely upon the gullibility of a flock that did not disappoint. Naturally, these warnings landed effectively. While the typical Christian follower recoiled at the horrors contained in these dramatized warnings, these also fell on the ears of those who were more susceptible to suggestion and felt drawn to these dark fantasies - the impressionable, the disaffected, the angry, the bitter, and the alienated. Eager to pursue paths of personal power or shock value, these individuals based their behavior on the Christian warnings of what a "Satanist" is supposed to do. They believed the myth, and they acted it out accordingly. Some acted alone, others worked to form their own gangs and became leaders of their own cults. With few exceptions, these tended to be impressionable teens or young adults, acting out according to what their leaders and what Christianity told them how they were supposed to act as “Satanists”. Once their criminal activities were inevitably exposed and broadcast, they provided the global public – and especially evangelicals – with a tangible example, a manifestation of their conspiracy theory. A precedent – set by their conspiracy theory having taken on a life of its own. Suddenly, the public realized the hysterical warnings weren't just empty rhetoric – they were "real". But they did not understand what had happened – these were not manifestations of "conspiratorial Satanism" in the sense of books by Mike Warnke or Rebecca Brown and the like, which they accepted as "fact" in any case – they were manifestations of a kind of pseudo-Satanism created by Christianity itself.

This is why pseudo-Satanism is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy, and why CCPS is unwittingly and permanently tied to Christianity. Unlike an authentic NRM, it cannot stand alone; it must live in the shadow cast by the Christian church, operating purely as a negative inversion of Christian dogma. It is a prodigal child of Christianity – the dark, left-handed, contrarian sheep of the family. Without Christian structures to define it and give it purpose, it would cease to exist.

Consequently, pseudo-Satanism is not a standalone religion. It is cast in the mold of the church, depending entirely upon Christian scripture, dogma, and interpretations for its form. Though this relationship is openly adversarial, mutually hostile, and parasitic, pseudo-Satanism cannot exist without its host identity. It forms a part of Christianity – not as a "denomination" (perhaps more as a 'demonination', if you'll forgive the spoonerism), but as an orphaned structure within the larger conglomerate or “cloud” of Christian identity.

A clear example of how CCPS is indistinguishable from Christian identity and influence, is the infamous "Satanic calendar" created by David Balsiger in the 1980s. Since then, Christian moral panic literature has claimed that Satanists commit atrocities on specific dates according to dates on the "Satanic calendar", and for the last half-century, pseudo-Satanists have done so – because that is the expected behavior of "real" Satanists… that is, those who worship and believe in the literal existence of a literal Satan as believed in by Christians. (I have discussed this calendar at length previously (see Engela, 2021b for further reading)). In sharp contrast, authentic religious Satanists (NRMs) consist of a mix of atheists employing a LaVeyan philosophy of self-worship, or theists who revere an entirely different deity (such as Set, Enki, Lucifer, or Lilith) unrelated to the Christian adversary. These authentic practitioners openly deride the pseudo-Satanic self-fulfilling prophecy, as made visible in the writings of Diane Vera.

Genuine, authentic religious Satanism – though it may often mock and criticize Christian piety in ways that I find wholesome, just, and often amusing – is a wholly separate, independently formed religious movement from Christianity. It does not take its cues from Christian beliefs. It does not use the Christian Bible in any of its forms. Nor does it work from a check-list provided by Christianity of what is expected of them as Satanists to demonstrate or live up to their faith or identity as Satanists. It is self-defined, not defined by Christianity. It may parody or mock Christianity – it does not follow its cues.

In summation, CCPS is essentially the living, breathing, colloquial "straw man" brought to life by Christianity – being blamed on Satanists (NRM). It is a perfect, closed-loop system of blame: Christianity manufactures the monster, the disaffected and malicious act it out, and the authentic NRM practitioners get the blame. In addition, it is a mechanism by which to conduct PR campaigns against perceived adversaries, undermine opposition to Christian social dominance, and attract new followers to fill up their pews and their bank accounts.

Lastly, in order to grasp this concept, a modicum of critical thinking ability is a prerequisite. Christians – or particularly charismatic Christians – tend to find this distinction difficult to understand or accept, because of the prevailing evangelical views in circulation. These dictate that regardless of what Satanists believe, their identity as "Satanists" alone places them on the same sliding scale as the tabloid prophecy fulfilling teenagers and misguided or mentally ill individuals who commit the sort of crimes Christians believe Satanists cannot be Satanists without committing.

In closing, yes – there are "Satanic conspiracies" in the real world, and “ritual abuses” to go along with them – but, like the "conspiratorial Satanism" they fear, they are ultimately created and perpetuated by Christians themselves, not Satanists.

REFERENCES:

Aquino, M. (1975). The Book of Coming Forth By Night.

Aquino, M. (2005). The Temple Of Set, Draft 3.

Engela, C. (2021a). Satanism vs pseudo-satanism: Disambiguation and argument against conflation from within religious Satanism.

https://www.academia.edu/44978441/Satanism_vs_Pseudo_satanism_Disambiguation_and_argument_against_conflation_from_within_Satanism_as_a_New_Religious_Movement

Engela, C. (2021b). A date with the devil: Occult & satanic calendars debunked. https://www.academia.edu/45060885/A_Date_with_the_Devil_Occult_and_Satanic_Calendars_Debunked

Engela, C. (2023). What is Satanism – really, and what isn’t: A concise definition of Christianity-created pseudo-satanism (CCPS).

https://www.academia.edu/98014515/What_is_Satanism_Really_And_What_Isn_t_A_Concise_Definition_Of_Christianity_created_Pseudo_satanism_CCPS_

LaVey, A.S. (1967). The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

LaVey, A.S. (1969a). The Nine Satanic Statements.

LaVey, A.S. (1969b). The Satanic Bible.

van Luijk, R. (2016). Children of Lucifer – The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism. Oxford University Press.

Warnke, M., Balsiger, D., & Jones, L. (1972). The Satan-seller. Bridge Publications.

The "Other People" Problem: How Logic and Archaeology Demolish Genesis 4

2026-05-21T01:44:27.210-07:00

Good morning. This time, I'd like to address the topic of Adam and Eve - and the "other people" in Genesis - because well, without "other people" being around at the same time, none of that story could make any kind of sense.

Seemingly pointing out the flaws and plot holes in the entirety of Genesis, starting with the purported creation of the first people - aka Adam and Eve, this argument has always been a contentious one, and unpopular with the apologists, critics of evolution, science (and also common sense).

According to whomever wrote Genesis, God created Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman). As a caveat, the Hebrew tradition added Lilith as the first woman some time later, as a predecessor to Eve. Lilith, Adam's erstwhile first wife, was made out to be "rebellious" and demanding to be equal to Adam - an offense for which she was cast out and portrayed as the "mother of demons" to provide religious justification for the oppression of women. Eve meanwhile, was all sweet, docile and compliant and very "trad"... sound familiar? But that's a topic for another time. My professor tells me I keep going down too many rabbit holes while writing, so I'm trying to avoid anything with long ears and bob-tails for a while, at least until I get the Ph.D. wrapped up! Moving on.

The Adam's Family Plot Holes: Why Genesis Needs a Better Continuity Editor

So, there we have Adam and Eve. They had kids - two sons mentioned by name, Cain and Abel. It's unclear if these two mythical characters had any others, because no details are given. We all know the story of Cain and Abel by now - even non-Christians know it, as well as they know Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Mouse/Fairy. Cain in a fit of jealous rage, murders his brother Abel, and instead of being angered by this "first murder", God protects Cain from "those who might find him and kill him" in retribution. Seemingly this "God" has no sense at all of justice - what about the unkind fate that befell Abel? This seemingly benign and loving "God" figure seems to make a habit of siding with oppressors, invaders and conquerors, doesn't he? Just ask the modern day state of Israel, who appears to be using that character flaw to its full colonizing and genocidal advantage - but I digress; side-stepped that rabbit hole - back to Genesis and its litany of logical fallacies.

From whom would God protect Cain? The coppers? Now hang on, this is supposed to be before civilization (isn't that what "B.C." really means? Just asking). His parents perhaps, outraged and grief-stricken by the horrific slaughter of their youngest son by their eldest? Or other people? Who knows? Adam and Eve were supposedly the first people after all, so where anyone else would've come from remains something of a knotty problem - something like a sticky mess involving wool blankets and hot toffee. Anyway, back to those mystery "other people" who just happen to be floating around and popping up on cue to make a particular scene make sense - like props in an improbable story full of plot-holes.

For one thing, the "Adam's Family" - as the "first humans" - are described as practicing agriculture - they were farmers. Meanwhile, the oldest known fossils of anatomically modern Homo sapiens - discovered alongside sophisticated stone tools in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco - date to roughly 315,000 years ago. The earliest definitive evidence of intentional plant cultivation and animal domestication appears in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East around 10,000 BCE to 9,500 BCE (roughly 11,500 to 12,000 years ago). The archaeological and chronological gap between the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens and the invention of agriculture is staggeringly vast. (Try to explain that away, apologists).

Sanitizing the Messy Bits: Incest, Ignorance, and Biblical Literalism

In keeping with this theme, Cain magically meets a girl and gets married. (Genesis 4:1-17): "Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." The text mentions "Cain's wife" without any introduction or explanation of her origin. Some in the past suggested that since no other siblings were mentioned by name, perhaps Cain took one of his sisters as a wife - or bred with his own mother. After all, when one is a member of the only small nuclear family of the first human beings on Earth... when one detaches emotion, incest can be a survival mechanism to perpetuate the species - after all, wasn't Eve the only woman mentioned up to that point? That is, aside from Lilith of course. Ahem.

The alternative - especially to those believers more squeamish about messy things like incest - is to turn to logic for a change, out of sheer desperation - and to suggest that there must have been "other people" around at the same time. This of course invalidates the premise of the whole story while sanitizing it of all the "messy bits" that make puritans cringe... the same puritans who happily sell their own kids to pedophile rings and elect pedophiles to the highest office - whoops, another rabbit hole... again I digress. But this alone causes problems because no other people are mentioned in Genesis as existing outside of the Garden of Eden. What if there were other people outside the Garden? Separated from Adam and Eve? Well, then again, how would Adam and Eve be "the first"? Again, for "other people" to be of the correct age, they would have to have been around for the same length of time, calling into question the biblical claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Where did these other humans then come from?

Cain’s City and the Mystery Population: The Logistics of a "Four-Person" Planet

This conundrum is compounded by yet another point of contention, which is the building of Cain's City (also from Genesis 4:1-17): "Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

Building a "city" implies a population, far more than just Cain, his wife, and their child - which would barely qualify to be a hamlet, not a city. This too contradicts the veracity of Genesis since even if suggestions that Caine took one of his sisters for a wife - or bred with his mother (to discount the "other people existed" theory) there could in no way have been enough humans in existence - according to the historical perception of Creation - to have either built or inhabited a city at that time, even a small one. Yet it's logical to assume that there must have been other humans already in existence at or around the same time as "Adam and Eve" - implying that at the very least, Adam and Eve were not "created" alone (or in existence alone) which contradicts the veracity of Genesis as a plausible historic text.

In the face of the stone-cold logic that would dismiss the entirety of this bible story as the childish fantasy it very likely is, apologists and cult-members continue to defend it. Another branch of the argument would assert that Cain might have lived long enough for his offspring to have multiplied sufficiently to build and fill said city. This implies that he as an individual would've had to live around 300 years while his small family bred and multiplied incestuously to reach the size sufficient to realize that goal. Yes, I can see why biblical literalists assert that everything in the bible is literally true (sarcasm intended). Also, why the overwhelming majority of these seem to exist in the USA, where it seems that Common Sense and all its relatives have recently packed their bags and fucked off to greener pastures.

The average human life-span today is bobbing around 79 years, with increasing numbers of individuals reaching 100+. That's now - in the 21st century - with the benefits of modern knowledge and technologies applied towards prolonging the inevitable. These people assert that back in the stone age or bronze age, these fictional story characters reached ages of hundreds of years! And all without the benefits of any medicine! Oh right, because they had "God" to stave off decrepitude? Hmmm. Sounds very likely.

Unfalsifiable Fables: Polishing Turds of Muddy Logic in the Garden of Eden

Entering the world of academia has really broadened my horizons, I can tell you - it introduced me to the term "unfalsifiability". If you can't disprove something, it is "unfalsifiable". Now before you get any ideas that this is in any way a good thing, let me explain - I'll start with something suitable and familiar to both skeptics and apologists alike: If someone claims that God exists, that claim is unfalsifiable, because it can't be disproved. The celebrations of apologists tend to drown out the reality that they themselves cannot prove their claim either. Unlike a scientific claim like "gravity exists" for example, a metaphysical claim about "God", cannot be effectively tested. When a claim is unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean it is true; it just means it has been structured in a way that makes it immune to testing. Apologists and activists often celebrate unfalsifiability as a shield. They think, "Since you can't prove me wrong, I must be right!" This exposes the heart of a major logical fallacy: The appeal to ignorance (assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false).

If someone claims God exists, the fact that a skeptic cannot disprove it is logically irrelevant. The skeptic does not have to prove a negative. The claimant still holds 100% of the responsibility to provide verifiable evidence to support their assertion. Shifting the burden of proof to the skeptic by saying "Well, you can't prove He doesn't exist!" is a logical evasion. An unfalsifiable claim is essentially a logical stalemate, not a victory.

Fell down a rabbit hole there that time. Whoops.

The Ultimate Logical Stalemate: Unfalsifiability and the Survival of Mystery Religions

The reason for the success of belief-based "mystery" religions therefore, is unfalsifiability. Without this principle, no religion - and especially not Christianity - could have survived beyond a few minutes of rational scrutiny.

Logically, the burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive assertion. This is the Gold Standard of Logic:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." — Christopher Hitchens.

Thus, when those convinced of the inerrancy of the Bible and Genesis assert with confidence that "Adam and Eve" were "the first humans", I wonder what all the "other people" around at the time must have thought about that.

Conclusion: The Historical Fallacies of Genesis 4

That said, the evidence for the divine creation of "Adam and Eve" is pretty thin - and the entire story is beleaguered by a stark separation from reality, relying on suspended disbelief. And of course, plot holes. Lots of them. Why any rational person would entertain this as anything more than a collection of childish fables laced with historical references, period wisdom - all thrown at a wall to see what would stick.

No credible scholar or historian would assert that the bible is in any way an accurate or historical text, but more of a collection of myths, fairytales and allegories - or if you will, chicken soup for the soul. (That alone seems to outrage the fundamentalists even more - I don't think they like soup very much).

Stardust Literacy... Worth It?

2026-05-18T04:11:38.402-07:00

I was put onto Stardust Literacy via a video promotion on Tiktok sent to me by a friend, who suggested I create an account and put up a book or two to increase my reach in the local market etc.

I had a look at the site and it seemed legit, a quick check revealed the site had a good reputation - at least security wise, and wasn't a scam. At least, supposedly. (I still reserve judgement on that count.)

The premise is that authors post or share their books on the site and instead of people buying the books, the authors get paid according to how many views their books get. At least, that's what the lady in the Tiktok video said. I didn't see any explanations of that on the website itself when I went there to register as an author - and not in the author dashboard either - perhaps that was a red flag?

Days later, I received an email from Stardust providing links to FAQ pages, one of which gave details of how the site is supposed to work.

Of note, the email addressed "important changes to the author policy". The question I have at this point, is whether or not I would have been sent these links had they not changed their author policy, and how would I have seen these FAQ's otherwise?

The "Author Policy" explanation at the end of the links explains that "Earnings are calculated monthly using a proprietary algorithm. Minimum payout threshold is R100.", and at least they give the option of bank EFT, but do support PayPal payments. Props to them for that at least.

There are several other platforms that share this marketing premise, to mention Wattpad and Kindle Vella as just two examples. I've been looking for local South African options to market/promote and sell my books on, rather than the increasingly iffy US-based ones, so I decided to give it a try. What have I got to lose, right?

It still didn't explain when or where or how payment details, bank account number etc. would be entered, but after all that, I assumed that it would take place when there was a first payment due. Perhaps I'm just being overly nit-picky there, but okay. Let's see how that plays out.

Registration was smooth and easy. Free as stated. First problem: I couldn't add a profile photo. I tried several times, days apart, and I got the same error message every time. I tried resizing the image as the dialog said it wanted it in square format, less than 5mb, this made no difference. This system seems to be broken.

There was also no help function. Not even a chatbot to tell me it was sorry it can't help me, but have a nice day anyway, okay?

So I started the upload/entry process of my first book as a trial run. Cover upload, no problem; entry of title and about blurb, done; it was when I tried to upload the content of the book that I encountered the second problem: It needed the story to be uploaded in separate chapters. Separate ...chapters?! With actual titles??

I suppose that's because of the incremental nature of these sites - you're supposed to release a number of new chapters at a time, so readers can follow along and keep up. But still... chapters?!

Why's that a problem? Because this is the 21st century... and anyway - who the fuck still writes in chapters? I use asterisms, and always have. Anyway, so after a bit of fancy finger work, I subdivided my 157 page novel into 22 chapters - with snazzy names I might add - and uploaded them all to the book file, and hit "publish". After all, why not? It's just a test, innit? (Yes, I used "innit" - it's sarcasm. If you want to get all condescending about my language, you can fuck right off!) "Never let it be said that I'm too stuck in my ways to avoid missing out on a potentially good thing." she says, wryly.

More issues:

I can't see how my book appears on their site from the author dashboard where you publish it from (being able to view it from the dashboard is a standard across every other publishing platform I've ever been on, btw). There's no link in my user/author profile for me to open its page or copy the link to share my book on social media or in a newsletter or whatever. To do that, you have to go to the site's homepage and manually search for the book title in the hopes of finding it - which is doable, but it is a schlepp to go the long way round. This shows poor web design and reflects poorly on the amount of consideration for authors by the admins/owners.

Next, logging in is a pain in the ass. Even though it does offer a "log in with Google" option - which does work - you have to log in again every single time you leave the site and return, even if the "remember me" checkbox is ticked.

Another issue I had was the edit function: when you edit a chapter of your book, or upload the content, the window offers the choice of manual editing, or AI editing. What sort of a writer would USE AI editing of their own work, especially at the point where you're ready to publish it? No thanks, you can keep that shit. Probably explains the sort of rubbish I see on the home page feed of the website, with spelling and grammar errors in the titles of book covers and so forth. Picture if you will, books with fancy cover images - but mangled titles such as "How Did He Changed Me?" litter the site's digital shelves. Okay, so most of the writers seem to not be English first-language speakers - fair enough. However, even the author names look unprofessional - "Ms. O" and "Precious" for example. Perhaps this site really is just geared to cater for bored students or housewife types trying their hand at writing for views to see how it goes? I didn't notice many male writer names either - which is also a bit of a red flag. Is this site a "romance-only" thing? This author wants to know!

Trying to view all the books in a particular genre shows just how unstable this site actually is. Clicking the "View all" link in the book preview cavalcade just crashes the site and produces an "Error 404 not found". Apparently there's an app you can install on your device... but given all of this, I don't think I'll be taking the risk on my PC, so - no thanks. Not until I've made my mind up about this platform being on the level.

At the bottom of my book's listing page on Stardust Literacy, there's a "More by this author" listing - which features books I've never heard of before. Nope. Those ain't mine. Never seen 'em. Perhaps this is because I haven't published any other books on this increasingly sus-looking site (and probably won't either) and well, they probably just want to direct their clients to other books? That might be plausible - but, trouble is, if people see the covers of the books they say are mine, well... it doesn't create a good impression of me - or my ACTUAL books, does it? So no - I don't like that at all. Please don't do that. Rather title it "Books similar to this one" or something else instead - even if it is also a lie.

Perhaps the biggest issue I have with this platform is that it doesn't have a real 'dashboard' to give users any reports or actual stats - how many chapters or pages were read? How many people read my book? Just two examples of info that isn't provided at all. It only lists "views".

The first red (or "read") flag for me though, is that the platform never asked for banking details - and I see nowhere to add them. How will the managers or admins or whatever they are, ever know where to send my money if my book reaches the required number of "views" to earn anything?

I have questions. Such as, at what point do they decide to pay you anything? Admittedly, I saw nothing at all on the site that explains anything for authors - how much they pay you, and for what. Or how.

How does anyone know they're not just posting your book on their site (admittedly for free) just to get "views" while the platform shares them and probably (I don't know) inserts ads between the pages and earns money that way - without paying authors anything at the end of the day?

How did it go?

By the end of the first day, "Blachart" had two views. By the following afternoon, it still only had 4 views. By that evening, 6 - and I had my first follower - whose name "spreeeeeee" didn't seem bot-like at all. There is a five star rating system at the bottom of the book's page (which I had to manually search for, it's https://stardustliteracy.com/read/book-866 incidentally) - by the end of the 2nd day, it had the 6 views and one 5-star rating. On the morning of the following day, it was still just six views and one rating, and there it stayed for the next three days. On the morning of the sixth day, my view count went up to 7.

My five minutes of Stardust Literacy "fame" seemed to be up.

I decided to give it a few more days, maybe a week, just to see how it goes. If I get any actual human interaction or something, like I don't get on Amazon, KDP or Audible - or on YouTube - it might be a little bit worth it, but ultimately I have my doubts.

And, like I said... I have questions. Lots of questions.

NINE MONTHS LATER....

As it turns out, I forgot about this site completely - for about nine whole months. Being preoccupied with my Ph.D thesis might have had something to do with that - but anyway. I just stumbled across the shortcuts I'd saved, and decided to follow up. There were 26 reads of "Blachart" - and no stats to say how many read the whole thing, or how many stopped a few pages in after realizing they were in over their heads. There was still just the one review - five stars, which I always appreciate, and no comments. There was also still no sign in my dashboard of mention of payment, or my 26 reads - or if they were worth anything in that respect.

Be that as it may, this site looks to be every bit as much a waste of time as those other similar sites I mentioned earlier - and that about sums it up.

So Long, Facebook. It's Been A Slice.

2026-04-25T23:37:07.851-07:00

Some of you may be wondering what happened to me on Facebook, so I'll get right down to it and tell you. Seemingly my profile, which I've maintained, grown and cultivated on that platform since at least 2009, was flagged, and I opened Facebook one morning about a month ago to be greeted with a message of extortion. What was that message, and what did they want from me in order to give me back access to my contacts, friends and social media content?

Meta, aka the most intrusive anti-privacy corporation on the planet, it seems, decided that I should connect my webcam and allow them to take a 35 second long video of me "to determine if I'm really human". Now, if like me, that set off a whole carillon of warning bells, I'd say you're quite correct - and that is an instinct - given the power-hungry nature of the beast that is Meta and Mark Zuckerberg - I trust. A 35 second long video? From a profile that has been active daily since 2009 if not prior? There's more to this than meets the eye. Given Meta's proclivity for profiting off whatever data it can scrape out of our user data, its growing AI obsession, history of invasion of privacy - and concerning ties to Palantir (that's right, the one whose CEO proudly says the quiet part out loud (i.e. "sometimes our products are used to kill people"), I've a pretty good idea that video would be used to generate a facial recognition profile, and for purposes unknown. Yes, I don't live in the USA, but still... But besides all of that, being told what to do for no good reason by some faceless corporation triggers my PDA...

So therefore, I decided to not comply - and Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg can simply go fuck themselves. Royally - and up the ass.

Yes, there are plenty of videos showing my face on my YouTube channels - and most of these are shared on Facebook, so if that was what they really wanted, they could go and look at those. So I don't believe that this is what that is all about.

I used to use Facebook for various reasons, mainly to keep in touch with people I cared about. Friends, family, many of whom are now dead and gone. Some have fled the US and we have lost contact. The ones who were left, I made arrangements through third parties to exchange contact details outside of Facebook. WhatsApp also belongs to Meta, so as far as I'm concerned, that's also not a great alternative, for private communications, but it will have to do for now. I also used it to promote my books - but as a realist, I'm aware that it didn't help that much anyway - Zuck algorithms the shit out of everything posted on Facebook and Whatsapp anyway, so it doesn't really reach as many people as it would have otherwise. The only part of the platform I will actually miss, is the Marketplace function. I often used to buy and sell stuff on there, and I will really miss that. There's really no viable local alternative to that at all, or any social media equivalent - and it's sad how some foreign platform that milks its users for every bit of data it can scrape from them, to profit off it, was allowed to kill off every local alternative to its all-consuming march to world-domination as "the everything app".

It takes this to realize exactly how insidious Meta or Facebook - and Zucker really are, and other corporations like Microsoft and Apple - how they work to isolate their "users", formerly known as "clients" and "customers" - within their own ecosystems, making it extremely difficult and lonely to proceed outside of them, limiting their options and freedoms, until we are all trapped in those ecosystems and unable to exist or function without them. Currently I cannot even log in to delete my profile and any photos - fortunately, unlike some people I know, I wasn't using Facebook as a photo archive - though this does illustrate exactly who is in charge, and who gets ownership of your stuff, doesn't it? As "consumers" (I really, really HATE that term because of how it reduces human beings to powerless receivers and sources of income for parasitic soulless billionaire bottom-feeders) we literally own nothing online. They own EVERYTHING.

Admittedly, Facebook had its uses. For a time, I used it for conducting academic research, but I could always do that in future by creating another profile under another name. Facebook doesn't like that, but what do I care what they "like"? I might just do that just to feel the satisfaction of the naughty kid who kept getting told "don't!" and who persisted, and DID. I used Facebook as a broad-spectrum news source, especially about local and international politics, to read the subtext you don't see in mainstream news; now I get it from YouTube. It's not ideal, but for a critical thinker, it's not too hard to navigate, separating the bullshit - and the AI slop - from the more likely facts.

I've been pondering the reason why I was hit with this challenge. And why now? It's not like I posted anything unusual lately that was out of the ordinary (for me). I shared news and comments critical of Orange Hitler; I criticized monstrous Israel for it's Zionism and genocide against the true owners of Palestine; I opposed religious zealotry, malice, and stupidity; I supported Iran against the unwarranted imperialist aggression of the dying American Empire; I criticized the facetious Democratic Alliance and faux-feminist TERF demagogue Helen Zille for being false, pretend libertarians and false white hope for floundering white supremacists and the insidious rich fucks working to gentrify the hell out of any area of South Africa under their control. I took on racism and white supremacists, and gave Afrikarens some sorely-needed food for thought. I shared what pearls of wisdom I had to offer. And I also posted critical comments about Trump and his feckless pink-faced apartheid-loving white supremacist sock-puppet of an Ambassador, on the US Embassy's page. In retrospect, that last one must've been the straw that broke the camel's back. Can't have some uppity South African calling out the Trump regime, can we?

After all, the new government under the "Christian Taliban" doesn't really value the virtues of "free speech" unless that speech is supportive of itself - just like "Christian charity" is filed away with admonishments of tassels on clothing, eating shellfish and putting rails around roofs, not so?

So there we are - Facebook and I are done. I will miss the daily interaction I had with "friends" on Facebook. I will miss the minor spats and the small joys I experienced in speaking truth to power in a public platform with a following of 5000+ other people, but honestly, it's not worth the continued and increasing invasion of my privacy, or the potential risks to my safety which giving them what they want implies.

And so now, seemingly, my profile has disappeared from Facebook's feeds - every comment, every post, every photo, every message, every philosophical thought - likely archived somewhere until the day I decide to let Mark Zuckerberg have his little 35 second video of my face. I'm pretty sure the hell I don't believe in might freeze over before that happens - just on principle alone.

So there it is, I now have no "anti-social media" worth mentioning. You can catch me here to keep up with my thoughts in future. That is, until Google (who is also an insidious control-freak corporation eager to wall-off its own ecosystem) makes it impossible for me to post here as well.

Either way, the benefits of not being exposed to the toxic shit-show that Facebook has become are starting to bear fruit. I'm more relaxed, less anxious, less stressed - and have more time to focus on the things that really matter - like myself, my family, and completing my PhD thesis this year.

Thanks, Facebook. Now go fuck yourself.

The Floccinaucinihilipilification Of Modern Society

2026-02-23T23:52:00.000-08:00

Imagine, if you will, typing the minutes for a work meeting and then, days later, finding it returned with a red pen circle around the word "brevity" on page 4, with a comment "Use simple English".

Is "brevity" not simple enough?

What's complex about a word like brevity? I mean, it's not like I used a word like "floccinaucinihilipilification" that puts the reader at risk of exploding their sinuses simply trying to pronounce it! No, I don't claim to know what floccinaucinihilipilification means (yet), or how to pronounce it without doing myself an injury in the process (it's "flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-KAY-shun" in case you're curious) - but at least I will look it up later. Which is kinda the point, innit?

The point - that even if people don't recognize the word, it's not like they don't have a computer in their pocket they could use to look it up? Like they don't have the entirety of human knowledge available at their finger tips, if they're only willing to bother to access it?

And then, to add insult to injury, a colleague, who is the usual go-to for English grammar and spelling in correspondence (and has been for 30 years) chimes in to say she also doesn't know the word... and adds skeptically that she doesn't believe it's even real - causing my lower jaw to almost literally hit the floor!

Of course, now that I've edited that document as instructed, to replace "brevity" - ironically, with an eight word long sentence - future readers of that document will have been deprived of an opportunity to learn a new word, and there's a good possibility they will remain as ignorant as they they were before. I feel that this has done them a disservice.

The lesson in all this? Is there one? I suppose that depends on your point of view. I've no doubt that someone in management looking down might view using "complex" words - or words more complex than "see Dick run" - as pretentious. That kind of thinking is a trap, because it keeps people locked into a voluntarily closed off, self-imposed box filled with ignorance and, if you will, ignorants.

For me, at least, the lesson is that I might not be the most intellectual person on the planet, I might not even have a very high IQ (I used to consider myself as "average" back in high school), but that doesn't mean that being well-read and curious about things you don't know or understand - and bothering to find out for yourself - won't make you better informed and more knowledgeable than many, if not all those around you. It also provides a telling clue as to why the world is such a mess in our time - the more educated people who were in charge are now retired or dead - and those who've replaced them are far too eager to dumb things down for the sake of saving time and energy and to preserve the comfort of the stupid, lazy and ignorant, rather than to encourage people to learn and improve themselves, to make the world better - or even to keep it in the sorry state it is rather than deteriorating further (that means "getting even worse").

I could go on a tangent about how intelligence breeds more intelligence, and stupidity breeds laziness and even worse stupidity, but - for the sake of brevity - I will end my lament with the observation that it's no wonder so many adults today actually think that chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

And, just in case you're wondering, I did look up "floccinaucinihilipilification" - although I still won't attempt to pronounce it because I like my innards where they are, thank you very much. It means "the act or habit of estimating or describing something as worthless, or making something to be worthless." Make of that what you will.

Doubling Down On Being Wrong Only Makes You Twice As Wrong.

2026-01-25T22:52:00.000-08:00

Here we are on 26 January 2026. It's three weeks into the new year and Trump's ICE gestapo have already murdered 9 people. Make no mistake, since ICE is not empowered to kill people at random in public streets, no matter what Trump, Vance, Miller or Noem claim. These weren't "domestic terrorists" or "highly paid protestors" - they were ordinary people, some of whom were US citizens.

I've been paying attention to the levels of public outcry to these literal state-sanctioned murders. This is what I've found.

To start with, here's a list of differences and similarities between the reactions to the two most recent ICE murders of Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, based on available information on 20260125:

Similarities:

Nicole Good and Alex Pretti were both white US citizens, not immigrants or PoC.
Neither of them were protesting; Good was attempting to pass by the ICE group in her vehicle when she was accosted and shot, Pretti was a pedestrian peaceful observer with a camera recording the protest.
Both were unarmed at the time of their murders - Nicole Good did not have a weapon with her; Alex Pretti had already been disarmed when he was shot.
Both were shot multiple times at point blank range by ICE agents who were in no danger at all.
Good was portrayed by ferderal government as "a professional protestor" and "a domestic terrorist". Pretti was portrayed as "an assassin intending to kill multiple law enforcement agents".
Neither Good nor Pretti was confrontational; Good was even smiling at the agent before he shot her.
Both murders were recorded on phone video by multiple witnesses from different angles.
In both cases, ICE acted outside of their mandate, violated established law enforcement protocols, and had been encouraged by politicians to believe that they had "total federal immunity" from prosecution or liability.
High level Trump lackeys placed the blame on the victims themselves and praised the perpetrators.

Differences:

Good was unarmed; Pretti was armed (licensed and did not reach for his weapon at any time). He also didn't "bring a gun to a protest" as the Trump regime lackeys claim, he was caught up in a protest that erupted in a street he happened to be walking along and stopped to record with his phone.
Good was a white gay female; Pretti was ostensibly a white cis male (status unknown at this time).
Good was a 37 year old mother of 4, Pretti was a 37 year old ICU nurse.
Good was shot 3 times, Pretti was shot at least 5 times.
Good was murdered by a single ICE agent, Johnathan Ross while in her vehicle. Pretti was accosted, disarmed, pistol-whipped, pinned to the ground, kicked and assaulted by ICE agents who piled on top of him, and shot upwards of 5 times for no justifiable reason at all.(Later reports state that up to 10 shots were fired at him).
Witnesses of the Good murder were not detained by ICE; witnesses of the Pretti murder have been detained by ICE and taken to a detention facility. Others have gone into hiding.
The ICE agent that murdered Good was claimed by Trump regime lackeys to have been taken to hospital for injuries sustained in an impact that never happened, as can be seen in all the video evidence. The hospital in question later denied that he'd been there on the day in question or received treatment for any injuries.
The Good murder was immediately pounced upon by Nazis in the public domain who openly sided with ICE, denied the accuracy of any video evidence, and she and her family were met with intense insane hatred and even death threats; for the first 12 hours after the Pretti murder, it was met with a bizarre muted silence from the Nazi quarter of social media. "Normal" levels of Nazi hatred for the victim appear to have resumed since.

The disparity I see in all of this is, that while all this attention and outrage in reaction to these two murders is justified beyond measure, the American public seem in no way as outraged about the murders of 7 others committed by ICE in the first 3 weeks of 2026 alone: people of color, Hispanic people, citizens and/or immigrants of any status. Remember, the USA has abandoned due process - the right of any person accused of any wrongdoing to a trial. Human rights are not suspended under due process - but under the Trump regime, it seems that nobody has any rights at all anymore, except the right to obey, or be killed. Under the ICE reign of terror, even US citizens have been detained unlawfully, assaulted and brutalized, deported with "illegal immigrants" allegedly by mistake - and even murdered "execution style" in full public view.

Critics of the Trump Regime are calling the US the "Fourth Reich". It's not hard to see why anymore.

For those of us abroad keeping our eyes on events in the US, I've noticed a glaring lack of coverage of the previous 7 murders by ICE. Social media is awash with the names of Alex Pretti, Nicole Good - but not a sign of the others. It's *almost* as if the lives of those murdered previously did not count as much. To find them, you actually have to dig.

The outrage and horror and turmoil that erupted after the Good murder was significant... but still not enough to elicit any real changes in attitude in "white" America. Good was Caucasian - but was that lack of societal penetration due to the fact that she was female? Or was it because she was also a lesbian?

Just last week, 7 Democratic Party US senators voted along with Republicunts in Congress in favor of continuing to fund ICE... AFTER the Good murder, and after all the others prior to that. Only now, after the Pretti murder, are some lawmakers finally demanding action on ICE.

It seems to me that the most "public outrage" is reserved for when the victim of anything is perceivably a straight white male. I'd love to be proven wrong about that - but I don't see how. The rest are always just footnotes - something PoC in the US have been acutely aware of all along. When they shouted "Black lives matter!", white supremacists drowned them out with shouts of: "ALL lives matter!". All of these injustices and disparities are symptoms of a broken, flawed, corrupt system and the society it operates.

In short, I don't think most white Americans really care about the welfare of other people - that is, until it affects THEM individually. This is supported by the number of "conservatives" (Lite Nazis) finally starting to snap out of their delusions to realize that Alex Pretti could just as easily have been any one of them.

"Left" or "right" - the US seems to be rife with racism, whether deliberate or incidental.

It will take a lot more than any increasingly unlikely "mid-term election" - or even a revolution - to sort that out.

I Know Why Trump Wants Greenland (A Reasonable Hypothesis)

2026-01-14T07:37:00.000-08:00

Why does Trump want Greenland? Minerals? More territory to govern? More subjects to lord it over? Just because he wants it? To give NATO the finger like he did that Ford worker yesterday, who got fired for calling a spade a spade?

I think I have the gist of his idea.

If I asked you "What is south of Canada?" - and if you're familiar with the map of the world, you'd likely answer "the USA". Right?

Now, if I asked you "What's east of Canada?" - you're likely answer "Alaska" which is also part of the USA. Are we on the same page?

Now, who can tell me what does Canada get if Trump takes Greenland?

Any ideas?

Okay, I'll tell you: Surrounded.

Any lights going on yet?

The USA has wanted to take Canada for itself ever since the War of 1812. Why?

Because of Canada's resources? Maybe. But for as long as the USA itself has existed, Canada has been a thorn in its side. A similarly sized estranged sibling that still lives under the parents' roof - and because for as long as Canada exists independently of the USA in the USA's claimed "sphere of influence", the premise of the Monroe Doctrine (or the current "Donroe Doctrine") remains unfulfilled and jeopardized. Aside from Canada, there are no so-called "first world" rivals on the entire American continent, north or south - either politically, economically, or militarily. Though technically a standalone nation today, Canada is still closely tied to Britain, the British monarchy, the fading British Commonwealth - and also the EU - and as recent events have demonstrated, not intimidated by Trump or the USA.

In short, "this town is too small for the both of us, kid".

Unlike other countries in South America which the USA has historically dominated over, interfered with, destabilized, bribed or intimidated, Canada represents a rival it has never managed to intimidate or bully with subtle political machinations - but could likely overwhelm with its gigantic military machine, but to do so directly and without laying some groundwork first would be a much more difficult, longer road.

Yes, taking Greenland carries its own expensive risks and perils - and rewards - risking open war with former or current allies and friends (increasingly the former rather than the latter) and the end of NATO as an alliance (which would fulfill Putin and China's desires certainly) - but if you're expecting El Trumpo, the president of the USA (and acting president of Venezuela too, apparently) to care a damn about casualties or consequences, you're sadly delusional.

Now hang on, you might want to point out that the USA doesn't have to take Greenland to set up military bases there - that thanks to agreements with Denmark dating back to the 1950s, the USA has Denmark's permission to operate practically as many military bases as it wants in Greenland. They had more bases there, as it turns out, but in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, thanks to downscaling and redundancy, these were closed down - all but one. But they could always reopen the others, or built new ones.

The problem with that hypothesis is, should the US suddenly start pumping thousands of troops and building up military hardware for the purposes of invading Canada, Greenland (and Denmark - and certainly the EU and NATO - wouldn't stand for that. Plus, the cat would be out of the bag - and the USA would then have to subdue all opposition before it would be ready for such an operation, by which time Canada would've had more time to prepare, making the goal so much harder to achieve. But why would the USA need Greenland to mount an attack on Canada? Surely they could subdue their northern neighbor by simply attacking from the two other continental fronts - Alaska and the northernmost states? Would that not be enough? Yes it probably would - but having to focus on just two fronts (or one long one) would be less overwhelming for Canada than having to fight in all directions.

Surrounding an enemy is one way to force them to fight on multiple fronts, spreading their forces thin, weakening their defense, and providing increased opportunities to exploit these weaknesses. In this scenario, should Trump take Greenland and pacify Greenland, Denmark and NATO, he would be afterwards able to launch attacks from bases on three sides - forcing poor, less militaristic, less bloodthirsty Canada to fight on three fronts, and possibly resulting in a short, sharp victory for the USA. Hypothetically, NATO would be either reluctant or in no shape to rush to Canada's defense if they'd been repulsed at Greenland, so that makes sense as a secondary goal of annexing Greenland. It's a hypothesis, but I think it's a sound one.

THIS Is America's Problem - Or "Y'all Have Red Hands Now"

2026-01-10T23:40:00.000-08:00

This is pretty much why we are at this point in history right now.

Racism.

I'll say it again: racism.

Some people were more put off by the thought of voting for an intelligent, competent black woman for president than for a would-be dictator who previously tried to hijack his own country at the end of his first term - no matter what Project 2025 (which had been public for several years by that point) said he was going to do in his second term, and which minority groups and other countries would be negatively affected by their decision.

They decided to put their votes behind a man with a history of financial grift, a string bankruptcies, abusive behavior towards women, actual rape and human trafficking - and as it happens, turned out to be a pedophile and defender and enabler of pedophiles. The fact that he's also a pathological liar, a narcissist and flagrant warmonger lighting wildfires wherever his gaze falls, seems to have come as a complete surprise to most of them.

Imagine being an American voter confronted with a choice between two candidates - one who can debate eloquently and coherently, who can answer all questions put to her with reasonable answers, with a sterling history of public service behind her - and a buffoon who blurts out word-salad, mocks disabled people, and on January 6, 2020 tried to steal an election - and a second term with it.

Tell me again how the neo-Nazis concerns are all about "protecting women and children". From what? Who will protect us from YOU?

It wasn't about the "groceries" or the "egg prices" - it was the fact that Trump was white - well, orange - but mostly white underneath, probably - and Kamala Harris wasn't - and that resonated with their lingering "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (to give the thorn stuck in the rabid lion's paw a twist). They were still reeling from the sanity and respectability and humanity of Obama's two terms, and sashayed off to the deep end - like a couple of short-sighted teens struck by temporary insanity, rushing off to Vegas to be married by an Elvis impersonator - just to show their families the consequences of standing in their way - or to frame this little example, to show the rest of America the consequences for forcing a black president on them.

To be blunt, they didn't give a fuck about human rights or equality - they only cared about what they wanted for themselves. To watch other people they despised get screwed over by their kitsch white supremacist idol. Now that many of them, particularly the poorer of Americans, are tasting the bitter fruit of that foolish choice, now they want to protest "that's not what I voted for!"? But it is. You just didn't expect to be in his target sight instead of by his side.

Trump once boasted that he'd be able to shoot a man in the street and nobody would lift a finger to stop him. Back then, it seemed like a joke. Looking back in 2026, that seems far more ominously like a prediction of how things have changed. Take the brutal public murder of Nicole Good by a member of Trump's ICE gestapo last week for example - the PR machinery of state is covering up her murder and calling it "justified", protecting and lauding the murderer and labelling the victim, a mother of three who has no criminal history or ties to any activist organization, a "domestic terrorist" and "professional protestor". Right wing professional liars (i.e. propagandists) are spreading the lie and inciting support among the ignorant rabble that lap up every word that falls from their lips for state violence, police brutality, and the notion that dissent or opposition to Trump merits being executed on the street.

Trump might not have pulled the trigger in this case, but the murder of Nicole Good - and every other similar unwarranted illicit murder at the hands of his agents - is as much his direct fault as it is everybody's who voted for him in 2024. There's blood on your hands.

Y'all have red hands now.

You may not all have voted for him, you may not all have supported him - but you're putting up with him - and forcing the rest of the world to as well.

What I find really astonishing about Americans nowadays, is that they're a nation of gun nuts obsessed with the second amendment, that have been sanctimoniously promoting gun ownership as a sacred right. A right more important than the lives of their own children who never know if they're going to live to see the end of the next school day - a right touted as a necessity to counteract government over-reach or infringement of their other rights... "Don't tread on me" - right? For years we've seen cartoons and parodies of the homesteaders and survivalists hoarding as many guns and ammo in their basement bunkers as they can - just in case "big government" decides one day to come and take them away. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? So therefore, we live in a time where the USA has what is arguably the most well-armed (and probably most insane) civilian population on the planet.

But wait, as they say - there's more.

Here's the part that really blows my mind: when their government eventually lives up to those fears, silencing them, trampling on the first amendment, arresting peaceful protestors, stripping them of social guarantees, justice and due process, making them poorer, and sending thugs in uniform wearing masks to black bag and shoot innocent people in the streets, they gather outside ICE HQ in their masses to throw snowballs at Trump's thugs and goons. SNOWBALLS.

You have the 2nd amendment. What use is it if it only benefits the people who want to squeeze off a few rounds at the range on weekends - or the domestic terrorists shooting up schools and killing your kids every week all year round, or gestapo thugs? Isn't THIS situation you're living in right now what it was created for?

The disjointedness - the insanity of it all - makes my head hurt.

I find, living a few thousand kilometers away from where this is all happening, in South Africa - that's right, the place where Trump claims "terrible things are happening" while not seeing the irony - that these days the first two things I do at my PC every morning is 1) what insane, horrific thing that bloated orange martinet has done in the meantime, and 2) the Big Beautiful Obituary.

But as usual, I digress.

The bottom line here is, that the USA is the schizophrenic mess it is today because of its thinly-veiled, excused and traditionally tolerated historical racism and white supremacy problem - and its culture of no accountability - and unfortunately, it is dragging the rest of the world into this maelstrom with it. Until the USA finally confronts its own racism - together with its own racist history and failures to address that racism in the past, to hold racists accountable for their racism, and to educate younger generations about racism to ensure a better, safer future for all - nothing is ever going to improve. But sure, while y'all're stuck in that hole, keep on diggin'. For now though, while Trump continues to weakly thump the sagging flesh on his hollow chest as dementia closes in around him, the American Empire continues to decay - which for the rest of the world, is a good thing. We await the collapse with great anticipation.

The world may, one day, when all the dust has settled, forgive the United States of America (or whatever emerges in its place) for creating Donald Trump and giving him the unrestricted power to run over their own constitution rough-shod, to shit on human rights, destroy global relations and trade - start wars, unironically demand peace prizes and recognition from his would-be victims and praise from his audiences - and instead of ripping him down like any unhinged power-mad evil dictator should be, kept him there while he ran amok and set fire to the world.

But I won't.

It's Only 3 January, And We're Already Staring At Another War

2026-01-04T00:19:00.000-08:00

It's a lot to take in, isn't it?

As I pointed out yesterday, it's only the 3rd of January and I'm already laden with fresh anxiety.

On one hand, we have a bunch of racist neo-Nazi Afrikarens publicly expressing their hopes that Trump will do to South Africa what he's done to Venezuela, to "sort the country out" - and claiming to be "patriots" in the same breath, while totally not seeing the irony.

But then, irony is lost on the irredeemably stupid, as these people are.

So, in South Africa we have a bunch of pedo-worshiping Afrikaner nationalists (who resemble Nazis far more than they even realize or are willing to admit, although the occasional stand-out will ask if "that's a bad thing?").

They're too lazy or useless to just pack their goedjies and fuck off to the USA to accept Trump's special welcoming as "refugees" from being treated like everyone else, but will happily stay here so they can complain all day long and keep up the pretense that they're so oppressed and facing a "white genocide" that exists only in their wildest wet dreams.

"Trump must come here!" They say. "I really hope Trump takes over South Africa." And so it goes on. Their true motivation is exceptionalism, a deeply ingrained victim complex, and having their assholes put out of joint because they don't have that special protected and privileged status whites enjoyed under apartheid. Being treated as equal to everyone else is "persecution" to that sort of mindset.

But whether or not Trumpy-wumpy decides to "take over South Africa" - an Afrikaren hope inspired by what Trump did to Venezuela yesterday - is a little aside from the main point of my post today - the meaning and consequences of that attack on Venezuela's sovereignty itself.

It has elicited few, varying responses from several governments over the weekend - bearing in mind that today is a Sunday.

The EU has apparently decided to just say they "never liked Maduro anyway" and left it at that. A cop-out, and an irresponsible one at that. Similarly, Canada's lame duck PM Mark Carney has essentially welcomed what Trump has done in Venezuela with a mealy-mouthed statement saying how nice it will be for Venezuelans to "start over" as an American vassal state supplying oil to the American Empire. Perhaps he's afraid Trump might send "Delta Force" to give him a 2AM wake-up call as well, and shit his underwear? The UK itself didn't say much, but seemingly withdrew it's head from Trump's orange sphincter long enough to mutter the words "We didn't know this was going to happen!"

Oh please. This has been coming for months. Everybody and his dog knew this was going to happen - and the rest of the world did nothing to discourage it.

But now that it has, the world's balance of power has changed overnight, and irrevocably.

So far, at least last time I looked - aside from Spain and Italy, the only countries actively challenging and criticizing this outrageous incident, are "third world" nations like Mexico - and of course, South Africa - who yesterday called for an urgent meeting of the UN.

I have to admire our government under the circumstances. Here we are, a small peaceful country without much of a military to speak of, and yet we still have the courage of our human rights convictions to speak out against tyranny and injustice - and genocide - on the international stage. Even when facing up to the implied threats of doing so.

This becomes even more admirable considering the real message being sent by Trump's actions against Venezuela - and I'm not just talking about the overnight attack, kidnapping of their president - and putting him and his wife on some public show-trial to answer made-up charges of "narco-terrorism" and "possession of machine guns and other destructive devices" etc.

It's also now the position of the US government and its people, that the USA can forcefully and violently abduct foreign presidents from their beds and subject them to sham trials in American courts - but cannot hold their own president accountable for his own many crimes.

But no, not just any of that.

No - I'm also talking about the several months Trump spent having his zealous minions blowing fishermen up in their boats inside Venezuelan territorial waters with total impunity - while not producing a single iota of evidence to back up claims that these were boats smuggling narcotics to the USA.

I've seen a lot of people commenting who clearly believe this nonsense to be true - "of course they were drug smugglers", they argue lamely - "you don't really believe they were fishermen, do you?"

I'm sure they do so because they naively believe every lie the Trump spin machine has fed them. The alternative is to accept the reality that your armed forces, paid for by your taxes and directed by your votes - and led and directed by the unqualified, incompetent fuckwits, pedophiles, coke-heads and alcoholics that run the show because of your choices - are actively murdering people from other countries without any real justification. Looking down to see the blood on your hands can be a sobering realization.

Aside from all that, since when is summary execution without trial an American practice?

Well, one thing is certain - it is now.

Survivors of one December boat strike, clinging to the wreckage, were bombed a second time to finish them off. The intent to commit murder revealed by that example is as clear as daylight. The failure of US military personnel to adhere to international law, the Geneva Conventions, and even the US military code of justice by refusing to commit war crimes or obey illegal orders, is rapidly becoming the stuff of legend. They're all just seemingly going along with this madness, just following orders as if that should shield them from future consequences.

Growing up, I believed the myth that the USA were "the good guys", fighting for justice and freedom and democracy. I'm sure we all did. Some people have a noticeable problem trying to shed that delusion, or to separate that fantasy from the harsh glaring reality, even when confronted with evidence, no matter how damning. The USA is living proof of the veracity of the adage: All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Just yesterday morning - before I was aware of the Maduro incident, I read an article detailing how Trump was considering dressing in military uniforms of different branches "to honor the American military". I can easily understand why - being the noob wannabe dictator can be really intimidating, especially if you shuffle and shamble about on stage wearing an ill-fitting suit and looking like you're trying to remember why you entered that room in the first place. That's not very intimidating at all - and so unlike all his more carefully sculpted, forceful-looking, inspiring, leadership-evoking AI generated PR images that flood the quiescent media. The emperor has no clothes, according to the old tale, but saber-rattling is far more intimidating when you have an actual saber, not so?

So it seems he wants to wear uniforms now, like a real dictator. Of course, I haven't really seen anyone talking about this - because in the meantime he's invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president and set the world on it's head - like it's some sort of bizarre Hollywood production. Except the reality is, the USA isn't the "good guy" - it's the villain.

My day had started out enjoying this as a joke, catching up on whatever gaffe the orange buffoon had uttered, or blunders he'd got up to during the night - and instead elicited a jarring, slamming return to exactly how I felt a year ago, when Trump and his minions gleefully flooded into the halls of power like sewerage streaming into a clean new pipe - and immediately began to make it crystal clear that human rights were the enemy of the new state. I call this feeling "anxiety for the world".

Of course, the real purpose of having a super-carrier and its escorts with more firepower than that possessed by many nations, hovering for months off Venezuela's coast - and then having them blow up boats filled with random people - without any form of due process, even if such process were to approve such a horrific and uncivilized practice - was to test the waters. Would any country intervene on Venezuela's behalf? After all, they pirated and hijacked an oil tanker in Venezuelan waters and took the oil for themselves. Did any nation intervene? Would anyone dare to oppose the might of the USA? And we have the answer. Nobody did anything to deter the USA at any stage of the build-up to this fiasco - and just like a schoolyard bully (and serial killers in training) they progressed from one milestone to another, getting more emboldened at every step forward, and moved on from blowing up boats one day, to drone-bombing shipyard docks the next - and after that, to sending aircraft to bomb Caracas - and kidnapping a sovereign nation's leader.

Now he stands there, feebly thumping his flabby chest and crowing about the might of the US armed forces - claiming that the USA is more respected now than ever before - while clearly confused between the meaning of "respect", "fear" - and sheer loathing.

I don't think the USA has been more hated and despised in its entire history than it is today. And with good reason. They are not the "good guys". Whether they ever were is another debate entirely.

Aside from that, I wonder how many of you have worked out what all this really means - and why and how this one incident has change the balance of power in the world we live in right now?

Perhaps you believe, simply, that everything is as Trump claims it is - that a South American leader, whom some describe as a "dictator" was deposed by the USA, and that this is a "good thing"? Perhaps he was a dictator - perhaps it was a "good thing" - but what about the means, manner and methodology of his removal? What about WHO did it, and why? What about what comes next? What about the message all of this sends?

Some have gleefully pointed out that "many Venezuelans" are celebrating his removal - and these same people - including Mark Carney of Canada, and the EU government, are saying "oh, so it's alright then."

There wasn't an election - the people of Venezuela were completely bypassed in the decision-making process. This decision was made for them - by a foreign power, for their own benefit. What about motives? What really lies behind it? This is an ASTONISHING failure of international law - or the keeping or enforcement thereof. For many decades now, the USA occupied the position of the world's policeman, its crusader for justice - at least on paper. The USA today has around 80 military bases in countries all around the world - which host countries accepted eagerly because that meant safety or protection from Soviet Russia during the Cold War - or since then, from modern Russia's expansionism and aggression, and hypothetical threats from China and North Korea etc. The USA took over defense and military commitments, while European nations spent less on their military budgets, to the point where now they are practically disarmed in comparison to a hostile nation with military presences in all their countries. Good luck ever getting them out again.

In the meantime, the US has used these bases as bargaining chips to consolidate its influence over said host countries - and also conducted too many "regime changes" to suit their own ends to keep track of, especially when it came to accessing other country's resources - either more cheaply, or for free, setting up puppet regimes that answered to them and did their bidding - while of course keeping up the appearances of "democracy". That, for decades, has been the illusion of the so-called "Free World" of the West. The illusion of that "Free world" has been less applicable and less pleasant for the rest of the world though, hasn't it - softened and swayed by financial and material aid in exchange for favorable trade and, and, and? All while concealing the reality of that domineering influence and control behind a mask of beneficence and humanitarian goodwill, of course.

The US has dropped that mask now, that sense of pretense. Under Trump they've blatantly owned that reputation for brutal heavy-handedness to satisfy their own greed, embracing the accusation of American imperialism as righteous, patriotic, propping it up with the Bible and wrapping it in the American flag. The USA has willingly stripped itself of that "good guy" image, allowed it to slip to the stage floor - the illusion has been shattered now, and it will never be able to reclaim it again.

It's a guarantee that if any country's leader is removed - that is, literally kidnapped at gunpoint as Maduro was by the USA - there will be at least some who celebrate it. Such as, for example actual Venezuelans - or even Afrikarens commiserating about being treated as equal to the black folk whose parents and grandparents used to call them "baas" or "medem" - whether they know or understand anything about it from firsthand experience or not, that still doesn't make it right. Or if you understand the consequences, a "good thing".

Remember when the USA used "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as an excuse to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein? Yes the man was a dictator - but his callous removal, followed by the creation of a puppet government loyal to the USA, which promptly collapsed as soon as the USA withdrew from the country, resulted in violence and way too many deaths to count. The USA knows this - but simply does not care. More brown people in another country, who don't speak English - and aren't "very fine" Christians like Donald Trump - who even signs his own version of the Christian bible to the acclaim of his followers. (Try to convince me that's not a cult, I dare you.) The US got what they wanted from Iraq - as they are sure they will get what they want from Venezuela. The end justifies the means, right?

While you're celebrating the regime change Trump said he wanted to do in Venezuela as far back as since his campaign days, specifically in order to take the country's oil and give it to US oil companies who donated over a billion USD to his election - here's the very big thing that you might have missed about all this:

What Trump did to Venezuela sends a message which says: "South America is our domain. The USA can do whatever we want here." It's the Monroe Doctrine 2.0. If you don't know what the Monroe Doctrine was, that's a gap in your education and I suggest you look it up. The message is: "If you lead a nation, you lead at our pleasure. If you displease us, we will remove you, and nobody will come to help you, because nobody would dare oppose our military might."

He might as well have said "resistance is futile". So far, he's being proven correct about that. Nobody seems likely to lift a finger - at least militarily - against the worlds largest, most well-armed insane asylum-cum-leper colony with a lunatic holding his finger over the only button that really matters.

I suppose who could blame them? Trump is actually deranged enough to launch nukes at anyone who gets in his way - and I think it's only a matter of time before his ego, ambition and confidence reach the point where he crosses that line. The USA has enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over - and most other countries that even have any at all either have too few to be a real threat - or don't have the range or means to use them against the USA anyway. Even very few of Russia's nuclear arsenal are unlikely to be in working order as they've aged past their prime and haven't been maintained in nearly 40 years.

Aside from all that, the message Donald Trump has sent to every other nation's president on the planet - especially peaceful, small third world nations without much military at all - is that if you get in our way or displease us, we can remove you just as easily as we removed Maduro. He didn't even see that coming - neither will you. And we'll spin the press so everyone sees that as a "good thing" too. And if you dare to fight back, we'll just send in a second wave - or more, and completely destroy you with our military might!"

After all, Trump doesn't give a fuck about anybody, let alone brown people who don't speak English in another country that has oil. It's only the oil that he wants. The US was once described by someone whose name eludes me, as "an oil company with an army". I'm pretty sure that any country that has oil right now is feeling at least a little nervous.

None of that is "defending America" - or freedom, or democracy - and least of all is it "opposing tyranny". It's the very opposite of all that bullshit pretense they used to invade Iraq TWICE. And now they're not even bothering with the pretense anymore. This is enforcing authoritarian rule. It's colonialism. It's fascism in its purest form. It IS tyranny.

This is going to be another hell of a year. And far worse, especially if nobody does anything to resist Trump - or send the USA scuttling back to that dystopian hellhole they've turned into. It will be interesting to see what comes of this, and what sort of year 2026 will be - in the sense of the old Chinese curse sort of interesting.

Plane Sailing - Hopium & Fading Dreams of Empire

2025-12-27T23:31:00.000-08:00

Trump wants to build a fleet of 3... 10... 20... 25 (why not 50 or 100?) new battleships for the US Navy, and although it strikes me as some sort of parody or sick joke, apparently Mango Mussolini is actually being serious.

Firstly, for the past decade, the US has been realizing it made a "yuge" mistake with its "littoral" combat ships and have been retiring and scrapping these "aluminum" hulled failed experiments left and right for the past few years.

Yes, new age weapons systems like lasers and even rail guns have become feasible and even the next big thing in naval combat tech for the present and future - but Trump and seemingly the US Navy and its naval architects seem to have completely lost sight of the advent of drone technology and its presence on the modern battlefield - sea, land and air - right now.

Ukraine for example, uses (and has used) water-based drones to sink Russian warships, and not just river patrol vessels, but full-size cruisers. Aerial drones pound infantry positions and even individual soldiers, destroy tanks, and strategic targets hundreds of km away in Russia.

And here comes Donny, announcing "the biggest ever" battleship class, bearing his tainted name no less, offering the biggest target to any third-world adversary who can afford a few choice sea drone torpedoes. Aside from the hubris involved in being an actively current president (who evaded serving in the military due to "bone spurs") naming a class of warships after himself, the tone-deafness of this undertaking is astounding.

If there's ever been any lessons learned from previous wars about the folly of having huge capital warships that can't defend themselves effectively against aircraft attacks, it seems the US has forgotten all of them.

They have names, like USS Arizona, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Repulse, Bismarck, Yamato, Musashi, Tirpitz, Littorio, just to mention the prime examples - where a vessel that cost millions of $ to build and a thousand crew to operate was sunk by an aircraft that cost a few thousand $ and was crewed by 1 or 2. When a billion dollar battleship gets disabled by single well-placed torpedo launched from a slow antiquated aircraft that consists of essentially bits of wood, string and canvas costing maybe a few hundred dollars at the time, strategists should sit up and take notice. They did. The lessons learned at the time about the folly of sinking (no pun intended) so much money, men and materials into a single large asset that can be lost at one stroke appear to have completely evaded Trump and his brown-noses at the Pentagon - who, like Kim Jong Un's minions weighed down by 3 tons of good attendance medals each, loudly clap and bark their approval like seals even if it's probably the dumbest thing Trump has done since starting his idiotic trade wars.

All of that is why battleships disappeared at the end of WW2. Big guns didn't matter, because of the prime rule in gunnery - if the enemy is in range, so are you. In that case, you have lost any real advantage and your risk of loss increases tenfold. Ever since WW2, the really useful big ships were the aircraft carriers that could get their aircraft in range of the enemy without ever seeing it themselves - or getting in range of the enemy's own guns, largely keeping the important carriers safe for future use. Aircraft losses could be replaced - but a carrier loss would be catastrophic. As a bonus, carriers were better able to fight off enemy air attacks with lighter air defenses and their own aircraft - which is something a battleship was generally unable to do on its own, which is why so many warships were sunk by aircraft action during that war.

In the 21st century most navies have downsized not just because we aren't at war all year round, but because with the advancement of tech, we can do as much if not more, with fewer and smaller ships.

The US has bragged that even if one of its gigantic carriers were to be torpedoed, it wouldn't sink since they are so large, compartmentalized and so on. While it's a challenge for a submarine to penetrate the US carrier screen of escorts today, just to give you an idea, in the last decade during naval wargames, a Swedish non-nuclear submarine managed it and successfully targeted a US aircraft carrier to prove a point. To paraphrase a quote from the tired old Titanic movie: "She's made of iron, she'll sink!" These super carriers may be claimed unsinkable, but as Titanic demonstrated, they are until they aren't.

Back to Trump's "Trump class" battleships. What role would these monstrous follies play in the US navy? Would they form part of existing carrier escort groups, or have their own escort groups to paddle around the world intimidating small countries with oil or resources the US wants to take for itself - or like Greenland, small countries Trump wants to "annex"? With the Empire falling, it strikes me that this is just a last ditch effort to restore global military dominance. Let's not mince words. With 80-odd US military bases in countries around the world "to keep the peace", what you are is an empire. The peace in question is like the Pax Romana - Roman Peace, which essentially means peace on your terms, and nobody else's. You are in control. Except when the money and goodwill runs out - which is really where we are today. But I digress.

So here we have Trump wanting to build a giant floating target costing $14bn with a few lasers and likely Tomahawk missile launchers and maybe a few AA guns on it and thinking he's the bee's knees.

"We used to build a ship a week! Why can't we do that now?" He claims with astonishing bravado. Yes, a freighter a week (not warships - and certainly not battleships!) built in mass-produced sections by a multitude of wartime workers, companies and small shipyards using expertise and industries geared towards mass production on a scale unheard of before or since - all of which no longer exist.

Imagine that, at a time where the US economy is the most debt-ridden it has ever been in its entire, short, less than 300 year history. It is squarely in decline, only being held together by the hopium of the fading AI bubble that is reaching the very end! With an absence of the industries, facilities or expertise - or resources needed to produce the raw materials required to build such ships, especially at such a scale, I doubt even one of these fanciful fantasies will ever be built! Of course, I might be wrong - but I doubt it.

Either way, I'm sure this will end really well. I have popcorn handy.

Lemmings - or, the Great "Switch to Linux now!" Scam

2025-12-02T05:02:00.000-08:00

With Windows 10 being "EOL" with Microsoft and every tech influencer on YouTube choreographing similar videos about switching to Linux and advocating for it like "That Vegan Teacher", with all but a song and dance, I've been considering making the switchover from Microsoft to Linux as well.

Wait, wait, this isn't one of those articles wherein I proselytize the penguin, nor is it a fad or a phase - it's something I've been wanting to do for a long time now - practically since the first time I was introduced to Ubuntu Linux, when someone handed me a free copy through a car window at a traffic light back in the 1990s.

Yes. It didn't work very well then either.

But don't let my preconceived irritations and irks spoil things for you, let me regail you with my latest experiences in the land of the red fedora-wearing Penguin.

I've been messing about with alternative operating systems for quite some time. There's Linux, and then there were other weird and wonderful things that came up along the way, like BeOS, Lindows, Haiku and Raspberry PI OS just off the top of my head. As for Apple, let's not talk about that - if there's an OS and company worse on the scale of corporate grift, greed, invasiveness and control than Microsoft, I think that would be Apple. Yes, I know Microsoft is the bigger of the two - but they learned that strategy from the rotten fruit itself. Anyway, basically, I did all that research for fun, for self-enrichment and to learn alternative OSes to the ubiquitous Windows. It was only sometime later, when I saw how controlling, greedy and invasive Microsoft was becoming - somewhere around the Windows 7 era - that I started to consider a need to migrate to something else in the near future.

The question "but what TO???" has always lingered - and most frequently the answer has been "Linux". With so many voices chiming into the "Switch to Linux" chorus line a month ago with the "end of support" for Windows 10, I again started to ponder that question.

And it wouldn't be the first time. Back in the late 1980s, I started a small project with a school friend that we called Global Enterprises. We were both into programming at the time using Basic, and each of us had a Sinclair microcomputer of our own. He had a Spectrum, I had a QL. The QL was fancier and had a full proper keyboard, but aside from doing a little word processing and spreadsheets, was frankly quite useless. The Spectrum had a shitty rubber keypad, but could do so much more stuff, even fun stuff - and so was much more popular.

I find the comparison between these two somewhat reminiscent of the Linux-Windows debate - and you will likely see why later without me having to elaborate too much.

Anyway, so my friend and I planned to take over the world with our Basic programming skills, even creating windowed environments in laboriously typed-out program files. We joked about the popular new OS on the block called Windows 3.0 - and laughed uproariously about creating something similar and calling it "Doors". Doors 1.0 was never released. In fact, it never really got off the ground. And of course, for a whole bunch of reasons, neither of us ever got anywhere near becoming South Africa's answer to Bill Gates, or Microsoft.

That said, I come back to the topic of switching to Linux from Windows 10 or 11 and why I called it a "scam". People are telling their audiences to quit Windows for these reasons (and there are many, many valid and good reasons to do so) and to "just install Linux". Most of them point out how easy Linux is to use or get used to - but relatively few seem to take the trouble to point out that Linux, as less rare as it's become in the computing world - simply doesn't work for everyone.

In the midst of this, I've seen videos of community projects actually removing Windows installations from people's PC's and laptops and replacing it with recommended flavors of Penguin OS. It's in a good cause after all - Microsoft is evil! They've spying on us and selling our data - and advertising at us via our own PCs, and also restricting our personal digital freedoms etc. All true, of course. No argument from me there. But the problem I have with this is that there are millions of people now clamoring to leave Windows, all whipped into a paranoid quasi-evangelical frenzy by influencers and experts alike - while not really having anywhere better to move to.

Well, yes, Linux. About that.

I'm sure there are going to be loads of miserable Windows apostates out there soon, wandering aimlessly around their Linux desktops, dazed and confused, as they circle the Gnu and sidestep to avoid tripping over the Gnome, while trying to work out where anything is and why so little of it works as advertised. I couldn't find anything Linux-related that would work for an "elephant in the room" - cut me a little slackware, I'm workin' here.

But if there is an elephant in the room - neatly parked, hogging the mat right at the center - it's that if Windows users leaving Windows want anything, it's another, better, freer, less dystopian, less bloaty, and far less big-brothery kind of Windows - one that will actually run their same apps - and where the only change needed will be to replace the OS and not every single other thing they're accustomed to using.

I'd call that a real trumpet call.

Back to my own search for a suitable Linux candidate to replace Windows 10 in my own life.

Last week, after a break of about a year, I experimented with Linux again. This time, by installing it to a spare older laptop just to see how it goes. Well, it went about as horribly as you might expect. How so? Because I installed and worked through a succession of new flavors (or distros) of Linux that had come out since last December, and still didn't find anything I could comfortably see myself migrating to as my new "home OS" on all my other machines. I started where I'd left off last year - with Linux Mint. Although there was a new version of Mint available, it hadn't changed in any way I could detect that would change my mind from last time. In short, it still didn't detect shares on my home network, or do anything I wanted it to do. Bummer.

Then I installed two different flavors of Zorin, and was a little bit impressed. I enjoyed the windows-like experience. There, see? I'm not unfair, nor am I a Linux-phobe - I actually said something nice about Linux. Try not to faint! The wallpaper images were also very nice, high quality - but not even splashes of color in glorious HD could make the series of issues I encountered go away. Each of these rendered me feeling less amicable towards Linux distros this time around as well. For example, although I was able to sort out a few annoyances like the tendency for it to just auto-lock the screen with a password for no particular reason, or the quirky imitation Explorer app that refused to show me any folder trees at all - but let's just say that the manufacturer's promise that you won't have to use the terminal 'much' is just so much hot air.

Of course you have to use the terminal - it's fucking inevitable with Linux, and it's fucking annoying. Yes, I use the command prompt and PowerShell in Windows too, but that's for superuser/high end purposes, not for simple tasks like just trying to get the damn thing to actually see my home network because there aren't any proper settings that use a visual reference and a fucking mouse in 2025! Nor are there three hundred different command formats or solutions for each different flavor or distro of Linux to address the same problems - and as if that weren't already bad enough, every so-called "help website" for Linux acts as if they're talking to their fellow Linux bros who are on average a bunch of amateur programmers in Unix, not ordinary people just trying to get fucking Winboat or WinApps installed on Linux! This is the future - we don't "terminal" here FFS!

Then there are problems that are simple on any version of Windows that are simply mind-boggling on any version of Linux! Like fonts for instance! How exactly do you install fonts in this nightmare? And how do you actually tell if something is running or not, because if you click on something, it flashes open and then simply vanishes. Why are there no useful "help" files either on the PC or on the internet? Is there even a task manager in this thing? These and other conundrums stood in an irate queue of things that needed to be sorted out, tapping their feet at me!

To make things more frustrating than they had to be, while the Command Prompt window in Windows has moved on in recent years and allows simple things we take for granted, like copy pasting text or commands into it, none of the versions of the Linux terminal doesn't do that. No such thing as control-V there, you have to right-click and click paste. And then it spits out responses in Unix that make old-school DOS users like me squint. The Linux terminal? Sudo fucking kill me now. LOL.

Anyway, let's just say that trying to test-run 'proper' apps of convenience that I rely on, like Winamp and iPhoto Plus 4 was problematic. Yes, they do run - but unreliably, and the rigmarole in getting them to open at all using a jarring combination of WINE and Bottles (see what they did there - cute isn't it?) is migraine inducing. They also took a while to open, and not because I had to browse to the .exe file each time because the Linux version of the "shortcut" didn't do much shortcutting.

I installed these two Windows apps as a test, a prelude to working to get Office 2016 and Videopad to run in a "bottle" - of "Wine" or whatever, probably using Winboat later (since neither of the first two emulators seems fit for purpose). After hours of these simple Windows apps unreliably and erratically opening (and then not opening at all) it didn't look very encouraging at all.

The real deal-breaker with Zorin was that I wasn't able to get it to see other PC shares on my network. I never got round to trying Winboat (or is that "Winbloat"? Apparently there's a string of other parasitic apps that users need to install just to get THAT one to work!) because if the network didn't pick up, there was no point. I got to grips with the settings on Zorin, and I have to say it looks acceptable and possibly useful, and fairly pleasant to navigate. If I could only... just get it to do what I fucking needed it to do! Sadly not.

You see, I need to have the same apps available on Linux as I do on Win 10. Not ersatz substitutes - THE actual apps. Some of the apps I use DO have Linux ports or exact versions made for Linux - like Winamp does (yes, I know) and VLC and OBS studio - but the rest have no substitutes. Even so, all of that was pretty moot because two different flavors of Zorin refused to access network shares on our Win 10 PCs. Nothing I tried, after watching way too many how-to Zorin videos and reading tutorials and applying all suggested fixes (yes, even using that fucking terminal) changed that. Alas, after battling with Zorin for two late nights, I finally decided it was a good option to just 'fuck this' and move on to another distro.

It was AnduinOS's turn next - two whole different versions of it, each with a name that I couldn't decide was meant to be witty or clever, or just odd. Noble Numbat was the first, and the second was Questing Quokka. Cute. Not only was it simple and pretty to look at, but it detected my network right away. And there the good news ended. Yes, it saw the shares on the network alright - it just wouldn't let me access them! But wait, there's more - it got even worse! Although Anduin ran fine as a pre-install demo, it wouldn't finish installing to either of the drives in that laptop. Towards the end of the installation, it suffered fatal errors three times with both different versions I tried, even with the help of partitioning tools, changing BIOS settings and all. So that was it for AnduinOS.

Speaking of which... Am I the only person alive who thinks it's pretty damn sus that a guy currently working as a software engineer for Microsoft is sitting at the head of a supposedly competing Linux brand, luring Windows users away from Microsoft - and how he somehow not only hasn't been fired yet? How about how blatantly obvious it is, that AnduinOS is more than likely a 'plant' that actually belongs to Microsoft lock, stock and barrel? But wait, as I do so often, I digress!

Coming back to my search for viable Linux distros, I did have a look around for more new promising ones, but in vain. As for the two versions of Zorin and two versions of AnduinOS, if it won't meet my criteria (the least of which is to install on my old spare laptop!) I'm not willing to try it on another of my systems.

As far as I'm concerned, Linux is still a glib salesman's empty promise - with all the connotations that association implies. Yes, it looks very shiny, it can even game under the right conditions, and it can probably be useful - provided you only need what it is able to do, and no more than that. But - if you expect to find what you already have on other OSes for productivity desktop use, you're likely to be disappointed.

If I can think of one word to describe Linux, it would be "underfeatured". "Over promoted" would be another close second. You can see it in the options, in the context menus, and also in every way it continues to try to compare itself with Windows.

So, to the people out there peddling that "switch to Linux now!" bicycle - keep on peddling. If I ever do make a switch to Linux, it's going to have to improve by leaps and bounds first.

I'm not hating on Linux - or on the people who make it. Far from it - they've done a brilliant job in getting it this far. I mean, it looks about as good as Windows does now, especially without all the ads, bloat and spyware. All they have to do now to seriously scare their competition, is make it actually live up to all the hype and do all the same things Windows can do - and as far as I'm concerned, they still have quite a way to go on that part.

I'll try this exercise again maybe this time next year, with anything else that comes out in the meantime. Or maybe not. Seems I'm going to be sticking with Windows 10 for now - but on my own terms: Windows 10 (X-lite Optimum) with all the spyware and bloat removed, and all "updates" blocked permanently.

It just works. No drama.

From Altars to Outrage: The Strange South African Devotion to Bigotry and Moral Panic

2025-11-14T01:21:00.000-08:00

It really has me beat why so many South African Christians worship at the altar of Charlie Kirk. Yes, I know it's been two months, and he's been the most well-behaved he's ever been - but still it seems some people can't help but bring him up in conversations with me, for some weird reason. Perhaps they know it will result in some sort of confrontation, as it inevitably did.

And so I just had an interesting "debate" with one such individual who denied insistently that the guy was "so full of love" and wasn't a racist transphobic scumbag who wanted people like me - for all intents and purposes, dead.

Seems that even when you can show verbatim quotes of his own words, they say you're "mistaken" and "taking that out of context". You just didn't understand him, apparently, even when he was saying the most incredibly offensive racist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic things - the fault was yours, not his. Sound familiar?

I honestly don't know how to "contextualize" blatant racism, sexism and transphobia so that it isn't racist, sexist or transphobic - or blatant? Unless you believe he "didn't mean any of it"? In which case, why would you even have listened to him? What would attract you to hang off the lips of a man whom - you claim - said a lot of things he didn't apparently mean? And I mean, a LOT.

Just as I thought, that made no sense at all. None. About as much sense as Elon Musk claiming that education is a waste of time - he already has all the necessary knowledge and expertise to support whatever he says or does because he has qualified experts on his payroll. That makes about as much sense as someone claiming that standing in a church makes them a Christian, in as much as standing in a garage would make them a car. But I digress.

Conversing with this sort of person is like trying to communicate meaningfully with someone who lives in a completely different dimension or reality without any common frame of reference - and possibly while accomplishing amazing feats in mental gymnastics. Facts don't matter. Facts are just "woke libral nonsense". It makes my head hurt.

People like Trump - and Kirk, drive moral panics because they are the source of moral panic narratives. Locally, we have our own examples like former heart-throb and pop-star turned pulpit-pilot, Heinz Winckler, pushing the same horrific right-wing (aka Nazi - call a spade a spade) bullshit through a religious filter into the eager, wide open beaks of their audiences, waiting like hungry chicks ready to swallow any old nonsense they regurgitate. And then it was Kobus Jonker who came up...

Colonel Kobus Jonker (almost typo'd "Honker" there again, as I usually do. Must be a Freudian slip!) "did lots of good things", "he knew what he was talking about," I was told. No, he didn't. And that's the crux of the matter right there. Ignorance. He was ignorant of the facts, he was a Christian zealot wearing a police uniform conducting his own personal witch hunt against the phantom of pseudo-Satanism - but his professional position gave him the credibility and platform to become an idol to these sort of gullible people. They know no more than Kobus Jonker how mistaken they are, but he was confidently wrong when he was still actively crusading to spread his disinformation about occultists to anyone who would give him the time and a platform - as are his fans and followers today.

When you try to correct these people on their claims or beliefs, they decline to listen. Their ears slam shut like your words will infect them with reason or doubt, or both. Either is like poison to indoctrination, of course.

Jonker did not know anything about religious Satanism. He was never a Satanist, he was never an occultist, nor did he ever claim to have been. He did however proudly state numerous times that he was a Christian - but even as a Christian, he apparently never received religious schooling or training at a bible college on the subject of Satanism or the occult as a subject - not that it would've been accurate, unbiased or objective even if he had. No, his knowledge of "Satanism" was distilled through decades of indoctrination into evangelicalism, and disinformation accumulated from exposure to an echo-chamber of moral panic material, the likes of which included the conspiracy-theory nonsense novels and fantasies peddled by Christian anti-Satanist activists and Christian fantasy writers, taken at face value and cited as sources in his own books casting Satanism in the same fantastic conspiratorial vein.

What "good" did he do? Sure, he caught a few vandals and other assorted criminals - as I would expect any worthwhile policeman to have done - but I think the little bit of "good" he may have done as a policeman is far overshadowed by the harm he did as a religious zealot wearing a badge. What harm? Well for starters, from his official platform in law enforcement, he stigmatized a whole swathe of South African society who didn't conform to conservative Afrikaner Christian nationalist norms. He reinforced the misguided and preposterous notion that homosexuality and "gender confusion" (transgender) were a result of demonic influence. He fostered and fanned the flames of the "satanic panic" hysteria of the 1990s and 2000s, in which music, children's toys, games and TV shows were part of some dark and malevolent satanic agenda to overthrow Christian governance and society. Martial arts sports like Karate, Yoga and even meditation were demonized - literally, and stigmatized within Christian influence. A police unit, specialized in persecuting and policing religions was established to pander to his crazy obsession - and it still exists up to this very day. Even as recently as in 2016, Jonker was still appearing on radio talk shows and doing presentations at churches of his "expertise on Satanism" - a subject he truly know very little about - and was celebrated and praised for it.

You see, had Jonker been any kind of actual "expert on Satanism" he would've realized that the "Satanism" he believed was this huge existential threat to "Christian society" and some massive underground criminal enterprise - was really just "reverse Christianity" copied from the moral-panic narratives pushed from Christian pulpits (and I daresay by himself) - and not actual religious Satanism at all, and that the "crimes" he claimed were so integral to Satanism as a religion are incompatible with Satanism as a religion.

Worse still, had any of the scholars or academics in their own various fields known anything at all about Satanism as a religious identity themselves, they would likely not have so easily promoted, rubber-stamped or cited him or his publications as "factual" or "accurate" representations of Satanism, Paganism - or African traditional religious beliefs and practices, which were so readily equated with "devil worship" - and in the Christian sense. Religious bias has clearly played a role in this mischaracterization, and this has had real-world consequences for many, if not all South Africans still affected by the ongoing, often resurgent "satanic panic" to this day.

The irony here - for me at least - is that the people idolizing these figures and defending them from criticism know as little, if not actually less - about the subjects their idols criticize or incite hostility against.

Take the recent rise in hostility against transgender people for example - driven by individuals exactly like Charlie Kirk, and followed eagerly by masses of followers. Do any of these people actually know anything personally about being transgender? Have they cared enough to consult any medical or scientific research explaining the subject? What makes people trans? What does trans mean? How is life for trans people? Have they read any of the studies or findings and reports - especially the ones that allay fears and rubbish the hype and propaganda nonsense? Typically not - but they would rather lend their ears out to populists preaching lies and hate about transpeople that feed into age-old biases and prejudices, often rooted in religious disinformation and propaganda stereotypes - than bother with that "woke science garbage". Because being ignorant and stupid is patriotic - in the Christian-nationalist sense.

Coming back to these sort of Christian idols as a group that features at the center of the modern Christian personality cult - more specifically the modern iterations who occupy the center stage of their awareness, like Charlie Kirk. It's amusing how so many things these Christian idols, bigots and hatemongers say are "taken out of context" when they come home to roost, isn't it? Even when they're presented in black and white.

It's very telling of cognitive dissonance. Reality contradicts their delusion, so reality doesn't count.

Some of these people, typically the ones who have completely lost objectivity along with their ability to think, let alone critically, try to separate themselves from "other Christians". They do so, claiming to be "not just any Christians - the only true Christians!" Of course, this comes at the cost of looking down on other groups that also call themselves "Christians", for example Catholics... I've come to realize that they are really one of their favorite targets, not so? Oh, Catholics aren't "real, true Christians" - but THEY are? What makes them think their version of fantasy is any more legitimate than anyone else's? Because they believe it?

If they believe they can fly, would that belief be any more realistic than a kid launching themself off a roof with wooden planks strapped to their arms - or will they smash into the ground below and injure themselves?

And while strife, resentment and competition between various Christian sects, cults and "denominations" is certainly not new by any means, these ones call themselves "Christians"... and yet they worship at the altars of Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk and Israeli genocide - and very tellingly, the one figure glaringly absent from their version of "Christianity" is the Christ it is named after - replaced by "Republican Jesus" who has been imported straight outta 'Murica - with all the holy bigotries and sanctimony and hypocrisy reminiscent of that origin.

This bizarre religious fundamentalist, anti-science, delusional, paranoid MAGA mindset has been fed to them through the decades-old pipeline of disinformation, propaganda and indoctrination stemming from American evangelicalist influence that has radiated outwards from the USA for almost a century.

This is why I often warned that so-called evangelism and "church planting" are a toxic menace to society, just like one idiot pissing in a well ruins the drinking water for the entire village.

It's nothing but a cult. A cult of personality.

We Can Do Without Religion

2025-10-21T05:34:00.000-07:00

The West has a habit of looking down on anyone else, doesn't it? Its self-appraisal almost always tends towards elitism and the perception that the West is the most advanced and superior in all aspects above others. Of course, might makes right, doesn't it? Historically speaking - for the past 800 years or so, more or less, the countries of Europe combined with the new kid on the block (the USA) have, as "the West" embodied that concept.

Taking that into consideration, I think that fundamental view or belief is what underlies white supremacy, at its very core, as can be seen from resultant ideologies that today we call "right wing".

The tendency for one group to view itself as superior to others for whatever reason, as if we are all involved in some sort of competition with an invisible goal and invisible prizes.

Yet beneath it all, religion has lain at its root all along, as it did when it justified one tribe's destruction of another - just as much as it drove events like the European colonization of the Americas for example - and when both sides in WW1 confidently claimed "God is with us" and then annihilated the fuck out of each other.

Religion is like a hammer, anyone can pick it up and wield it. Neither the one wielding it, nor the ones it is wielded against, can define it as anything more than that - a tool, an implement. A weapon.

Religious studies is an interesting field - and not just because of all the big words that get used - such as "polemic" and "epistemic" (if you don't know what they mean, look them up - I had to). That said, I believe one of the reasons why there is (still) no uniformly agreed upon definition of religion, is because no religion is exactly the same, and since (probably a generalization here) each religion views itself as the "one true religion" and others as false, the same holds true for their own views on what constitutes religion. I mean, from my personal experience, I've rarely encountered a Christian anti-Satanist activist who's ever reacted to, addressed, or recognized Satanism as a religion. No, they perpetually use the small-case 's' to denigrate what they view as a non-genuine religious pretender, a usurper - a competitor, even. But I digress.

Religion, supposedly, began in the form of animism - back in our distant, supposed cave-dwelling prehistory, when we stood - as our modern, somewhat more hairy cousins have only begun to now - beside the body of a dead friend or relative and wondered as a commune, what to do with it?

Is religion - even its most "advanced", "complex" and "complicated" forms - not really just that primitive, fundamental superstition run amok? The basal fears that engendered rituals of crossing rivers only on *this* side, rather than on *that* side, for example, to avoid ill luck - evolved into more complex systems with all the bells and whistles that make it what it is today? Libraries filled with scriptures, musings, speculations, madrashes and addenda supporting an overburdened, over-complicated self-aggrandizing machine bogged down by the bloat of centuries of lore, and stumbling over its own self-importance?

My personal appraisal of religion is a critique of the state of the world as it is. I view religion as a symptom of mental illness, a flaw rather than as a feature; a crutch, a scapegoat for blame or for justification of omissions or shameful acts. I see religion as a willing tool of the powerful to control the multitudes, a weapon of the colonizer, employed to subvert and undermine human thought, reason and independence, designed to force compliance, cajole obedience and impose conformity. This is a cliché' I'm sure, but I think it is also true.

How do I view my role as a scholar in the field of Religious Studies? I feel that part of it is to understand religion and humanity's obsession with it - and part of it is to assist in weaning humanity of that obsession - to help it kick the crutch as it were.

Yes, there are many different religions, gods, faiths and superstitions, many from different cultures, and many which have crossed cultures - but to me, they all symbolize the same thing - delusion, in the contexts of both the "mass-delusion" and "self-delusion". A salve to soothe our guilt or make us feel better, like the fabled "chicken soup for the soul", and a motivation to achieve, obey, or conform on the promise of - whatever rewards they tell us await us on the other side. The most aggravating part of this is that nobody really knows for certain what is on the other side, or if there even IS an "other side" to this life.

Which also reinforces my feeling that religion is not only delusion and deception, but also built upon insincerity and malice. If nobody knows, how can anyone claim to be so certain that what they believe - no matter how intensely or sincerely, holds any actual truth?

I think religion (especially Abrahamic religion) fetishizes free thought, non-conformity, or dissent as "original sin" - which largely constitutes things which are natural, or come by way of nature. Take homosexuality for example - or transgender. Science has provided answers and explanations for these already, but even so, some religions persist in hostility towards LGBTQ+ people, using themselves to justify their intolerance, hatred and even violence - even though doing so flies in the face of reality, common decency - and in fact, human nature itself.

For me it's always been amazing how we humans, as supposed thinking animals, have used thought to limit ourselves; to build prisons of thought for ourselves and for others - little artificial cages of empty ritual and meaningless limitations lined with lists of do's and don'ts, and creating hierarchies of righteousness/holiness/purity/deity and etc. as if to satisfy those ancient fears and superstitions that cause us to step wide of cracks in the pavement and avoid walking underneath ladders.

I see religion as embodying that prison, confining us, stifling our growth - even in an age where not everyone is religious, but we are surrounded by enough who are religious for this to affect everyone. For humans to grow as a whole, we need to shed those bonds, exit that prison, grow beyond those artificial limitations, and eventually, to reach adulthood.

Linux - Still Not The Life Raft It Thinks It Is

2025-10-10T03:06:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have been talking about Windows 10 reaching so-called "end of life" by its creator, Microsoft - and a lot of them have been encouraging Windows users to migrate to Linux. Like many out there, I've had my fill of corporate bullies and fascist technocrats presuming to lay claim to my data and own and profit off my productivity, and especially the advertizing spy and bloatware crap that Uncle Bill has stuck into recent offerings of Windows - made worse by so-called "security updates".

Given the passing of time, I've oft considered alternatives. I would never in my wildest nightmares even consider moving on to Windows 11 (or 12, if or whenever that comes out one day), for example. But I have considered numerous other offerings from other sources, preferably open ones.

In the meantime, I've watched dozens of videos by Linux pundits singing its praises and saying enticing things like "you almost never have to even use the terminal if you don't want to" and comparing various versions and flavors of the open-source OS with regards to how easily Windows users could switch over to it in order to wean themselves off their nasty, self-harming Windows habit.

Not for the first time has it occurred to me that these frothing evangelists for Linux - pasty-faced prophets of the Terminal, act exactly like the militant vegan activists who demand that everyone substitute eating bacon for munching on grass.

I've been around a while y'know - I've heard all those arguments by now. Not that I totally disagree - I've just been hoping for viable alternatives to the Gates empire to materialize for YEARS. Hell, in the last 30 years or so, I've actually installed a plethora of wannabe Windows challengers - from Lindows and BeOS, to Android, Chrome OS, Kolibri OS and Haiku - and yes, even Linux. In fact, I installed dozens of flavors and iterations of Linux over the years in the hopes of finally leaving the Windows platform behind - with the most recent time being last year. Alas, still to no avail - after a week of frustration and inability to do anything productive, I reinstalled Windows 10. And I'm glad I did.

Yup. Linux.

It's not that doesn't look attractive, it's not that it doesn't come with all the bloatware, spyware and junk that Windows 10 and 11 comes infested with that we wish it didn't, and it's not that it can't install apps easily enough once you've figured out the awkward, clunky Linux way of doing anything, and it's certainly not its noticeable speed advantage on older systems over anything that ever left Bill Gates' little kingdom.

Here's the thing with Linux that puts me off leaving Windows 10: apps. As in, there are literally THOUSANDS of apps for Linux - but when it comes to specifics, let's say replacements for productivity software like MS Office? Real, serious, actual replacements that can each do everything that the original can do?

Yes there are free office-like suites for the OS, quite a few of them. I tried all the ones I could find - and "Only Office" came closest of all of them - but still no cigar... because none of them do all the same things MS Office can do. Just as a 'for example', none of them can save a Powerpoint (or whatever they call it in Linux) presentation into a video format with sound, and the features and in-app menus and options are bare-boned and lacking. And there's no port of MS Office for Linux, don't think I didn't look EVERYWHERE. There is one for Apple though - but I'd sooner jump off a skyscraper wearing a coyote suit with an anvil strapped to my back than switch to that overpriced, underfeatured trash.

Changing to Mac to get away from Windows is like a slave leaving one master to serve another - Apple may be smaller than Microsoft, but it is little different in terms of working towards holding a captive market and building an ecosystem that is as difficult to leave as they can possibly manage.

There there are other apps, like Videopad and the accompanying NCH media suite that cater exclusively for the Windows platform, or Windows and Macintosh - but offer no ports for Linux. And iPhotoPlus 4, the really ancient, basic photo editing program I use, won't run on Linux either.

Linux aficionados will handwave the discomfort and inconvenience away and just point you to the various repositories of Linux "equivalents" and claim there are plenty of replacements. Sure, but what if I don't like them? Or what if they're too different to the ones I like to use? What if the whole damn thing just rubs me the wrong way?

What's that? Use an emulator, you say? Ah! Emulators!

There are indeed emulators for Linux, like "WINE" and "Bottles" - cute, I see what they did there - but they don't work for most of the apps I tried running on Linux, including Office. Mostly the apps I tried would crash, malfunction, or wouldn't even open. Many of them would simply disappear once I managed to get them installed, never to open - or be seen again. To me, that was the deal-breaker. I do everything on Office, you see - from graphic design, illustrations, to building elements for my videos - and not to forget writing my books and papers for academic work. If I don't have that, I don't really have a use for a computer at all - no matter what OS is installed on it.

And there's the rub - the thing I think all these corporate types, marketers, planners and strategists - and Linux influencer bros have lost sight of. Nobody buys a computer just for the OS it comes with. What makes people want, buy or use computers is the reassurance that the apps they need or are familiar with will work on them. If a brand new PC or laptop comes preloaded with Windows 11, what do I do? Just settle for Windows 11? Hell no - format and reload with Windows 10, baby!

As for Linux, if they want to really make a proper dent in the market and replace Windows (and I hope they do - Microsoft really needs taking down) they're going to have to make Linux - and its APPS - a lot more like the things it longs to replace.

None of that faffing about with terminals in Unix. Just pointy, pointy, clicky clicky. And apps that can do the same things no matter which OS platform you're using.

So until the time that happens... no. Sorry, Linux.

I'll stick with my modded copy of Windows 10 X-Lite, thanks.

But... but... updates! All those security updates you won't get anymore!

Ssh. Be quiet, screeching ones - I disabled those horrible pointless updates years ago. There are also easy ways to debloat, decrapify and despyware a Windows installation... And everything works fine - my PC is mine and so is everything on it. We continue, regardless.

And lastly, penguins - stop trying to be fuckin' fancy - the correct pronunciation is "lee-nucks", not "lynn-icks". ;) Besides, here in South Africa, we tend to say "Lie - nucks".

I'm Done With Warnings

2025-09-09T03:05:00.000-07:00

Holy fuck. The trans community. Or at least, portions of it.

Try to warn some people that their house is on fire, and not only will they throw stones at you for being an annoyance, for pointing out the obvious, or for misunderstanding your motives for warning them, but they will then launch into personal attacks, character assassinations and even issue threats.

Like, what are you going to do to me from the USA, dahling? Throw a ballistic handbag at me? Call me names? Send me some sternly worded hate mail?

Some people don't like to hear the truth, and can't handle it when they do hear it. Why should I have to sugar-coat the warning "y'all are going to end up in concentration camps if you don't pack up and move somewhere else that's safe"?

But apparently I'm an arsehole for caring. And even when I'm warning people of what's happening and what's coming, I get accused of "rubbing their noses in it", and for "thinking I'm superior" to others.

Tell people on the road that the bridge is out, and some people will drive all the way to the break - or even risk sliding over it - just to see if you're telling the truth. Well, that's human nature I guess.

So no worries, there'll be no more warnings from me to the US trans community, no more pleas or admonitions to get outta Dodge. No more appeals for you to save yourselves. If you think you and your one AR15 and two clips of ammo can fight off ICE and the National Guard and the AFT or whatever acronyms Trump hurls at you, why should I argue? Y'all think you've got this - who am I to disagree? I'm just a stupid South African (and "not a kind person") after all, who has spent the last couple of years warning Americans about the trap they've spent years digging - and took a flying swan-dive into.

Please excuse me for giving a fuck about my trans siblings over there. But - lesson learned - as of now, I'm done. I'm glad there were some who listened to the warnings given by me and many others, who relocated on their own, or with their families. I'm glad you're safe, I'm glad you got out.

As for the rest, I've given you my last warning. You didn't listen. You made excuses. You minimized. You rationalized. And instead, you attacked me for giving a fuck about you. Now I sit back and watch.

See you in the headlines.

Lines In The Sand

2025-09-06T23:36:00.000-07:00

Dear Americans, I've lost count of the number of times Trump has committed "impeachable offenses" in the past 8 months (not to mention during the fiasco that was his first tenure) - and the number of times outraged opponents and social activists have said "imagine if Obama/Clinton/Biden did this?!"

As if that somehow constitues some form of "red line" that others dared not cross previously. However, that analogy has become useless - because it's increasingly evident to me that the so-called line is simply one drawn in the sand, as on a beach... and every time Trump and his backing party takes up the challenge and steps across it, all the opposition seems to do is simply redraw another equally facetious line in the sand.

In the past 8 months since taking office, Trump's second term has taken the USA (and the world) closer to the brink of nightmarish dystopian horror than it has been since the entirety of the Second World War.

Global economic and trade chaos results from his idiotic and self-deprecating "tariff war", destabilizing the entire Western economic bloc, and driving support from countries who have all been historically tied to the Dollar as "reserve currency" since the 1940s - to BRICS. Some BRICS countries have already abandoned the USD and have begun to trade with each other in their own currencies, which gives them economic independence, with other advantages - but that's all beside the actual point. Suffice it to say that I think that's a good thing, because the world actually needs to be freed from the bonds of the "American Empire", for the good of all concerned.

Right now, there are US warships threatening Venezuela - for no other reason than the USA's orange dictator, the human-trafficker in chief, Donald Trump, sent them - and without Congressional approval - because he's already proven that he can break the law with impunity, and now operates on the understanding that he has unlimited power.

And here's the thing: because he gets away with it, and because nobody has stopped him, he's right. He does have unlimited power, because no American - in the form of an organization, body, colective or individual - has clarified that he doesn't.

So he can even wave a hand, and as if by magic, make evidence of his past crimes just disappear. What Epstein Files? Of course he's innocent - he has the receipts to prove it... as if buying off witnesses is proof that innocence can be bought - like the cheaper eggs he promised on his insipid campaign trail.

Meanwhile, things for the ordinary American continue to worsen. Skyrocketing prices. Loss of international trade. Loss of human rights. Domination by actual fascists who make unjust and unconstitutional decisions and laws without consultation. The crackdown on academic freedoms, and the elevation of science denialism and anti-intellectualism. The glorification of stupidity. All amid fanfares of flag-waving nationalistic insanity. And while the US decline turns into an accelerating death-spiral, the rest of us, watching, are wondering... just what will it take for you to reach that point where "enough is enough"?

Having unlimited power - and waving your hand to make things happen - can be a heady rush no doubt, and so while he's made a vast amount of brown-skinned people disappear in the past 8 months, it won't end there.

You've watched migrant workers - documented and undocumented - being dragged away to concentration camps in foreign countries by ICE thugs, and people of color - and even actual US citizens. Now they're coming for transgender Americans - and then the gays, and who knows who after that? Feminists? Non-right-wing "Christians"? You honestly haven't put up much of a fight so far, because they're still doing it - and they've already made Niemoller's "First they came" into an eerily and horrifyingly accurate prediction.

You really need to look at how other people deal with uppity governments for guidance - you seem a little lost and confused. Look at how the French make their country ungovernable during disputes about issues affecting the people. In South Africa, angry, outraged masses brought down the apartheid government by making the entire country ungovernable - and that was even before the internet and social media like we have today. Look at what happened recently in Indonesia? That's what I and the rest of the world are hoping to see from you.

But instead, all you do is waffle on about "primaries" and "the next election", and the latest cheeky post by Gavin Newsom - who is cut from the same cloth as any transphobic Republican, and might as well put on a red tie.

You still seem to be clinging onto some vain pathetic hope that "everything will work out" in the end. As if by magic, it will all be set right at the next election.

It's too late for that - they already control everything. And every step of the way, you've reacted with shock and outrage as Trump and the GoP went on a complete rampage, gutting the civil service. You oohed and ahed as Trump's then bestie, billionaire bottom-feeder and Nazi-sponsor Elon Musk set up DOGE and tangoed through governmental buildings, hijacking databases and firing everyone inside. But, as a nation, you did nothing about it.

They've fired all opposition from key positions in all levels of government. They own the judiciary, they own the military, law enforcement agencies, and the mainstream media. They will never lose another key election because they control the structures that determine "free and fair" elections. When Trump says "shit!" his slavishly loyal minions ask "what color would you like, Mr. President?"

The time for trying to subvert the system by using the system, ended months ago.

Even his declining health and inevitable approaching death won't change anything, because the Rep Party is the real enemy behind him. And Vance and Johnson are far, far worse: Where Trump is just a semi-conscious, waning con-artist and grifter - they are younger, healthier, sharp, focused, and motivated by hate, ambition and religious extremist zeal. They will want to leave their own bloody marks on the pages of history - and his death will actually unleash more horrors than you will know what to do with.

When what you need is what's called "mass action", it's bitterly disappointing to watch an entire nation that was supposedly raised on democratic values like justice and equality for all, and whose citizens own more private firepower than the entire armies of some small countries - especially after decades of movie-culture that detailed how American patriots would stand up to oppressive governments - only to see them just meekly roll over and spread 'em for fascists, and delude themselves with "we'll beat 'em next time at the polls" pie in the sky. Insert pointless waffle about "a blue wave" here. Go on, I dare you.

The truth is - that all you guys are doing now, is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

As we say here in South Africa, "Talk is cheap - but money buys the whiskey!"

Meaning - nobody's coming to save you. You have to save yourselves. But that takes action. The less you move or resist, the harder their grip will become. Just sitting there is what they want from you - while they squeeze down harder, tighten the nooses around your necks and bonds around your wrists and ankles, gag you, and drag more of you away.

And you're just lying there, making comparisons.

Stop twitching - and do something!

The Western Lie Unraveled: Why I Condemn Israel, Not Hamas

2025-08-28T00:04:00.000-07:00

If you've been following my social media posts, you will know that I've been an ardent critic of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Even so, there's something I need to get off my chest, and it's something I've been carrying with me for a while now. Please bear with me a minute.

I wish to state for the public record, that back in 2023 when Oct 7 happened and Israel began it's open bloody genocide in Gaza, I was still very much under the influence of most Western media and the narrative that Hamas were "terrorists", an "illegitimate" wannabe government pushing for an independent state in the middle of Israel, and essentially just a band of troublemakers and malcontents - as Israel had spent the last 80 years telling everyone. At the start, I was somewhat horrified by the publicized attacks by Hamas on "innocent Israelis".

But something was very "off" about the whole thing.

For starters, for the first time seemingly, those of us on the outside were able to see into the darkness. For the first time I was able to see the hatred both sides had for each other. Then the reality set in - Israel was a literal "apartheid state", with Palestinians being the oppressed, with Israeli's being the elite, entitled and favored people under Zionist rule. While I could understand reasons for Palestinian resentment towards Israelis, I struggled to grasp the source of the hatred and utter contempt the Israelis held for the Palestinians. Oodles of videos did the rounds showing wealthy Israeli families mocking the suffering and poverty of Palestinians.

For some years, Palestinians were shown in brief one-sided news clips, throwing stones at IDF tanks - and getting shot for it. Like a stone bouncing off armor plate somehow constituted any kind of threat. But that was only a foretaste of what was to follow. What began to unfold on the world stage, with seemingly unprecedented independent media interest and coverage showed the stark, bare, awful truth.

How do you shoot children and non-combatants, bomb entire city blocks filled with any number of civilians - and call it "self-defense"? As a former soldier who was educated in the concept of war crimes, I was filled with horror and outrage! What kind of soldier would do that? Nazis perhaps. Putin's thugs invading Ukraine, definitely. But we were told to believe that Israel's IDF were a highly efficient, disciplined, professional army - I didn't see that in what they were doing in Gaza. What I saw was war-crime after war-crime being documented live on TV, bombing after bombing, deliberate targeting of hospitals, journalists and their homes, infrastructure - the isolation by cutting off the internet and water, group punishment, famine - with excuse after excuse - and then after a while, everything was just hand-waved away as it escalated into a full-blown ethnic cleansing exercise - while the West turned a blind eye and called it a "war". Mainstream Western media - the CNN's, the BBC's - all carried on business as usual, news of Gaza shown from a pro-Israeli perspective while employing "both-sideism" to make out as if the victims of 80 years of oppression, dispossession and being herded off their properties into "reservations" like Gaza and the West Bank were unreasonable for not wanting to leave Palestine voluntarily to the Israeli colonizers.

Meanwhile, racism and xenophobia blossomed in the UK in response to anti-genocide protests. As of this past month, it is now ILLEGAL in the UK to protest against GENOCIDE. To employ an Americanism, if I may, let that sink in for a minute, just how fucking UNHINGED that is.

Unsurprisingly, the cries of the innocent fall onto the earth like fertilizer, and instead of eliciting compassion, hatred grew instead. Now, in August 2025, after three years of brutal genocide covered as a "war", with the US and UK supplying the IDF with weapons and backup, Israel is gearing up to hasten the last stage of its own "final solution" to wipe out the remaining Palestinians, overtake all of Palestine, and make it into "Greater Israel". On the sidelines, the bloated orange American dictator Donald J. Trump, claps like a seal as he envisions new franchising opportunities for another line of future failed businesses, casinos and hotels marked with a capital "T" - the true "mark of the Beast", if ever there was one. On the sidelines, UK PM Keir Starmer, smiles sheepishly trying not to be seen and looking like he really doesn't want to be there at all, but lacks the spine to tell Mango Musselini to fuck off and cut the last apron strings with the collapsing American Empire before it drags the UK down with it.

The world watches in stunned outrage and literal awe while global politicians rise in turn to shuffle their feet and make hollow statements containing words like "condemn", as though just to be seen to have said something against Israel's obvious crimes against humanity. But words don't matter a damn when used against bullets and bombs. Especially when nobody has the courage or moral fiber to act on them.

A war has two sides. This was never a war - it's always been a genocide. Israel has always been about colonizing Palestine, dominating the Middle East, building a "Greater Israel" - and wiping out anyone who opposes them. And as long as the Zionists remain in charge, that will never, ever change.

When first condeming Israel's then perceived heavy-handed reaction in Gaza back in 2023, I was confronted by angry pro-Israeli activists on social media who demanded of me: "yes, but do you condemn Hamas?"

It seemed so vital to them, that no matter what evil, monstrous thing Israel had done in Gaza to Palestinians, that I had pointed out - it was more important to them that I verbally condemn Hamas.

I did. At that time, I did. And I feel shame for that.

But I did so because I still believed the lies I'd been told, and I did not understand for myself WHY Hamas launched the pre-emtive attacks on October 7, 2023 - but I was shaken by these events. I needed to find out the truth for myself.

And then, as time went by, I learned. I discovered how much I had been lied to - how WE had all been lied to - and not just by Israel, but by it's supporting network of insincere actors - the USA, the UK, just to name the two largest, who have acted as guardian angels for Israel over the last 80 years, running cover for them, hiding their crimes, amplifying their lies, and supplying them with resources and weapons to dominate the Middle East as their proxy in the region. And our Western media that spun the stories for them, toeing the line, keeping to the narrative - Israel = good/Palestinians = terrorists.

Over the next few months, I spoke out against Israel's genocide, I quickly stopped condemning Hamas - because frankly, I couldn't blame them. What sort of person could condemn a people who had been dispossesed, relocated time and again, dehumanized and increasingly forced off their land and into open-air concentration camps, where they and their children were shot at for sport by sadistic IDF "soldiers"? What sort of person could condemn them for fighting back? Especially if, were I in their shoes, I would do the same? I'm pretty sure you would too.

I could not. I do not.

What sort of people can cheer at videos showing children being blown up for no crime greater than collecting water? Children lying in hospital, covered in blood, missing limbs, crying for dead parents and siblings? Weeping mothers carrying the shattered, still corpses of their babies wrapped in burial clothes? What sort of human beings can see all these monstrous things and still not see how truly monstrous they truly are?

Monsters? People who have lost or abdicated away their very humanity. Indoctrinated people. That's who.

People who lack the ability to think critically and for themselves without groupthink. People who still believe the bullshit they were spoonfed for all their lives about Israel being perfect, the fairytales about Israel always being the victim, about being "God's chosen people" - all while doing the Devil's work in Palestine, and throughout the world.

Well, indoctrinated people - people who have been fooled by deliberate disinformation - can wake up to the truth. The situation there is far from as simple as "Jews versus Arabs, which side do you prefer?" as so many seem to believe.

Watching coverage of Israeli warmonger-in-chief do his usual schtick of deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie - and deflect by accusing critics of "anti-Semitism" (even when the critics are Jewish themselves) is nauseating - even more so when I notice people sit back, smile and say "See, I told you, there's no genocide - Israel's only defending itself! They're within their right to do so!" Sure they are - by starving millions, bombing hospitals, shooting journalists, doctors and paramedics, and blowing up starving children.

I got banned from Twitter in 2023 - for personally telling Benjamin Netanyahu via his Twitter account that he is a war criminal who deserves the same fate as the Nazis at Nuremburg - and I'm proud I got to say that, because it's true. It may never happen, given the crooked way the world seems to work, but at least I was able to do that much. And well, I live in hope - that someday soon, an intervention will come from a nation or nations unintimidated by threats of repercussions from the USA, to halt the ongoing massacre and institute legal proceedings against all those responsible, before it's too late altogether.

As it is, Israel has itself turned the inscription above the Holocaust Museum - "Never Again" - into some sort of bizarre, sick, twisted parody. A sick joke that civilized, decent people still containing a gram or two of humanity, choke on today.

We live in an increasingly dehumanized world. That's a fact as cold as the ice in the veins of people like Nethanyahu, like Trump, like Putin - and any number of stonehearted killers in suits who make policy and law and decide when and where to wage wars and how, and who the "enemy" is. A world where politicians lie brazenly, and say stupid things all the time - and sometimes, just sometimes, their masks slip enough that they actually tell the truth - and when they do, we should believe them.

WHEN is genocide EVER justified? That is the question that outraged people should be confronting those who seemingly see nothing wrong with what Israel is doing in Gaza. How does anyone justify the unjustifiable?

Considering that I once condemned Hamas for defending their people against the horrors Israel was unleashing against them then, I feel it's necessary and overdue to publicly recant and correct that statement. Even though I have long ago learned the truth and have been a vocal activist for Palestine against Israeli aggression and oppression ever since. I am not afraid to admit that I was wrong about something - after all, that's what life is about isn't it? Learning more and growing beyond my own limitations. So here it is:

My earlier condemnation of Hamas was in error, based on misinformation provided to me at that time, and prompted by unexpected pressure to conform - both elements I reject as valid influences in my personal life and which contradict my personal ethos. To correct my earlier statement:

I condemn Israel - and Zionism, the Israeli leadership, the IDF, the Israeli people who engineered the genocide in Gaza, all those who encouraged it and all those who contributed to it - for crimes against humanity.

If you don't like that, or don't approve, well that's your problem. My statement stands, regardless. I have spoken my conscience and stand by what I believe to be right.

As we speak, Israel is ploughing the soil of Palestine with violence, suffering and death, and sowing it with the blood and bodies of the Palestinians themselves. I can only wonder what sort of crop will grow from that, but mayhap it will be a crop that rises to hungrily devour all those who sowed it.

That's all I wanted to say about that. Thanks for listening.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Amnesty concludes Israel is committing genocide in Gaza

Israel/Palestine: An Abyss of Human Suffering in Gaza

Updates: Israel attacks hospital, kills six Palestinian journalists in Gaza

Gaza: “Never again” giving way to endless decimation of displaced Palestinians, warn UN experts

Debunking Ancient Israel. GDR.

Checkers’ Smart Trolley: Convenience or Corporate Callousness?

2025-08-21T02:00:00.000-07:00

Checkers - our prime South African retailer - is trialing a new "smart trolley" that does the check-out as you put stuff in it. This means that thousands of people will very likely lose their jobs as check-out clerks and baggers. As always, it is the corporate types wearing fancy suits who think poor folk would make it on their small salaries if they just spent less, who really seem to think this sort of batshit crazy scheme is a good thing.

Because of course they do.

So here's the thing.

I opened the link to the article proudly proclaiming news of this marvellous technological innovation by the Checkers brand retail stores, which is now probably the biggest retailer in South Africa (considering it also owns the Shoprite chain and a few other smaller ones as well).

"No more queues" eh? Sounds enticing, doesn't it? But at what cost?

And you see, right there is the question that 12 year old me (who loved sci-fi and future tech) wouldn't have asked. At least, probably not right away.

You see, "progress" and "advancement" means embracing technological improvements while accommodating the human equation. What does that mean? Well, for starters, if you plan to introduce machines to do the work done by people, you need to account for how you're going to deal with the people whose roles you're making redundant. You can't just replace human workers with machines - fire the lot - and then still claim to give a shit about people - especially the people you employ.

And it seems you need to have some level of emotional maturity to think beyond the introduction of bright blinking lights and tricks and gadgets that make cute noises waved before your eyes - and to wonder what the "magician" as it were, isn't telling you. Where does the white rabbit hide before he pulls it out of his hat? Ah, those are all trade secrets, as most magicians will tell you.

It starts with queues. Everyone hates queues, don't they? Well, I'm not sure about the Brits - who claim to have invented the concept - just ask Arthur Dent - but here in South Africa, I'm pretty certain everyone despises queues. So much so that we're always inventing new was to deal with them - or even avoid them entirely.

For example, some people stand in a queue for a few minutes, then wander off to do something else, and come back hours later to tell the next person in the line that they were there before them - and insist that this somehow entitles them to push in at the head of the queue. Sure thing, mate, I was here before too - last Tuesday in fact, so what? I remember MTN introduced a system where they gave people queuing at one of their branches at Greenacres an electronic tag that would buzz and vibrate when it was finally their turn to see a consultant - and they could shuffle off and carry on shopping in the meantime. All very convenient, and it beat waiting around when you could've been doing something else.

But this is different - because these other attempts to address queuing as an unpleasant reality of dealing with shops or consultants and the like - as imperfect as they are, don't end up costing someone their job.

While being "designed to put customers in control of their shopping experience from check-in to check-out" sounds very fancy-pants, enticing and advantageous, if this will cause people to lose jobs (check out clerks and packers) - and it looks like it will - then I think this is a shitty idea.

Checkers - the parent company of Shoprite Holdings - these days is the biggest retailer in the country. They've outlived and bought out all their competition - matter of fact, they're pretty much a monopoly now. Their nearest competitors are Spar and Pick 'n Pay, and somewhere beneath that, still clinging to the veneer of "upper class" delusion, Woolworths. Interestingly enough, Checkers is the one that seems keen to outdo Woolworths with their sudden burst of fancy-pants-ness. I think it's really weird that a mass-retailer in a country so financially challenged (i.e. fucking dirt-poor, plain gesê) as South Africa is, is trying so hard to look (and charge) like it's aiming at masses of rich "consumers" who, frankly, do not exist.

Don't get me wrong: innovation is a good thing. I love technology and sci-fi and advancement and progress. But not at the cost of what is so laughingly referred to these days as "humanity". Face it, it's an all too scarce commodity these days, isn't it? I see it vanishing from the world around me day by day. I see it in scams and crappy ideas like this put forth by people who think nobody's ever thought about this before - or decided against it because of what it would do to the more vulnerable portion of "society": the poor. If you don't know who that is in this case and need that spelled out, it's the people who actually work in retail. The 6 to 10ers. The corporate slaves who work long, hard hours, including weekends and even on public holidays for little pay and even fewer benefits. The people who keep the shelves at Checkers stocked, clean and organized; the people who greet you at the till, process your payments, pack your bags, and wave you off wishing you a pleasant day - even if they don't feel like it is, has been or will be. Did anyone at Checkers HQ bother to ask them what they thought about this brilliant innovative idea?Did the suits who sit around glossy tables making big decisions pause to consider how something like this would impact their workforce? Did they consider that - if this "trial" is a success and they decide to roll it out nationwide - how many people on that workforce would be made redundant? Or did they just add up the numbers - the cost of salaries and UIF and pension contributions, sick days, leave, casual workers and insurances versus expenditure on X amount of "smart trolleys" per year - and focus on how much money they might likely save by "letting people go"?

When you say it like that, it doesn't sound as bad as it is, does it? "Letting people go". It sounds like a release of prisoners, not so? Well, while that might ironically be true in an anti-corporate and anti-capitalist sense, the reality of people losing their employment and incomes is quite different. They're not being set free - they're being condemned to the tragedy of unemployment in a country where work is scarce and finding any kind of meaningful employment is like winning the lottery.

That said, I see no mention of staff cuts - or affected staff being kept on and reskilled or redeployed to other tasks - or "let go". I see no mention of them at all. Which is somehow even worse.

I often wonder what sort of person can just sit there and arbitrarily make decisions like this - not for survival, not for progress or advancement, but for something so soulless as mere corporate profit. For a godsdamned percentage - or in the cases of middle and higher management, for the sake of rewards - promotions, a seat at the golden table, an increase, bonuses, shares in the company even. "Wow, what a good idea, Johnny, we'll save BILLIONS with this one!"

The mind boggles, doesn't it? At least mine does. But then, I think too many people these days need to be checked for a zipper at the back of their necks just to see if they're human at all, or just pretending. To me, their veins are filled with the oil that lubricates the corporate machine, or the black ink found on spreadsheets. Their eyes glisten with ambition and a coldness and absence of humanity or empathy that would give a polar bear frostbite.

But am I perhaps over-reacting? A touch too dramatic perhaps? I know I can be a tad theatrical... but... Am I? I'm sure that some would say so.

I'm sure it would be nice to have a built in scanner in the trolley to add up how much Checkers is over-charging us for sundry items, but we already have calculators on our phones don't we? Thanks very much, but for those of us who aren't too damn lazy to tap our own phone screens, that won't end up costing the customers for development and manufacturing of this fancy tech stuff that each Checkers store would need to pay for - and pass on the costs to the "consumer".

Gods, I loathe corporate-capitalist speak, don't you? It's downright demeaning - and fucking dehumanizing. People aren't people anymore, we're "consumers". When did we all agree to become that instead of people? "Clients". "Customers". Dehumanized statistics whose only purpose is to move decimal points a little to the left - or to the right, to be responsible for nothing more than fluctuations in stock prices, profit margins and statistics that drive sales charts and graphs. The size of the bonus the CEO receives come Xmas time depends on that, while the poor check-out clerks, packers and baggers wonder how the hell they're going to pay for presents for their kids this year - or school supplies, the next.

Well, I don't need a screen to tell me where the stuff I'm looking for is - chain stores keep rearranging their store layouts every few months anyway - just so we get a guided tour round the whole fucking store looking for stuff so as to entice us into emotional impulse purchasing. But that's part of the game, isn't it? Oh wait, that's a different brand - my bad. Same "game" though.

Sure, all the blinking screens, hi-tech sensors and lights might be blindingly awesome and I'm sure it looks great on your resume' being the first store in the country to institute an idea that basically meets the brutal genius on the scale of corporate greed as that idiotic "self-check-out" fiasco - but once the novelty wears off (and it always does) how will people feel knowing that the "cool" plastic screen on their trolley and their new-found "convenience" has cost an untold number of Checkers employees their jobs and incomes?

Aside from all that, have they thought about the consequences of removing the human element from the check-out process at a busy supermarket? The ludicrous "self-check-out" system faced the same challenges - for example, it relies entirely upon the honesty of the buyer to scan every item they walk out with (according to the article, shoppers still need to do this themselves manually) - or on an employee to leer over their shoulders to ensure that they do. How would Checkers account for this? Would they have a security kiosk on the way out to check till-slips to ensure everything in the "consumers" bags was scanned and paid for? Hence... ANOTHER queue anyway. I know of at least one recent incident in which a woman was almost criminally charged with shoplifting after she left a shop without scanning a box of milk she forgot was in the lower basket of her shopping trolley. Have they really thought this all through as thoroughly as they seem to think they have? This stuff all appears on my list of things that make me go "hmmmmm".

What other brilliant innovations may follow? Will adding an electronic voice to the glowing box on the handlebar of the trolley soothe the little voices of our consciences wailing about the true cost of this "innovation"? Will having Checkers' own "Alexa" give us a grand tour round the miles of shelves help us to relocate our failing or absent humanity?

You want to know what customers actually want, Checkers? Since you seem to be so out of touch with reality, I'll tell you: Customers want lower prices - especially on basics and fundamentals - not silly scifi gadgets that make real human beings unemployed and unable to feed themselves or their families, will end up costing them more anyway - and THEM guilty of supporting those soulless fuckwits who think this fucking batshit crazy and socially irresponsible lunacy is some sort of fucking improvement.

This sort of dystopian level shit wouldn't be out of place in a corporate crapitalist hellscape like the USA is, Checkers... only, this is not the USA - it's South Africa, and here we know a thing or two about treating human beings like human beings, not as percentages, or numbers - or even as commodities.

Go back to the drawing board, ShopriteX/Checkers boffins. You're drunk.

Our Nature, Our Burden

2025-08-10T03:12:00.000-07:00

That "Star Trek" future? It'll never happen. Humans don't have it in us.

Why do I say so?

Let me start at the beginning of the thought that led me down this path:

Humans want to believe they're ready to meet alien civilizations, and they can't even countenance each other, or domestic species that don't look like them... or have more then 4 appendages, or think they're better than.

Imagine the UFO door opens and a human sized spider emerges to greet the representatives of Earth... who run away screaming, shouting "kill it with fire!"

I think it's better that any alien nations watching our combative uncivilized species, keep on doing it from a safe distance.

Sadly that's what makes humans so dangerous - what we so commonly regard as our greatest strength (our diversity) is also our greates weakness. Now I'm not talking about appearances, the basal diversity of skin color (what we so laughingly call "race") or even language or culture - but diversity in psyche, awareness, conscience, morality even. What I mean is, that there is no consensus, no agreement, no "general view".

We see the proof microcosmically and macrocosmically - whether it's religion, politics, hate, fearmongering or issues of greed - or even on the evils of genocide - humans just never agree on anything, and never, ever stand totally together on anything.

Every bit of information is subjected to a game of "telephone" (or is that "telephobe", as my original typo suggested in a Ferudian way?) no matter how clearly it is disseminated, and invariably gets broken down and twisted into bizarre rabbit holes of conspiracy theories about governments lying about a, b, c (not that they aren't or don't, which makes it even worse) or about science being a "religion" or conspiracy in itself.

Governments and even scientific institutions - and even a majority of humanity may welcome an hypothetical interaction with an alien race for example, even an economic, technological or cultural exchange, but you would still have dissent - and that's a fact you can take to the bank. There would still be a clusterfuck of assorted religious nuts who would be outraged about it, and even label the newcomers or visitors "demons incarnate" just because - well, what other reasons do religious nuts need? I'm quite sure there would be a group of "truthers" and conspiracy nuts flooding YouTube with claims that the aliens would be "CGI" or fakes, just as they have claimed the Earth is flat like a disc, and that the moon landings were faked. No matter how clear the message - or how clear the evidence - there is still no convincing everyone. There would always be an undercurrent of crackpots calling it a 'conspiracy' and working to undermine that peaceful exchange with distrust and even violence.

And that's really getting to the root of the issue right there - the human race is completely fucked, just by its nature.

That "Star Trek" future? It'll never happen.

Humans don't have it in us.

Our people, that is, the majority, are too indoctrinated and too uneducated. We exist in a hive of drones and worker bees, casting aside those regarded as "unworthy" or "past their uses", focused entirely on their own self-gratification. The notion of empathy and caring for others is becoming increasingly foreign - and in case you didn't notice, lately everything "foreign" is being met with increasing hostility and derided as "wokeness". These individuals are automatons directed at identifying and isolating anything that contradicts their programming, and their first impulse is to feel threatened and to stamp it out.

Caring for others? Empathy? It's socialism! Communism! It's "WOKE!!!!"

The masses, the drones - have truly embraced Stockholm Syndrome, and are in love with a system that keeps them subservient, poor and beholden unto it. In full sympathy with the Matrix trilogy scenario, anything that endangers their "worldviews" has to be destroyed in order for them to feel secure, just to preserve their fragile, unnatural status-quo.

Never before in our histories has the dystopian hellscape we're living in been more visible, more exposed, than by the "system" - this prison we've built for ourselves - tightening down the screws as it's boundaries become stretched beyond their limits by a rising consciousness of suppressed free will and the tortured human spirit of rebellion crying out against authoritarianism!

And yet, as this system reaches its limits and may topple, this process - a beginning of the end/or an end of the beginning - lays bare all the characteristics which have led us up to this point.

Many of us long for an end to this dystopian mess we've created - albeit by proxy, or by virtue of being related to our ancestors who did most of it - even unwittingly, like ourselves - even sometimes with the best of intentions. Many of us long for a gleaming, bright future - like that we depict in pleasant fiction and fantasy, "Star Trek" and its egalitarian society being just the brightest of many stars we eye as an ultimate goal or destination - but perhaps that light may yet turn out to be just a delusion after all.

We can't (or won't) even allow anyone who doesn't wish to partake in the so-called "social contract" to live outside of it, to exist independently of it. We won't even leave those who wish to be just left alone, in peace - they must either be a part of the system, prisoners of it like the rest of us, or be destroyed or consumed by it. Our society doesn't abide loose ends. Even the outcasts of society whom we are groomed to despise, the homeless, the poor and destitute, are discriminated against still further by the removal of public amenities and their replacement with "anti-homeless architecture" in the form of spikes and blades. In recent weeks, we've even seen that horror-villain wrapped in a bubble of flabby sagging orange flesh, criminalize being left destitute by a predatory system that seeks to incarcerate them in concentration camps.

Yes, call me a cynic if you like. Deeply I yearn and hope, but I have greater doubts about it all. You see, I've seen too little of humanity's alleged "promise" of greater things to come, and too much of all it has already delivered. We're really just animals who have learned to manipulate the world around us, after all - and we do so to suit just ourselves. We have elevated the practices of deceit, subterfuge and lying to a sublime art. We dismiss our cruelty and violence with platitudes and practicalities, and argue away our accountability and blame-shift our way through our lives. We invented religion to justify the place in the world we've hijacked and occupied by force and invented the concept of "divine right" to excuse our actions, and soothe and console our consciences with that chicken soup for the soul. We even lie to ourselves, and worse, believe those lies - to the extent that we live and die - and kill, by them.

"Man's higher nature"? The desire for ALL members of human society to live in peace with others and their environment? To work for the betterment of ourselves and all beings? Invariably choosing the higher path? Willingly, deliberately choosing to act out of kindness, compassion or generosity rather than to do harm or to act out of malice, greed or ambition? That comes about in individuals, not the whole species. And even then, it is invariably individuals who have previously travelled the lower path who try to make better choices, because they understand from personal experience the bitterness of that low-hanging fruit.

Guilt and grief... regret.

And yet, to quote Shakespeare, what is done cannot be undone. Forgiveness is just a crutch to lean on when you ask for release from your accountability to those you know you've wronged.

Even so, there are those who try to do better - in spite of themselves and what they are, and yes that's a noble human characteristic to be admired, but even so, it's not a uniform, common characteristic of all of humanity - not all of us 'try'. Not all of us feel the need to - and some even actively oppose the effort, in themselves and in others. These days, it's commonplace to see praise being heaped upon those who seek to do harm to others.

Idolatry in the most negative, horrific sense - the idolization of monsters who dictate the destruction of others, glorify cruelty and the embodiment of what we've come to understand as "evil". We see it unfolding before our very eyes right now in the place we were led to believe was the bastion of democracy and human rights, only to learn that it lies behind countless examples of political instability, "regime changes" and global domination over much of the last century. Fiends in human form. Evil incarnate.

And yet while there are those who idolize all that nightmare fuel, there are those who resist and oppose it - who are filled with horror by it.

The challenge I offer you, dear reader, right here and now, is to decide which of these applies to you. Your answer - the real answer in your deepest, most honest and sincere conscience, whichever answer is yours - cannot but demonstrate the point of this exercise.

That's dualism for you. And that's humanity too. You see, most human religions (like most good human stories) are based on a dualistic view - good versus evil... "God" versus "the Devil", etc. The problem with dualism (and humanity) is, that it's part of our own nature, hence why God (and the Devil) are both created in our image. OUR image, singular. We are all humans, yes, one species - but, as individiuals - we are raised to (or just tend to) believe ourselves to be good, even if we're doing evil things, even when we're doing them to others.

How else can you explain what is happening right now in the USA? Gaza? Do you imagine that the "soldiers" of the IDF shooting children begging for food think of themselves as bad people? Or the ICE agents who brutalized a 58 year old woman selling food from a sidewalk stall? Or the Israeli (or US or UK) politicians enabling the genocide? Or the global media personalities cheering it on from the sidelines, dehumanizing their victims and their suffering, while praising those doing these things, and promoting... well, whatever it is they promote?

It's very clear they all believe they're "good" people. Doing the "right" thing - and to those they believe (or claim) are "bad people". And everyone else is, well, just wrong. And all lines, separations and divides flow from that.

That right there is the root problem with all of humanity. Our nature. The duality of it. It's in our very genes. Unlike other animals on this planet - who could be said to be barely aware, but mostly sentient - and mostly "good" inoffensive creatures just getting on with the business of surviving, eating, reproducing, and even being eaten, we humans are a different kettle of fish altogether. We do much more than that. We kill for pleasure, even when that means killing each other. Hurting other creatures and other people - in ways as nebulous as to include such mundane things as lying, cheating, theft, bullying, assault, enslavement, poisoning the environment, murder, sexual abuses and passing laws to destroy the happiness or lives of others - consumes a great portion of our daily activities. As is, it has to be said, arguing about it. Justifying it. Denying it.

The bottom line is, that we are ALL equally capable of both immense good - or incredible evil. And sometimes, even both.

The sad, tragic part is when we stop long enough to think about it, and realize that there really is another side to it all. How limited our view of reality really is - or at least, for most of us at any given time. I've long thought about the appropriate reaction to that realization, and what that should be. What it ought to be.

Despair.

Despair for humanity.

That's why I believe humanity is a flawed experiment - regardless of what you (or I) believe about our origins - and someone (whether or not that should be capitalized as "Someone") should've cleaned out that petri-dish a long time ago. It's way over fucking due!

War and greed always go hand-in-hand, don't they? It's long been a cliche' that whenever there's a war, someone profits from it - raking it in from selling the bullets, bombs - and the bandages demanded by that war, to the media coverage and ratings that bring it into our homes so we can watch politicians making light of brown skinned children being blown to bits or starved to death in far-off places, or portraying the monsters responsible for all that as heroes or "good guys" - and minimizing everyone else's responsibility for their role as a pixel in the bigger picture.

Regardless of what excuses are invented for it, there's always an ulterior motive for war: power, profit, control, land, wealth, even just a desire to mete out brute violence and cruelty - or complete annihilation... and these things together all form the foundation of our entire history, cultures and mindsets as far back as we can look in Time. We cannot just divorce ourselves from everything we did to get to where we stand, when what we're standing on is the product of all those things.

This brings us back to the aliens. The ones we hope are out there, believe are out there, and are practically a statistic certainty. The ones we've invented so many pleasant (and even unpleasant) fictions about for millennia, as our understanding of our place in the universe developed, grew - and now while we've reached a place where we realize just how small and insignificant we really are - and are now probably more confused than ever.

Back to us, as sentient, thinking beings - at least, in general terms (I've met people who have completely abdicated the ability and practice of actual thought in favor of just doing what they're told).

Within us, beauty and goodness is far too often countered and nullified by seething rage and brutal darkness. And yet that is what we are, we cannot be completely one, without the other. One of these will always prevail, and that varies between individuals among us as a whole - which will always, always divide us.

Fractured. Broken. Dysfunctional.

That is our nature. That is our burden.

We are our own worst enemy.

While we (or at least, some of us) might understand this major flaw in our own nature as sentient beings AS a flaw, that doesn't mean that it is true for other beings from other worlds - who would differ from us not only biologically, but also in other fundamental ways, socially, culturally, and psychologically.

It's unlikely, I think, that they would ever come calling to us - unless they understand this very well, and are so advanced that we pose no threat to them whatsoever - and in that case, what would it benefit them to do so?

They may very well recognize us for the dangerous predatory species that we truly are. Even from great distances. That could well be why they watch us in silence. Perhaps they are hoping we never achieve faster-than-light-travel, or whatever it is that they use - so that we may never find or reach them. Or that we may (quite possibly) annihilate ourselves in one of a multitude of spectacularly stupid and wasteful petty squabbles over land, resources or which flimsy beliefs or fantasies are right or true, before we ever reach them.

And to be frank, that's really the more likely scenario. It would be the most just and satisfying one.

And, I think, the one I prefer best.

Forsooth Diderot, Viva Chromatica

2025-08-07T02:48:00.000-07:00

In 50 more years, will those born after look back at where we are now, and think of the horrors we are witnessing today - war in Ukraine, fascism on the rise globally, the collapse of the USA and the slippage of its mask of pretend holiness - the raging, unchecked genocide in Gaza - like we look back now at the genocides committed by previous colonizing and cultures?

In South America? North America? Africa? Australia? New Zealand? Asia? In a hundred different lands, in a hundred different times, places and cultures - in a hundred different faces in black and white and grey staring back at me from pages and screens, from the other side of Time, in documentaries... their testimonies - evidence of lives that were shattered, minimized, dehumanized, ruined, forever changed and even extinguished in the hallowed names of God, Christianity and the almighty, pristine, blameless Western Civilization and its perverse denial of universal Humanity?

What will this moment in time look like from 50 more years hence? Will it be, on a day when I'm no longer here on this Earth, in Gaza then as it is in Auschwitz now? In Treblinka? In a hundred new blood-soaked ash-strewn fields of horror and tragedy yet to come? Will they be preserved as horrors and outrage against decency and what it means to be human - as indecent and imperfect beings? Or memorials of shocked humanity, as splinters, burning, lodged in ravaged Conscience? Salves and tokens to be observed, respected in ways never shown the victims? Or mocked and dismissed as "fake news" or "woke liberal fantasy" by "influencers", apologists and revisionists? Or will they be long paved over in streets of greed, hotels, pleasure palaces and gilded with obscenity and vile, vapid towers of "Progress" and amnesia, whereon nasty wealthy scabs and carbunkles frolic and play?

I look back over my years, my half century, and hold in one hand all I was taught - by teachers, histories, the general narrative, popular beliefs, and in the other - all that I have learned. The incongruities between them - the disparities - are immense and horrifying. The world I thought I lived in is revealed as a bold-faced lie, a pleasant fascade to cover up for the lies, deceit, brutality, conquest and greed that twisted the world into what it is... to protect and invent the reputations and positions of powerful white "Christian" men subject to insatiable greed - and always has been.

Beware the tools, my children, the tools of the System: "civilization", "morality", "law and order", "education", "freedom" - all these are illusions easily distorted and subverted to serve it, but most dangerously of all these, is "religion" - and those who hold the power to wield these.

Truth - in truth - is not subjective, nor objective. How we perceive it, or accept it - or not - is. But it remains true, regardless.

Diderot was right.

Please Pass the Shame: A Meal with a Side of Hypocrisy

2025-08-04T13:09:00.000-07:00

Tonight I sit in a restaurant eating a lovely meal, when a news feed on a big screen catches my eye.

1.8 million Palestinian hostages in Gaza are being starved to death by Israel. Skeletal figures appear on the screen, motionless, fading, the sparkle in eyes lined with suffering, gone. The food sours in my mouth.

Israel calls it a "military operation" and the BBC reports Netanyahu says he's going to "expand" it.

No remorse. No horror. No regrets.

The BBC calls this outrageous display of blatant genocide a "war" - despite any sign of actual combat or military resistance - and interviews the brother of an Israeli hostage - who apparently has been starved along with his Palestinian captors. Who really starved him? Is that not Israel? Of course it is.

Some "war".

But they focus on that, disingenuously, talking about the suffering of the relatives of the Israeli hostages, like their minds can't accept the disconnect between the stark, glaring horrible truth - and the lies leaving their own lips.

Like the welfare of one Israeli colonizer should actually be of interest to a global audience watching his countrymen wage an unjust and unfolding genocide... and not only is no nation, army or politician seriously trying to stop this horrific nightmare, but some are overtly, blatantly supporting Israel's fascist ambitions and genocide. Some are cracking down on public opposition to this support, labeling resistance as "terrorism" and the rhetorical favorite: "anti-semitism" - even when the protests come from Jewish lips and hearts. Nonsensical. What used to be called "the West" has lost it's collective fucking minds.

The most powerful nations on earth wage campaigns of economic intimidation and disinformation against smaller, less powerful nations who demonstrate the moral fiber of standing up for justice, and who dare to hold Israel accountable for its abhorrent actions.

And these same people want to talk about God? Invoking holiness and righteousness for themselves, their actions, and their position? Are we supposed to understand? Are sane, rational, empathic, caring human beings supposed to accept the rhetorical nonsense that Israel is somehow fully justified in cruelly shooting people trying to collect food from distribution points, and brutally starving nearly 2 million people, including children? An army - a "military operation" - wiping out thousands of innocent people? For hate's sake, for spite?

What sort of person would respect that? Or even try to justify the unjustifiable?

There is no god. If there were a god - any god - these people would be cast into a Hell of their own making, alive, and they would deserve it.

Check please.

The Human Race Is A Psychopath

2025-07-07T00:29:00.000-07:00

Thought for the day: psychology hints at serial killers starting off with a loss or absence of empathy for others, and then working up to torturing and killing animals, before culminating in the torture or killing of humans. Isn't it interesting that this is also true for humans as a species?

As a unit - a species, a collective group - whatever you want to call it, we torture and kill millions of animals per year - some for food, some for "sport", and some for no worthwhile reason at all - and it's all hand-waved away, excused and perfectly justified. We also torture and kill millions of our own kind per year - in concentration camps, purges, acts of persecution, by murder, and in wars and genocides, whether through direct action or direct inaction. And it too, is all excused, and justified, and then neatly packaged, audited, filed away and forgotten about. We go to our temples, churches, parks, or whatever places we go to find peace and absolution - and sleep soundly at night, unperturbed by our blood-soaked hands.

The human race is a psychopath. Cruelty is our currency. Indifference a salve for our guilt. Religion provides both an opiate and motivation to rinse, repeat, do it all again.

So here's my question to you: What makes humanity worthy of continuity? What makes us deserving of life? Existence? The fact that some of us imagine we are "created in the image" of whatever fantasy deity we think made us?

Is it because we build things? Make music? Paint? Create art? Or is it because we also put the gifts nature bestowed upon us in the form of opposable thumbs and swollen brain-cases to other arts, more martial, malicious, and destructive in nature - and for some reason, equally celebrate both extremes - to their extremes?

Is it because some of us, at least, are plagued by guilt for actions and/or inactions that harmed others - but that this guilt itself can easily be assuaged by notions such as "forgiveness" or reduced by constructs like "moral justification", and could just as easily repeat ourselves and our actions or inactions all over again - telling ourselves that guilt is only temporary and can be shed later like a layer of old skin? Is it because we, unlike any other animal crawling, swimming or flying on this Earth, have the ability to project, displace or abdicate things like accountability, blame - and guilt - in order to justify continuing our existence?

If we were a product, we would be so flawed, so intrinsically broken that any manufacturer would recoil immediately, cry "Whoa!" - and then have every example pulled from the showroom floor and sent to the crusher for immediate disposal before they got sued.

Evolution puts forth the theory of survival of the fittest. Well, sometimes that's not enough - sometimes, not even the most brutal, prolific killers get to continue their unrestrained tyranny of killing.

Sometimes nature itself will nip that shit in the bud, scrape out the petri-dish, sterilize it with fire, and start over. Where would it begin?

Perhaps it would rub its chin thoughtfully and muse "Dolphins. Dolphins are nice. Or perhaps Orcas? Yes, that's it! Let's start with those - they do enjoy sinking yachts, don't they?"

Someone once said - I forget who - that if animals ever developed religion (and some have, according to anthropologists) humans would play the role of the Devil.

If we have ever earned any legacy as a species, then truly, that is it.

A Transphobic Transperson? How Does That Even Work?

2025-05-22T09:47:00.000-07:00

*Ahem*

So this PM comes courtesy of a person who, unlike most of you here on FB, I have met in real life and knew personally. Let me regail you:

He's a local, living in the same city. He's a transman I met, probably well over 10 years ago now.

Let's call him "Matthew".

This morning he shared a photo of Mango Musselini posing heroically against a fluttering backdrop of the American flag, with "Trump for life" emblazoned across it.

I commented to ask him if he'd been hacked. If he'd lost his mind.

I questioned whether he realized what Trump had been doing to transgender people in the US - and what Trump would be doing to him if he lived in the US right now.

This is his reply - ALL SHOUTY IN CRAPITAL LETTERS - and a block. Well, at least he saved me the trouble.

I still decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, in case he had been hacked

"Extremely uncalled for"? Really? He shared it publicly. If you don't want to attract criticism, don't post stupid shit in public. It's that simple - it's not rocket science.

Besides, he completely overreacted. All I did was ask if he'd been hacked and whether he knew what it was he was supporting.

It's not as if he shared a photo of a kitten and didn't invite controversy. Besides, what kind of trangender person idolizes a transphobe? Does he still idolize Rowling too?

I didn't even point out how stupid, monstrous and self-deprecating it made him look. I mean, who idolizes a person who hates you and has been working to destroy people just like you in that country?

An idiot, to be sure.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!!" He shrieked.

I know who I am, Matt - a transwoman, who would be living like a criminal and fearing being herded into a concentration camp if I were in the USA right now - just like he would be. I know this well enough - which is more than can be said of him.

In fact, I'd say Matt needs to ask himself that question, while staring deep into his eyes in the mirror to see if he can answer without blinking.

"Go screw a cow!!!" he says. Couldn't he even tell me to "fuck off" like an adult? And the rows of exclamation marks - OMW. Very mature. Quite typical of the sort of scum that idolize criminals, rapists, fascists and neo-Nazis.

Idolizing a monster who would have you forced out of your job, forced to go pee in the women's toilet, you and your contributions to society erased, and treated like a criminal just for existing - is, well... not a sign of much intelligence, is it? Even if you're not in that country, it shows a lack of awareness and a lack of empathy for other people just like you who are having a miserable time over there - and it is only likely to get worse. How does someone get to be so disconnected from reality - and their own humanity?

"TRUMP FOR LIFE!!!!!" he raves, in a parting shot. Would that be his life, or yours?

What kind of human being idolizes a misogynist and rapist? What kind of transman would? That part really is the crowning mindfuck as far as I'm concerned. Frankly, I'd say that's a red flag right there - and any girl should be wary of someone proudly waving red flags like that.

It's really disturbing when someone you've met, and even liked, turns out to be so internally transphobic and homophobic that they hate other people just like themselves - and act out that hate by showing public support for a monstrous bottom-feeding greaseball like Donald fucking Trump.

It's another reason on the pile, of why I have less and less faith in the humanity of humanity, each passing day.

A transphobic transperson? Make that fucking make sense! You just can't. It doesn't. Non sequitur.

Sadly, some people really are just too motherfuckin' stupid for their own good.

On the bright side, there's one less goddamn trumpanzee on my Facebook feed - so, win-win.

When Your Hole Is Full

2025-05-22T08:56:00.000-07:00

So today I got gatvol. South Africans will know what that means - it means "your hole is full".

Yeah, I'm really angry about this.

I call this one: "Alright, I'll Fucking Do It, Then!"

What's this about? This morning I emailed a five page, properly formatted complaint with a dozen references and attachments to the SAHRC.

After Zille's public display of transphobia some weeks back, I took casual notes of who was upset by this, and who didn't care, and what groups published objections and corrective statements admonishing Zille, and the DA for not taking any stance on the matter whatsoever, like the duplicitous cowards they are - and who came rushing to voice their defense of Helen and her TERF hatred. DA supporters. Including GLB_IQ+ DA supporters and "Helen fans", if that's what I can call them.

What I can call them is transphobes. And "not allies".

Do you know which political party spoke out against Zille's transphobic outburst in April? The ANC. And they were the only one to do so. Sure, it was probably just to take a jab at the DA, but they were willing to take a stand for transgender people and our rights in order to do so. Makes one think, doesn't it? Or at least, it should.

To my knowledge, after asking around if anyone had lodged any complaints with the SA Human Rights Commission about this disgraceful transphobic public incitement to hate, nobody was able to give me a straight answer - or even an answer. In fact, nobody even replied.

Even an activist I asked, who runs an NGO representing transgender interests in South Africa, said they hadn't either, and showed little to no interest in doing so.

A number of related bodies (PATHSA for example) have critized Zille for her comments, but there's no sign that any of these bodies did anything more than that.

As some of you know, I retired from organized LGBTQ+ rights advocacy back in 2018 to focus on other areas of my life: First my writing, and now my studies. I literally have no time for anything else these days - I work, and I do research. It's going to be this way for the next few years.

In the midst of this, drama that undermines trans rights in South Africa is most disturbing - and what's even more disturbing is that nobody seems interested in doing anything about it. That is, nobody ELSE is.

So here it is, fed-up, gatvol and utterly pissed off and enraged that nobody else in the country - seemingly no transgender person, no human rights organization - appeared to care enough to do something about it - I finally took it upon myself to lodge a complaint with the SAHRC. This I did in my personal capacity as a South African citizen and a transwoman, and as an individual without the backing of any group, NGO or NPO or organization.

To the people running NGOs, NPOs and other LGBTIQ+ etc / human rights and social justice organizations, if funded, who have sat on their laurels on this issue, shame on you. You should return the money - you don't deserve it.

To the "activists" out there who lose their marbles every time some politican or religious figure brainfarts anything remotely critical about LGB_QI+ people and issues, but remain silent because it's "only trans people" and doesn't affect you, you need to make way for people who really care about human rights and social justice - and aren't hypocritical about it.

To the "activists" - within and without the LGBTIQ+ community - who claim to oppose transphobia, who favor the convenience of not publicly criticizing the DA or Zille - or holding them accountable because you either don't care about trans issues, or are transphobic yourselves, or because you value the DA as being supposedly "gay friendly" over trans lives - in my view, you're an idiot for believing the DA cares about anything but money and power - and a lot of cowards.

To the community news services who delete their news articles about these senstive issues depicting the DA in a bad light, mere days after posting them - you know who you are - I have your number. I also have news for you - I have a habit of downloading and saving sources for future reference.

If I were still running ECGLA or SAGLAAD when this went down, you can bet that the whole damn country would've known about the displeasure of the entire SA LGBTIQ+ community wrt Zille's transphobia and TERF ideology, and the betrayal of the transgender community by the so-called "pro-LGBTQI+" Democratic Alliance.

Instead of this being handled by existing professionals in the field, people with financial backing, premises, staff and current standing as registered advocacy organizations, I as an individual needed to take valuable hours away from working on my study assignment, to do this myself.

Yes, I am bitching about it. And I feel I have a reason to.

To think that nobody else in South Africa - and I'm not just addressing this to "allies", but also to fellow transgender people and "activists" - couldn't be arsed to do this. The silence on this matter is deafening. Zille did this once before, in 2023, and she got away with that as well. If she is not held accountable this time, she will do it again - that's a guarantee.

I see people complaining about the proliferation of fake news and false information in social media, but it seems it's only the disinformation they disagree with that bothers them.

Tell y'all something - if Helen ever did get her way one day, and got into a position of power to police gender in line with her TERF ideology - a lot of innocent people would be harmed by that. And nothing - not even your DA membership card or t-shirt - would prevent that.

People in this country need to stop thinking only of themselves and what's best for them. Stop thinking "oh, someone else will fight that battle for me", because people like me won't always be around to fight your battles for you. Grow a spine, grow a goddamn conscience - care about the people being targeted by those pointing fingers, telling lies and inciting hate. Don't be a hypocrite. Hold the haters accountable - no matter who they are, or what party they represent or work for, no matter if they otherwise say things you agree with, no matter if they are rich and powerful, or even if they look like you.

Just do the right thing.

Holy fuck! It's not that fucking hard!