Special Survivalist Saturday - A Planet where Apes evolve from Men?

To-day, there will be two posts. First, I'll deal with the regular Survivalist Saturday feature. Later to-day will be a post of university-wide interest, so stay tuned.

To-day I had intended to deal with Escape and Evasion (E&E) techniques which will come in handy when the inevitable death squads begin roaming the post-apocalyptic landscape. However, something more topical has come up, and I will publish a guide in regards to it rather than the aforementioned death-squads.
I'll have to acknowledge the post-modern classic The Unearthly, which I viewed last night with my erstwhile colleague Dr. Fujiyama, as inspiration. This mess stars John Carradine and Tor Johnson. Essentially, a mad scientist uses a "seventeenth gland" to create monsters in the pursuit of longevity.
I've read recently that some brain-dead scientists have been mixing human pluripotent stem cells with animal embryos with some success. Perhaps it's alarmist, but the prospect of making pseudo-human creatures disturbs me in some aspect.
Any-way, if one were to combine the strength of a gorilla with a modicum of human intellect, one could conceivably get an excellent cannon-fodder soldier. It's tough and smart enough to follow orders, but at the same time not smart enough to question them. It seems to me creatures like this would be an obvious choice for any prospective evil overlords who might survive the apocalypse. Evil overlords, naturally, have an affinity for cheaply-bought and quickly-disposable henchmen. A gorilla-man would fulfill these qualifications, especially as technologies improve. Prospective overlords could also monitor blood-lines, and create a Praetorian Guard of gorilla-men to terrorise the unwashed masses.
As a matter of course, revolutionary forces world-wide are pledged to stop the rise of evil overlords. It will be their duty to defeat the mutant hordes of ape-men fielded by reactionary overlords after World War III.
How can revolutionary forces go about this task? Simple. To defeat that which is unknown, one must take a known analogue and extrapolate the differences between the two. For a race of genetically-engineered gorilla-men, one must look for something with unlimited strength, limited intellect, and problems with communication. My analogue for them would be Ahnolt.
Defeating either Ahnolt or gorilla-man hordes is not easy. The first (and best) option is heavy, long-distance firepower. Elite revolutionary formations will be equipped to deal with this eventuality.
But what about the average proletariat who is doing all he can for the revolutionary cause, but is lacking the heavy firepower of a Revolutionary Dignity Battalion(TM)? Well, there are a number of ways to defeat Ahnolt with every-day tools. First, one must exploit his inherent love of snide remarks. Ahnolt cannot kill a major opponent without dropping a phrase of dubious wit. For example, after impaling an opponent on a boiled-water tube, Ahnolt will typically say "Why don't you let off some steam?" Or, if he's just blasted down a door with a grenade, there's always the endlessly ironic "Knock, knock!" A final example would be, after using a nailgun to impale someone on a wall, telling the victim to "Stick around!" Revolutionaries are encouraged to study the witticisms of Oscar Wilde for potential comebacks, and to check your dwelling for areas where potential for macabre commando humor would combine seamlessly with a means of achieving your end. Avoid such places.
Another weakness is "the pump." All semi-intelligent muscle-bound creatures are subject to the lure of "the pump." As Ahnolt himself once described:

"The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is... The Pump. Let's say you train your biceps. Blood is rushing into your muscles and that's what we call The Pump. You muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute, and it's really tight - it's like somebody blowing air into it, into your muscle. It just blows up, and it feels really different. It feels fantastic."
Get the creatures to show off, and escape.
Of course, there's always a twelve-gauge shotgun at close range. That will always do the trick.

We shall not tolerate intolerance!

"...the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that preceeded it in the world...the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd...(it) reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is a shepherd."
Almost 200 years ago, French Aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville wrote these lines in the closing chapters of his seminal Democracy in America. It's amazing how accurate some of his predictions were. Tocqueville prophesied that majority opinion would one day provide a substitute for moral clarity, and indeed it has. There's no greater sin in the modern political arena than "extremism." Of course, one must wonder what "extremism" is.
Naturally, everyone can point fingers at "extremists." Osama bin Laden is an extremist, as the survivalist militia types who blew up the Murrah building. At the same time, they darkly draw moral equivalence to other forms of "extremism," such as religious fidelity or "Jewish Extremism". We must be just as wary of Christian extremism as of Islamic extremism, they say. In fact, the war on terror isn't a battle against a specific ideology, but rather a war on extremes in general. Extremism is the key to violence, and once we wipe them out, there will be no more violence because everyone will agree!
To take the trite-and-true route, an extremist is someone who falls outside commonly accepted ideas on certain things. For example, it's generally not considered acceptable behaviour (outside the insanity of academia, but we have to stick the anti-semites somewhere where they'll do as little harm as possible) to ram truck bombs into US Marine Barracks for Allah. That's a fine and good definition, as terrorism doesn't square with natural law. The problem with this definition is that it is also extended to the realm of ideas. For example, it's considered equally uncouth to stick to an inflexible moral code. As we all know, at midnight on 1 Janurary 2000, everything that had been held true for the previous 2,500 years of Western Civilisation changed. The mere passage of an arbitrary chronoligical period launched us into the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY! All ethical codes, everlasting covenants, and social contracts expired on that date. So, apparently, did the need for moral philosophy. The majority opinion creates morality out of thin air, human nature be damned.
So, with a new moral philosophy in place, it's high time to correct the poor, deluded souls who still believe in unchanging mores. This is where the word "intolerance" is slung around. Those who apply their "out-dated" ideas to modern life are using their standards to judge the behaviour of others. As we all know, being "judgmental" is the opposite of being "tolerant". Those who engage in judging others must not be tolerated!
The end product of this is that people become the very same self-deluded sheep that Tocqueville correctly predicted. As the inestimable Dr. Phillips (from whom I've learned we don't want either perfect justice or more democracy) has pointed out, we end up with the "herd of independent thinkers." Though each one styles themself a clever chap with above-average intellect, when they are questioned closely about their moral schemas, one finds no deeper thought than a few commonly-held platitudes such as "don't judge a book by its cover" or (for people who aren't as trite and half-witted) "it's mean to impose your culture on someone else." The commonality of answers within this herd is shocking indeed.
It has been remarked that no uniformed army in history has achieved the regularity of dress that one can find in modern society. They aren't forced to dress this way, but they do it of their own accord. This is the truly frightening aspect of Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority: people will no longer desire difference. The fact that most people do something is a self-justifying statement. It's the bandwagon fallacy gone wild! Those dissatisfied with the norm merely join a smaller group that's the same way, and consider themselves quite rebellious! In addition, the lack of complete and loving acceptance from other groups gives them a nightmarish persecution complex. They obscenely compare their pitiful plight with that of the Jews under Hitler, and make this view known on innumerable fora (Typical Query:"Why does wearing pancake makeup make you different than those who tan themselves?" Typical Response: "FUK U HITLER NAZI!!!!1"). Of course, the fact that each of these specialty groups has a niche market catered to by most malls demonstrates that they are about as persecuted as an SS trooper who's a little too enthusiastic in his duties. That doesn't deter them from thinking that they're the vanguard of what's right and the soldiers who fight the evils of society, instead of the more-depressing reality of "wannabe-popular kids who dress funny."
What's there to do for those outside of the herd? Well, nothing really according to Tocqueville. Because the majority possesses power over all branches of government, they are necessarily bent to its will. You'll eventually tire of fighting this overwhelming force, and retreat to the sanctuary of individualsim, provided by your "four corners and a square hedge." Besides, further democratisation has been Ordained by God, so you'd better ensure that you have a good fence.
I've little to add to this, as I've yet to transcend the bounds of the herd. All I can suggest is that the majority gets its opinions from somewhere. Perhaps those who are sufficiently intelligent and have such an impressive reflective capacity can use their mastery over the herd to shape its views to something more sensible, perhaps in accord with natural law. The least your types could do is make those cursed midriff-baring outfits unfashionable. I'm tired of seeing distended stomachs which are smeared with spray-on tan poking through the conveniently-placed gap. Maybe burqas will catch on as a fashion trend, and spare us the constant carnival of droopy flesh. Insh'Allah.

Energy and War

Bush Says US Should Emulate France on Energy.
I'm often critical of the French (as I am of all social-"democratic" states and European nations in general), but I will give them this- they know how to make energy policy. France is one of the greenest nations on earth, and at the same time they manage to supply their national need and are not dependent on foreign oil. The reason? 78% of France's power comes from nuclear energy. France has significant Uranium deposits, and it has wisely put them to use. They've largely freed themselves of dependence on foreign oil as a result.
People often complain about nuclear power's cost and the problem of waste storage. The French have solved this also- they recycle spent fuel rods. By this process, the amount of waste is drastically reduced and costs are driven down. They have no problem of waste storage, nor are costs significant. Furthermore, new technologies such as the pebble-bed reactor drive down cost and risk.
Why haven't we embraced this solution in the US? We also enjoy access to significant Uranium deposits, and we've enough weapons-grade radioactive material that can be debased and used in reactors to last us quite some time. The problem up to now has been partly based on the twin problems of cost and storage (we don't recycle our rods, we stick 'em in oversized swimming pools). But, the greatest problem is ideology and fear.
No nuclear power plants have been constructed in the U.S. since the 1970s. In 1979, there was a double-whammy which put nuclear energy more or less out of business in this country. First came the execrable Jane Fonda movie The China Syndrome, wherein heroic reporter Jane Fonda discovers the eeevil cutting-corners going on at a nuclear power plant. Thirteen days after the film's release, the Three Mile Island incident occurred. Though no one was killed, radioactive material was vented. There was a media circus, and this resulted in the loss of the political will to invest in nuclear energy. It also provided a big boost for the nascent environmental movement. When the Chernobyl disaster occurred when incompetent Soviet technicians ran a flawed reactor at several hundred percent beyond safe operating maximums, it sealed the fate of nuclear power in the west. Plants were dismantled, with no plans for replacement. The result was more dependence on oil, which is now becoming a major problem as prices increase beyond reasonable levels.
Even oil is problematic nowadays. The U.S.'s domestic refining capacity is lacking- we haven't constructed a new refinery since the seventies (coincidence?), and we haven't the means to best utilise our domestic oil production.
Other solutions in this energy bill are worth noting- developing small diesel-fuelled cars here (they're a big hit in Europe, and more efficient than the much-vaunted hybrids for city driving), and giving out tax-credits for fuel-efficient vehicles. Another solution is liquefied Natural Gas, which is clean-burning and cheap.
The problem with these solutions is the people who should be in favour of them- environmentalists. The environmental movement is so dogmatic and inflexible that they offer no real solutions. The much-vaunted solar and wind "alternative energy sources" are not very efficient, and are often blocked in their implementation by environmentalists, who argue that they pose a threat to birds, and object to the land that must be cleared for giant wind and solar farms!
They also have a dogmatic hatred of anything nuclear, viewing it almost as a demon. New LNG terminals are blocked by lawsuits, and clean-burning diesel vehicles aren't seen as a solution. Some groups even demand that the Republic's energy production capacity must shrink rather than grow! They claim that only a return to some kind of pseudo-nomadic lifestyle (and the incidental destruction of industrial civilisation) will save humanity. Of course, this lifestyle has a few problems- high infant mortality, short and hard lives for everyone, grinding toil, and the loss of the delicate flower of higher thought. But, given that higher thought is naturally antithetical to these types, it's a bonus for them.
Of course, if things start to go under, national energy independence will be an absolute key to the survival of the Republic.
In the all-too-familiar vein, it seems that a modern thinker (Thomas L. Friedman) has argued in his new book The World is Flat that globalisation and the new world economic order have made world peace a reality. Because of the interconnectedness of world trade, no industrialised nations could possibly be so insane to declare war on one another. Multinationals, international culture, and the electronic realm that includes the internet have created a global family! We're on the vanguard of a new world order based on peaceful trade! Hallelujah!
Of course, this is bunk. A look around the world sees a planet heading further and further towards the edge of war. This sort of theory has been floated about before- it's described in the opening pages of Barbara Tuchmann's excellent The Guns of August, which describes the beginning of World War I. Back then, the book was called "The Great Illusion," but it was the very spitting image of this modern tome. Gregory Scoblete over at Tech Central Station was also reminded of this, and he does a better job than I could on the eerie parallels between these similar strains of thought in his article, The Great Illusion, Redux.
I'm just waiting for someone to shoot an Archduke at this point. I suppose I'd better get back to work on the bunker.

More anarchy!

The end-time prophecy types are nearly as busy now as they were in 1999. Of course, there's more cause for apocalyptic thinking than there was in '99. For those who favour the "apocalyptic war" theory, the stakes have been raised yet again in the far east. The latest act in this drama that cannot end well occurred recently when French Prime Minister Pierre Jean-Pierre Raffirin not only guaranteed French backing for China's new "anti-secession law" which allows China to invade Taiwan at the drop of a hat, but he also called for an end to the embargo on selling advanced armaments to the mainland. Previously, the civilised world was in favour of Taiwanese sovereignty. France has broken ranks for the measly sum of 200 million Euros worth of Chinese Contracts. This break will worsen with time, and provide a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan with international legitimacy.
In addition, China has been ratcheting up the anti-Japan rhetoric. Japan, you may recall, is the top US Ally in the Far-East region. This pressure descends from WWII atrocities the Japanese perpretrated on the Chinese. Of course, these atrocities were entirely reprehensible, but as net cartoonist J.J. McCollough points out, China is hardly one to point fingers.
For those less temporally-minded, it seems that the new Supreme Pontiff has finally been linked into the St. Malachy prophecies. Remember that this Pontiff is next to last on the list. His motto is Gloria Olivae, the Glory of the Olives. Many took this to mean that he would be a Mediterranean or perhaps another I-talian. Benedict XVI is a German, confounding the expectations. However, in the Parlance of the Roman Church the Benedictine Order is also known as the "Olivetans". Though not of this order, his name is a pretty close connection. St. Benedict himself prophesied that one who follows him will fight evil in the Last Days. Of course, the Malachy prophecies are vague enough that some aspect of a person's life is bound to connect.
For those who really want to stay awake at night, here's an article that predicted Benedict XVI's name before he was elected. I checked the Google Cache of the article from April 2, and it hasn't been messed with (except where specifically noted). Of course, it also predicted that the new Pontiff would be African, but don't let that dissuade you from apocalyptic dreaming.
On a related note, one of the Cardinals of the Catholic Church has claimed that the Anti-Christ is alive and active to-day. This seems to be a common view with many, considering the onslaught of a cult of modernity.
Finally, the year 2012 is coming up, and all sorts of prophecies regarding everything from fiery doom to 5th-dimensional ascension are being applied to the year.
"Oh no," one might be heard to say, "didn't we go through all this in the lead-up to the year 2000?" The answer is yes, and these are indeed the same people who put us through that. When 2000 passed without incident, they transferred their hopes from the biiig round and scary number of 2000 to the end of the Mayan calendar on 22 December 2012. I'm sure they have a reserve date picked in case that one doesn't work out.
Though I'd caution against the 2012 theories floating out there, the 2009-2012 time frame is ripe for another world war of some sort, especially given the way China and North Korea are behaving. It seems world-wide destruction will be wrought by willing human hands again, and supernatural forces will have to wait.
Who's up for a trip on 22 December 2012 to the Mayan site of Chichen Itza?

New Religious Movements, Part II

"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy."
-Exodus 20:8

So, the Good Book says I'm supposed to do something to-day. Because I don't belong to any particular sect, I don't feel obligated to attend services. Therefore, I'm going to continue the feature wherein I talk about some sort of alternative religion that's out there. I'll outline their beliefs, cosmology, and current status so far as I understand them.

By popular request, I'm again skipping the obvious and going for the obscure. Here's an older New Age Group, entitled the "I AM religious activity"

Name:I AM Religious Activity
Type:New Age/Christian
Theology:Hierarchical/Theosophical
Prophets:Guy and Edna Ballard, real physical entities
Purpose:"An "I AM" student, in conjunction with the teachings of the Ascended Masters, can use the Presence to eliminate evil and bring justice to the world."
Religious Services:Meditative and Formal

This group goes back to 1932 formally. Their founding story goes something along the lines of the following- Founder Guy Ballard was climbing the slopes of New Age-er magnet Mount Shasta in California when he became quite thirsty. A man then appeared, identifying himself as eighteenth-century French alchemist and mystic Comte Saint Germain, who offered him a frothy liquid that he claimed came from the "Universal Supply". Thus refreshed, Ballard was taken on a tour of the inside of the mountain. Saint Germain explained that he and other ascended masters formed some type of spiritual hierarchy which watches over the earth. He made Ballard, his wife Edna, and later his son Donald the messengers of the Hierarchy. Ballard died in 1939, and Edna and Donald continued the movement until Donald resigned in 1957 and Edna died in 1971.
The focus of the movement is connecting the individual with the "mighty I AM presence," which was freed by Jesus (also an ascended master) during His Ministry. They use a "violet flame" to cleanse their spirit also. This seems to be a common belief among new-age groups, as I've seen the special powers of violet advertised else-where.
Apparently this group was somehow involved with hollow earth theories early on, though a cursory inspection of their web-site reveals no such belief now. They do put on a Passion Play of sorts entitled "I AM COME" which covers the Life of Christ near Mount Shasta.
This group I'm particularly fond of for a number of reasons. First, I've actually seen one of their churches during a visit to Calgary. Second, despite their New Age overtones, they do identify themselves as a Christian group. Third, they're a patriotic group and look to be civic-minded. As I understand it, George Washington's picture hangs in each of their sanctuaries behind the altar. Finally, unlike so many other New Age groups, they don't seem to be obsessed with money. They charge for books and materials, but a quick perusal of their on-line catalogue shows prices that are quite reasonable ($10 soft-cover, $25 hard-cover). Though in my opinion their theology is a bit off, they certainly aren't harming anyone and I don't believe them to be a con job, so unlike much of the new age movement.
If you're spiritually responsive to the colour Purple, you might deign to examine their official web-site here.

Survivalist Saturday II- Surviving World War III

It's another Saturday, and time again for another Survivalist feature, where I expound the useless (for now, at least! Little do you know...) knowledge I've gained in the realm of getting through various calamities without being killed, maimed, zombified, or worse.
To-day, I'll address a pressing topic- World War III. Though it might be tempting to state that World War III might be merely another conventional conflict between major powers (say the US and China), such a supposition is mistaken. Everyone knows that it's not officially World War III until mushroom clouds rise over well-known American landmarks accompanied by dramatic music of some sort. In addition, such a nuclear exchange must be unlimited in scope, and against purely civilian targets for maximum dramatic effect.
Naturally, one's first concern in surviving this apocalyptic war is getting through the nuclear strikes. If you live in a city, forget it. There's a nuclear warhead sitting in a Russian/Chinese/Islamic silo with your name on it. The only preparation you can engage in is the time-honoured paratrooper tradition of "putting your head between your legs and kissing your ass good-bye." Besides, if you live in the cities, chances are you're a metrosexual, and the world would be better if we were rid of the whole lot of you.
For those in the suburbs, you have to worry about proximity effects of a nuclear detonation. It's likely you're far enough away from the blast centre, which will be right over an instantly-recognisable landmark in your city, to be safe from the initial blast effects. Overpressure might still be a factor, but if it doesn't crush you so you resemble your shriveled suburbanite spirit you have a good chance.
The best case scenario is if you have a fallout shelter prepared. You should keep about 30 days of supplies for all those you intend to take into the shelter. There should also be an appropriate ratio of females to males (10:1) for re-populating the Earth after the radiation dies down. This will be covered further in the "getting things back to normal" section in the coming weeks.
Spending 30 days in a fall-out shelter is not fun, even with ten women to look after you. You'll need a shotgun of some type, because desperate survivors will undoubtedly come to your shelter. You have no choice but to shoot them because they're either a)insane with hunger and want your womenfolk or b)zombies of some sort. It's the end of civilisation: you don't worry about impressing Miss Manners because she's probably an atomic zombie anyway.
If you don't have a fallout shelter, then shame on you! You can still survive by sealing off a room in your house and keeping in the centre. Gamma (deep-penetrating) radiation only usually accompanies the blast. Fallout particles emit primarily alpha and beta radiation. Both of these can be blocked by a thick wall. The chief problem with fallout is letting it into the body by breathing it or eating it. Canned foods and HEPA filters, combined with an air-tight room, fix this problem. Alternatively, you can make your bed into a fallout shelter in its own right with the bullet-proof, chemical-resistant and fire-retardant Quantum Sleeper for a mere $100,000 or so. No word on zombie-proofing yet, though you could fit your shotgun near the integral DVD player.
In the country, you have a few days before the wind brings the fallout from the cities to your area. This gives you some time to prepare. There are some emergency shelters you can throw up, even in under 24 hours, which should protect you fine. Plus, since you're an unenlightened rural denizen in "flyover country", you don't represent the same level of threat to our new Soviet/Islamic overlords as do the herd of independent thinkers on the coastlines. Regardless, zombies to get hungry, and there just aren't that many braaaiiinnnnsssss in the city to go around. Keep pa's shotgun handy.
The next question is "am I a target?" In the short version, the answer is yes. Remember, during the cold war threat of nuclear bombardment kept people in line, so no matter where one lived, one was always about #5 on the "to hit" list kept in the Kremlin. Why #5? Why not? A high position on the nuclear strike list is a tacit admission of your relative importance, and serves as a vehicle for local pride. Insert the name of a moderately-significant industrial facility in your area, and the answer becomes quite clear! Just don't look at the real list, where #5 is probably a US Nuclear Submarine Base or some other strategic military target. It does nothing for local pride.
Of course, if you live in Los Angeles or Berkeley, don't count on getting hit. Our new Soviet/Islamic/Robotic and/or Zombie overlords need a version of the French Vichy government to keep the population in line, and you're just what they need! The same deal goes for Singapore, even if it isn't in the US and therefore doesn't really count for anything.
Remember, keep in the shelter for 30 days, and then prepare for the next step in your adventure- surviving the death squads which invariably arise in any post-apocalyptic situation!
Here are some plans for fallout shelters of every sort for your perusal: Fallout Shelters

Bureaucrats

It seems the university is being plagued by some sort of "stomach virus" which has mysteriously infected a large section of the population. Naturally, the bureaucrats have assured us that this is not the result of shoddy sanitation practices at the cafeteria, but rather a "widespread outbreak" in the "(local) community". Of course, where this epidemic came from is still a mystery, but it seems a few people have had their stomach contents pumped at the local hospital. Many others have had the same effect, though in a much more crude and natural way. I'm certainly glad I don't share a bathroom with them.
Any-way, this post doesn't concern stomach flu or green diarrhea. It does concern bureaucrats, which is a fairly close subject to the latter. More specifically, this post concerns their philosophical background, which frames the parallel reality bureaucrats seem to occupy. When one deals with these types (i.e. always in modern society), one must be ready to predict their behaviour. Only then can one fight them with any chance of success.
The golden rule of bureaucrats is "panic and disorder are the worst things possible." This thinking runs their entire existence, and all of the rules which govern their meaningless lives extend as spokes do from this central hub. Sadly, the wheel which results from this combination has the nasty tendency to run everyone else over.
Another key to bureaucracy is the magic of rules. Though bureaucrats don't believe in natural law, bureaucratic regulations are little less than commandments delivered from On High. All those who depart from them are headed to certain doom. Tales of customers who failed to follow the rules and then fell victim to some terrifying fate are the stories which illuminate the hours spent at the water-cooler, like the epic poems of the ancient Vikings.
The second key is obviously related to the first. Another of the spokes which fits into the central hub is the animal instinct which governs bureaucrats. It's not the sort of wild and passionate animal instinct which is so admired to-day, but rather a hyper-exaggerated instinct for self-preservation. Bureaucrats do not take responsibility for anything. Instead, they like to a)send people all around massive structures in between massive offices on a fruitless quest for wisdom or b)lie their heads off.
This leads to my theory concerning the formation of bureaucracy. Bureaucrats, who lack any manly (or womanly) characteristics, exercise self-selection and forge a group comprised of people with similar issues. They then expand and create nebulous job descriptions. Finally, they convince the movers and shakers in society that they can relieve them of some of the menial tasks which accompany governance or whatever task is at hand. When they screw up and said movers and shakers try to hold them to account, they merely point to their nebulous job descriptions and claim that the problem is not within their jurisdiction. The fruitless search begins, and anyone searching for answers wanders aimlessly about until they give up, finding that no-one in any bureaucratic positions is actually responsible for anything.
Though this is an interesting survival strategy, it's essentially parasitic, as bureaucrats cannot exist unless they have a productive host to support them. Eventually, the bureaucracy expands to such a point that it over-whelms the host and it slowly strangles to death. This phenomena can easily be observed in most European countries, or Washington D.C.
Stay tuned for my newly-regular "upcoming apocalypse" feature to-morrow, concerning Papal Prophecies and the upcoming world wars.

Hitler's Second Book

I've been reading Hitler's Second as of late, thanks to a certain tricksy kraut. This one's a doozy. Thankfully, it's about half as thick as Mein Kampf, though apparently it's not as popular as the original in Turkey. This book, found in an Army Archive in the 50s and apparently the real deal, lays out 'dolf's crazy plans for world domination. More importantly for me, it puts his philosophical cards on the table. After reading only the first two chapters, this was disturbing enough already.
Hitler's Philosophy is actually little more than commonly accepted ideas, even to-day. It's the implications that he draws from them that led to his murderous reign.
First, there's his Malthusian economics. This is common thought to-day, it's the idea of limited resources leading to a collapse of human civilisation or some kind of ecological disaster. Thomas Malthus created this idea when he noticed that human populations expand geometrically, agricultural stocks expand only arithmetically. According to Malthus, this would eventually lead to human populations out-stripping their food supply. Malthus defended a "lifeboat ethic" as a result, and believed it was necessary to kill off inferior populations to save one's own. Malthus was one of the principal architects of the Irish Potato famine that killed millions.
Hitler merely combines this with another modern idea- that civilisations are solely the product of races. This started with the kooky "racial sciences" back during the Victorian ages. His belief was that all races that do not continuously expand eventually reach the Malthusian breaking point where they don't have enough land to feed themselves. They then collapse. Hitler's quest for Lebensraum was merely acting on this principle.
For a subject which most believe is useless, it seems bad philosophy has drastic consequences for the world. Perhaps if more people were a bit more cautious about embracing bad philosophy, we'd have a less violent world.
At any rate, it's amusing to see two of Hitler's first principles are alive and well in contemporary thought. It shows that World War II didn't dislodge the poisonous thought which created him.

In other news, I'm ruminating on how much I hate Jerry Bruckheimer. First, we had to watch his post-modern 2-hour trailer "Armageddon." Then, his awful "CSI: Miami" engulfed his one decent creation on a special. Finally, the excrutiatingly silly "gone in sixty seconds" is on to-night. Memories of "Pearl Harbour" sneak into my consciousness too. This joker is the Bert I. Gordon of modern times.

And, as if it's any great surprise, here's how I'll probably vote in the upcoming UK General Election on 5 May from whoshouldyouvotefor.com.

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Conservative

Your actual outcome:

Labour -20
	Conservative 55
Liberal Democrat -58
	UK Independence Party 19
Green -38

You should vote: Conservative

The Conservative Party is strongly against joining the Euro and against greater use of taxation to fund public services. The party broadly supported the Iraq war and backs greater policing and ID cards. The Tories are against increasing the minimum wage above the rate of inflation, and have committed to abolishing university tuition fees. They support 'virtual vouchers' for private education.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Habemus Papam

Cardinal Ratzinger elected Pope Benedict XVI
So the media's predictions were correct, and Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope, elected on the fourth ballot in two days. I'd like to first express my relief that it wasn't one of those whack-job Latin American liberation theology types. This papal election signifies the future direction of the Roman church, and I think they've made a good decision.
Though I disagree with the new Pope on a large number of issues, I do appreciate his ability to take a moral stance and hold it. Right now, Europe is a land in flux. The bureaucracy of the EU is expanding ever steadily and taking over more and more aspects of life on the Continent, and at the same time demographic and religious changes are creating a continent that is largely hostile to Christianity.
To me, this situation is reminiscent of the latter stages of the Roman empire. At its height, the European Empires conquered most of the world. Now, population pressures from the east and a decline in the spirit of the European civilisations is leading to its collapse.
My expectations for Europe in the future is similar to what happened to Anatolia (what is now Turkey) after the Roman period. During the Roman era, Anatolia was the major Christian centre, along with North Africa. In addition, it had been one of the centres of civilisation from time immemorial. Hellenism had thrived there, and it had become a centre of Roman learning too. When the Roman Empire collapsed in the west, the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire held on for another thousand years. Its decline was slow and gradual, brought about by expanding populations from the east (starting with the Huns, then the Seljuk and finally the Ottoman Turks). In 1453, they had no empire, and the capital of Constantinople was taken by the forces of the Ottoman Turks.
The same thing is gradually happening to Europe. Their culture has become debased- the relativism which plagues modern culture leads to widespread apathy. People in the west no longer consider their culture worth fighting for, and people elsewhere are actively hostile towards the social and political (if not the popular) culture, rather than anxious to join in. This is akin to the fatalistic stoicism so prevalent in the late Roman empire. The process of EU integration, for example, is pushed on the basis of its "inevitability". People in the west are no longer proactive, and indeed reactive instead, especially in Europe.
European Catholicism is one of the victims of this trend. Attendance for mass is dropping like a stone all over the continent. Even in Ireland, fewer than half of the population (44%) attends mass, and even this number is high for most "Catholic" countries. Secularisation is not so much an alternate ideology as it is a sort of apathy. It's not as if these nations are switching from system of belief to another, they are merely not believing in anything. They have no interest in self-sacrifice, civic virtue, or the benefit of anything aside from material goods. This is bad, because it does not engage man's higher nature like religion or philosophy does. They only operate on purely animal instincts in pursuing goods.
There have been many calls for the next Pope to "engage with the modern world" and make certain concessions to modernity. However, this is over-simplification. What constitutes "modernity"? Is it the creeping modern materialism? How can a spiritual institution such as the Roman Church make concessions to a thing that is inherently alien? The answer is that it can't.
Many who want the Roman Church to "modernise" offer a familiar series of suggestions such as "ordain women" and "allow priests to marry." Indeed, these seem to me prudent suggestions, but their implementation should be based on philosophical and theological basis rather than "the modern world demands equality." More dangerous is the claim that the Papacy should get involved in political issues such as third world debt and "social justice". This is also dangerous, as it functions as a distraction play of sorts. While the Pope is playing petty politics, he isn't looking after the spirituality of his flock. It also emphasises the primacy of the material over the immaterial, and this is fundamentally at odds with a spiritual institution.
Ratzinger is a good choice for the job because he stands up rather than lays down. The EU has been trying to bring everything in Europe under its influence. As I understand it, there was a movement to have EU founder Jean Monnet canonised. His "miracle?" That France and Germany haven't fought since World War II. Thankfully, the Vatican resisted this pernicious idea. Even Switzerland is being corrupted by the EU! They've resisted foreign integration since the age of Napoleon, but now they're falling into line, with a proposal to become a full member of the EU on the table. It's up to the tough Benedict XVI to ensure that the Vatican doesn't slip into this orbit.
Thomas More is famous for turning his back on his King, his nation, and his countrymen because of his conscience. Though such an act is considered insane to-day, More's refusal demonstrated that trends are not inevitable. Furthermore, the easiest route is not always the best. "We cannot go to heaven in featherbeds."
The Roman Church has chosen to stand for principle rather than expediency. This will not be a comfortable position to hold. Already, the media is reporting on the fact that Ratzinger was apparently in the Hitler Youth (which was compulsory), and his former position as head of what was once the inquisition. This type of character assassination can be expected, as modernism lacks a core which can support it. Rather, it justifies its existence by denigrating any competition. For example, when politicians argue a case that is contrary to their ideas of "progress" they're labeled as "controversial." The entire reason politics exist is because there's a controversy in the first place.
Bah. Here's hoping the new Pontiff does well in his new office.

Socialised Medicine, Europe News Roundup

Many people have asked me why I vociferously oppose socialised medicine. They ask "how can you oppose something which gives free health care to everyone?" and the like. Aside from the fact that I honestly don't care for others because I'm an evil WASP (buzz buzz!), there are a number of political and practical objections to this scheme. A few points briefly follow.
First, there's the political point regarding government regulation. Any socialised medicine scheme involves government intervention in how medicine is delivered. Of course, to many this is a wonderful thing because the government has lots of money to give out to take care of our poor widdle ones.
But there's always a second side. People love federal money for education, but hate the "No Child Left Behind" act. What they don't understand is that one follows from the other. Once the federal government pays money, it demands accountability. This means the federal government will become the ultimate HMO. Imagine the coercive power of the state applied to a programme of enforced healthy living- mandatory calisthenics, dietary restrictions, &c. Sound outrageous? Many groups are proposing exactly these sorts of ideas because they view obesity as an "epidemic" which is somehow a sweeping health crisis. Socialised medicine gives these maniacs exactly the sort of platform to regulate public health. All that's needed is a public health scare. The same thing is happening in Britain at the moment.
Practically, the quality of health care delivered by a nationalised system is far lower than our eeeeeevil capitalist system. Socialised medicine is marked by long lines, waiting lists running into months for critical surgeries, and sub-standard care. In addition, there's currently an MRSA plague in Britain which is killing people in hospitals. This plague stems from improper sterilisation procedures. It's become a major election issue, with the Tories promising to clean up the hospitals.
Another concern is cost. I don't like taxes, and most people join me in this sentiment. However, when health-care spending is the providence of the state, everyone has to pay for it. I've heard that health care spending represents 15% of the GNP. This necessitates an increase in taxes that would dwarf any previous ones. This leads to a decrease in disposable income, especially for younger people who don't have as great a need for medical services. It's another way of sapping the productive forces of society to prop up the unproductive ones. It also discourages individual responsibility, as it's yet another thing the government does for you and another section of life you don't have to plan for.
Continuing on the eternal theme of my dislike of statism, to-day it seems that the tide of Statism is being stemmed as France is looking to vote "non" on the upcoming EU Constitution. Though the reasons for the rejection mostly stem from the proposed constitution not being socialist enough, I'll take victories where I can get them.
On the side of defeats, it seems my prediction about the increasing insanity of so-called "artists" in the modern era is coming true. An artist in London has keyed 47 cars randomly and declared it to be "art". Of the victims, he said that they should be "glad to be part of my creative process." No compensation is forthcoming.
When is somebody going to point out that the emperor of "fine art" is wearing no clothes? These people really are something else.

New Religious Movements

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."- Exodus 20:8

So, the Good Book says I'm supposed to do something to-day. Because I don't belong to any particular sect, I don't feel obligated to attend services. Therefore, I'm going to start a feature wherein I talk about some sort of alternative religion that's out there. I'll outline their beliefs, cosmology, and current status so far as I understand them.

For the first column, I'll skip the one I know most about and pick up on a more curious one. This religious movement is called "Ashtar Galactic Command."

Name:Ashtar Galactic Command
Type:New Age
Theology:Pantheistic
Prophets:Ashtar-Athena (yes, that Athena), channeled through a medium
Purpose:"assisting at every level with Earth and Humanity’s transformation and paradigm shift into the fifth dimension and seventh Golden Age"
Religious Services:Meditative

I first heard about this group in the always-interesting "Sedona:Journal of Emergence" magazine, which is a veritable smorgasboard of New-Age groups. This group caught my attention because their article was based around pictures of clouds that Ashtar Command claimed were spacecraft. The name "Ashtar Galactic Command" is a real eye-catcher also. They claim to be the "Airborne Division" of the "Great White Brotherhood," which are beings from a higher dimension known as "Ascended Masters." There is no set membership to this "Brotherhood," so the list varies from group to group. The "ascended master" that the AGC follows is a combination of one being, called Ashtar, and the old Greek Goddess Athena. These two are non-corporeal beings which are combined together in the eighth dimension. Ashtar is described as a "Ray emanation" of Jesus, and they believe Ashtar continues Jesus' Ministry from his spacecraft.
There's a helpful over-view here, which puts down the fundamentals if the Ashtar group. Apparently it was started in 1952 by a George van Tassel, who received the first communique from Ashtar/Athena. There were a lot of UFO-based groups founded in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Apparently it's a sizeable bunch- their MSN Group has 423 members, and is extremely active, rating only below "Commercial Space Development" in its section. Their current leader is called "Commander Aleon" (original, eh?). However, there seem to be splinter groups. I've found one Captain Lyur who claims that Ashtar Command is very much like Starfleet from Star Trek, and says of Commander Aleon's bunch in the US "Real Ashtar Commanders work as team, there is no 'chief' some high place. So I will not report to that chief, if some around, just forget it."
From what I can tell, Commander Aleon seems to be based in the earthly section we call "Connecticut", and has a weekly radio show Sundays at 11AM, which can be heard here at WESU-FM.It wasn't on to-day, sadly. Another alternative view can be had here, for those of you who can read Norwegian.

Always be ready

Given this author's near-obsessive tendency to watch anything which might lead to revolution, social disorder, or some other type of apocalyptic happening, it only seems natural that I prepare a guide for some of these eventualities. Here's the first in the series.

Dawn of Doom, or How to deal with the upcoming zombie holocaust.


One of the most likely problems facing society to-day is some kind of Zombie mutation over-taking the general population, creating a terrifying army of the un-dead out of everyday people. With all sorts of chemicals and radiation all over the place, it's only a matter of time before some terrifying combination of the two emerges. When spread by a zombie's bite, this chemical/radioactive mutation instantly reduces the most vigorous specimen of human intellect into a brain-craving Homunculus which spreads terror and follows the scent of fresh blood.
After viewing a highly technical film retailing the habits of Zombies, and how to combat them successfully, I've decided the following measures are in order:
First, though Zombies generally prefer to attack England and the American Southwest, they can attack anywhere. This means that everyone should be prepared for zombie attacks.However, your preparations must fit the laws and customs of your area. Be certain to stay within the law, as you don't want to be in prison when the zombies hit, because you'll probably have to fight your way out alongside Ice-T and Steven Segal, and endure their attempts at snappy dialogue.
In the U.K.
This seems to be a popular target for Zombification. The best weapons to counter zombies (i.e. firearms) are prohibited by law, as is self-defence. In this case, take no preparation, as a Zombie invasion is still preferable to living under a Labour government. After all, zombies don't reproduce, and they don't need council houses to live in or wide-screen TVs to watch whilst they're on welfare, nor do they need an army of shysters to steal your money to pay for these initiatives. In actuality, it's entirely possible that quality of life will improve under a Zombie government. At least the Evil One will be less annoying. If you plan to escape to a nation that's not governed by half-wits, I'd recommend a cricket bat or golf club.

In the E.U.
This change might not be as traumatic as other nations, since Europe is already ruled by an army of blood-sucking creatures, so any change along these lines won't be too hard to get used to. At least the undead version of the Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom won't be quite as trite as she is now.

In the United States
Thanks to the Second Amendment, the politicians in the US have yet to deprive us of the best zombie-hunting tools. Here are a few suggestions:
For the gentleman or lady concerned only with short-term defence, I recommend a fine twelve-gauge shotgun. For those on a budget, go with a pump-action- either a representative of the fine Mossberg 500 series or the well-reputed Remington 870. There are a number of aftermarket parts that will add to anti-zombie utility and good looks, such as pistol grips, heat shields, and other aftermarket parts can be found everywhere. One place to look is here.
For those with a bit more cash, I'd recommend an auto-shotgun such as the Remington 1200 or maybe a Benelli for those with plenty of cash. Loads would be 00 buckshot, or perhaps birdshot if you're concerned with penetration and will only be working at short range. You can easily take off limbs with this potent weapon, and use them as clubs when you run out of ammunition. Alternatively, they can serve as a grim warnings which might be placed about your residence to scare away future zombie attacks.

For gentlemen and ladies who wish to go on the offensive, there's always the "Heston" option. A fine semi-automatic rifle allows one to bring the pursuit to the zombies, and is an effective deterrent to other not-so-undead problems such as idiots who take the mufflers off of their dirt-bikes.
For those on a budget, might I suggest the legendary M1 Garand? It's available for $500 from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which is proof that the Good Lord loves us and wants us to be happy. It's insanely reliable, it doesn't look scary (so it won't scare relatives, children and pets), and it's a little bit of history. Its .30-06 ammunition is cheap to obtain, and has incredible knock-down power.
For those with a bit more cash, there are really two options which depend mostly on personal preference. If one likes the heavy option, that is high knockdown power at the expense of high weight, the logical extension is the M14 model. Since there are no surplus M14s directly for sale to the public, your options are either some cheap Chinese copy, the fine Springfield Armory M1A rifle (for $1299 and up), or the penultimate M14, the Fulton Armory M14 for $1799. Again, the 7.62x51mm NATO round is powerful, and the detachable magazine is an advantage over the Garand.
For those with less taste for kick and heavy weight, there's always the .223 Remington caliber. Options include the Ruger Mini-14, which is an excellent little rifle. For those with extra cash and a desire for flexibility, the AR-15 is the best. There are many manufacturers, though again I'm partial to Fulton Armory. Furthermore, the AR-15 community stands ready for Zombie invasion. They've already published a guide on how to deal with this eventuality. Since the AR-15 is a commonly-used platform and ammunition is cheap and readily available, it's a good choice for zombie combat. In addition, the AR presents the quintessential "evil black rifle" silhouette. Even in their undead state, zombies may still retain a primal fear of such weapons.
For SEALs, other sorts of commandos, or people who have more money than braaaaiiiinss, go with the insanely awesome Fulton Armory Mk. 14, Mod 0 EBR, which is an uprated M14 with all sorts of handy combat capabilities. Another route is the excellent Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel which is powerful and light. It has another advantage of fitting in standard ARs, requiring only a new upper receiver.

In addition to rifles, you might want assorted survival stuff, such as food. But mostly rifles, and lots of ammo, because food doesn't keep zombies away from the brains they so much desire which happen to be encased in your pretty little head.
Anyone who wishes to contribute to the defence against zombies by making a donation to my 6.5 Grendel fund is more than welcome.

In Singapore
You noticed the difference? Sounds like you'll have to kill yourself, just to be safe. Besides, maybe the zombies might be less uptight than the current administration. Instead of inspecting for chewing gum, they seem to be content in wandering about aimlessly. However, given the paucity of brains in the island, one must "bevare", as even an average brain will look like Albert Einstein to the zombies.

Until next time, remember: firearms make you more manly.

Light Blogging

I'm not much given to whining, but the fact is there are certain things which piss me off. There has been a convergence of a number of these factors lately, and I've found myself more an more impatient and ready to leave.
I've been reading about a relative of mine who served with the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Normandy campaign in the Second World War. He was a Private First Class, and he died during the Normandy campaign. His date of death is marked as 17 July 1944. Of course, this is after the Regiment returned to England. His jump-mates (or men reporting to be such) spoke to his immediate family, and claimed he was hit on the way down in on 6 June. Either some bureaucrat recorded this date incorrectly, or perhaps he was wounded and it took more than a month for the end to come. In either case, it's unlikely he died as a result of non-combat injuries later on, as he's listed as KIA here. The name is Ralph Tooley.
More impersonal blogging later.

Reasons why I hate the New Deal, Part I

As a conservative-libertarian, it's only natural that any programme of massive government interference in everyone's lives draws my ire. The two biggest packages of this interference were Presidente-for-life FDR's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty". Thanks to these two, we can no longer claim to be living in a capitalist nation.
Of course, people ask me why they should work towards the abolition of these odious programmes because they "help so many disenfranchised people." My contention is that they don't.
To-day in the always sharp EU Referendum Blog,they describe the destructive effect of New Deal Era subsidies on third world agricultural producers. Because US Farmers (along with their similarly pampered EU counterparts) are subsidised to literally grow nothing, they can afford to "dump" their excess products at low cost in developing markets. This drives prices down, and third-world producers out of business.
The upshot of this is that third world nations don't have the chance to create their own agricultural production, and what agricultural production they have is dragged down by the subsidised western industry. All of this results from FDR's programme of farm subsidies which has gone unchallenged since his dictatorship-in-all-but-name.
Interestingly enough, we discussed the very issue of farm subsidies in our American Congress class. It seems that neither of the major parties ever investigate this waste, and only representatives from states that have a vested interest in these policies sit on the appropriate committees.
Well, it isn't just wasting government money anymore. It's wasting third world nations, and no one does a damned thing about it. Instead, we get the constant prattle about debt relief and more aid money. Bah.

Range Report and Rural Misadventures

We discovered a range nearby, and resolved to pay it a visit. We decided to test Levi's new Mini-30 rifle, and put some ammo through the Mauser as well. We also decided it would be nice to take a drive and see new places.
To make a long story short, it took two hours of searching to get there. We drove all over the county, literally from one end to the other. There were innumerable turn-arounds to boot.
To make a long story short, we finally arrived at the range. The facility was very nice. We set up a target at 50 yards. There was also a stop at 100 yards. We started testing Levi's Mini-30. It shot poorly at first, with two jams in the first ten rounds. Afterward, for the next 50 or so rounds, it shot flawlessly, at least for a time. Sadly, it began seizing up again. It seems there's a problem with magazine seating, or perhaps the recoil spring. In any event, it turned into a straight-pull bolt-action rifle. Nevertheless, we managed to expend 160 rounds of 7.62x39 on our trip. It was accurate, putting several holes in a one-inch wide wooden post that was under the bull's eye of our 50-yard target. The Mauser performed well also, and its recoil was considerably less than what I remembered.
The return trip was uneventful, though we did have to turn around a couple of times when we headed down the wrong roads, followed by a quick stop at McDonald's. All told, a fairly successful day.
A replacement mag is in the works. Ruger factory magazines can be purchased for a pittance at the local Cabela's. I smell an upcoming sequel, but hopefully with more ammunition expenditure.

Cliche survey

I've managed to locate Eric Mena's blog. He has a fondness for surveys, so I thought I'd give it a try. I ended up taking the Famous Dating Quiz. Here's how I ended up as follows:
Your dating personality profile:

Intellectual - You consider your mind amongst your assets. Learning is not a chore but a constant search after wisdom and knowledge. You value education and rationality.
Practical - You are a down-to-earth individual who is not impressed with material excess. You care about the stuff of like that really matters.
Adventurous - Just sitting around the house is not something that appeals to you. You love to be out trying new things and really experiencing life.Your date match profile:

Shy - You are put off by people who are open books. You are drawn to someone who is a bit more mysterious. You want to draw her out of her shell and get to know what she is all about.
Practical - You are drawn to people who are sensible and smart. Flashy, materialistic people turn you off. You appreciate the simpler side of living.
Intellectual - You seek out intelligence. Idle chit-chat is not what you are after. You prefer your date who can stimulate your mind.

Your Top Ten Traits

1. Intellectual
2. Practical
3. Adventurous
4. Conservative
5. Wealthy/Ambitious
6. Big-Hearted
7. Religious
8. Sensual
9. Stylish
10. Shy
Your Top Ten Match Traits

1. Shy
2. Practical
3. Intellectual
4. Religious
5. Adventurous
6. Conservative
7. Traditional
8. Funny
9. Big-Hearted
10. Stylish

Take the Online Dating Personality Quiz at Dating Diversions


I'm primarily Intellectual, Practical, and Adventurous. I suppose that fits, though I'd stop short of calling myself an intellectual though, as I dislike immoderate behaviour. I seek a woman who is shy, practical, and intellectual. Sounds good I suppose, given that I do not enjoy the company of boorish types. I don't think that the mark of a liberated woman is uncivilised behaviour. Indeed, I think that a truly liberated woman would have self-confidence and lacking the need to be boisterous. Of course, what I consider to be a liberated woman is sorely at odds with what I see on a daily basis. Let's examine a list of traits I believe to be desirable in a woman:
1)Independence. A woman who lives as a slave of fashion or passion is as much a slave as the much-maligned "house-slave" so looked down upon by contemporaries. In truth, I believe modern women to be far more enslaved than their progenitors. Though in previous generations women were physically, legally, and morally restricted, modern women are subject to a much more insidious influence. As if descended directly from one of Tocqueville's visions, modern women are bent very much to the desires of popular opinion. Rather than wearing the restrictive clothing, they restrict themselves in order to better fit into revealing modern wear. There is a national obsession with dieting, and tomes promising a quick-fix rocket to #1.
2)Non-trendy. As you've probably figured, I hate trendy people. They follow ridiculous fads with the sole justification that many of their peers are pursuing the same ends. The trend in modern times seems to be "individuality", though it's interesting to note that this "self-expression" has led to a uniformity of clothing style that is unmatched even in military units. Furthermore, even people class themselves as "non-trendy" end up following a slightly different trend. It's amazing to see those who thoroughly trash the "shallow commercialist establishment" spending hours accessorising entirely unnecessary bits of personal decoration they picked up at a store that is specifically designed to cater to their needs.
3)Studious. No social event is worse than sitting across the table and staring at them because they know nothing except the latest gossip and drivel produced on television. It's impossible to communicate with these people, as nothing they say has any weight. Their communication is akin to a low-quality internet, dependent on a few movers and shakers who engage in amusing antics to keep the system going. In the end, it's all the same trite garbage. Nobody cares how much liquor Cooter consumed at the last social event.
What makes it worse is that there's no exchange of ideas. I've found the most profitable friendships come when both parties have new ideas to offer. For example, one might take a person who is interested in philosophy and another who is interested in biology. They can combine their respective fields of knowledge and perhaps hatch new and bold ideas.
This discourse, of course, is entirely dependent on both parties having something to give. I've found that many people have nothing to offer intellectually, and any communication ends up being dead space. Is it any wonder so many married couples stop speaking?
4)Inculcated with Western Civilisation. Seeing as how western civilisation is the dominant civilisation, and the one I prefer, it is always a plus for anyone to be conversant in its basics. Sadly, this is another rare quality, as modernistic multi-culturalism denies that people of many races can participate in one tradition of civilisation. It's an interesting aside that this was based on old Victorian racist theories which denied that people of African descent were capable of participating in civilised life. The Western Tradition, founded on Hellenism and Roman Culture, is the opposite: people of many races, creeds, and backgrounds participated in one common culture. That's the reason the Roman Empire was so successful- its culture, laws, and way of life promised people around the world a better way.
5)Spiritual. To me, denying the human spirit is like denying the heliocentric solar system. One can manage with a geocentric model, but it is less elegant. So it is with so-called "scientific monism", which holds man to be a sum of chemical reactions. With this view, all of man's actions have no significance save those which contribute to reproduction. That's not how I live, and it's not what I want to see in others.
6)Libertarian or Conservative. Yes, ideology is part of a successful relationship, any relationship. If there is a fundamental disagreement between both parties about the basis of human nature, there is little common ground.
7)Self-sufficient. Damsels in distress get annoying. A grand rescue every once in a while may be romantic and proof of how far one party will go for the sake of the other. Constant bail-outs are tiresome on the nerves and put great strain, as it banishes the sense of equality from the relationship.
This also relates to control issues. As we learned from the Wife of Bath's Tale, what women really want is control (" 'My liege lady, generally,' said he,/'Women desire to have the sovereignty/As well upon their husband as their love,/And to have mastery their man above'"). Women who seek to change their man generally embark on a fruitless quest that embitters both parties.
8)Not Blonde. Society has had an obsession with women who have yellow-coloured hair, but for the life of me I can't see why. Perhaps I might clarify here, and state "not fake blonde. Women who are so obsessed with social conventions that they bleach their hair and erase its natural beauty are not worth keeping.
9)No tanning booth. Ever. Another one of my numerous quirks is I hate tanning beds or booths. The Good Lord was considerate enough to provide great natural beauty to women of all skin colours. Beauty indeed can be seen to exist in nature, or at least as I see it. When women radically alter their natural state of being, ugliness occurs. A woman who weighs 600 pounds is obviously not in a natural state for a human, hence the consideration of ugliness. The same goes for a girl who fries herself with ultraviolet radiation so that she might look more like her comrades. Little Miss Cracker's skin was not built with enough melanocytes to withstand long-term exposure to ultra-violet radiation. Attempting to jump-start them with a hefty dose ends up giving the most un-natural and hideous skin tone. Furthermore, it makes the participant look like a damned lobster fresh out of the pot. When social conventions over-rule common sense, one cannot expect reasonable behaviour.
10)No weird fetishes. In the internet age, man has experienced a great liberation and has seen the ability to express himself multiply. Sadly, this is a double-edged sword. Some things better kept underground have been exposed to the light of day. I'm referring specifically to the twin plagues of furries and the so-called "big babies" (note: this is not a reference to nine pound infants). If you get off by dressing in a fur suit, or a diaper, you need to stay away from me and other civilised company.

Well, that's it. As you can see, I have pretty high standards, and honestly I don't think it's worth a trade-off. This is why I don't intend to get married or have children. With my fortune, I'd get a daughter who would bleach her hair blonde and a son who would be a "fur-son". Besides, as Tocqueville pointed out, the influence of the tyranny of the majority (especially regarding fashion) is nearly totalitarian in our society, and as a result those who would meet this sort of qualification are exceedingly rare.

Papal Prophecy & Probable Power

Well, this has been a hell of a week for fans of my favourite talk-radio show Coast to Coast AM The big subject has been, like in all other sectors of life, the death of the Pope.
As the world watched John Paul's health decline, a gentleman from Trumpeter's Mission decreed that the Pope would be cured by a "group of mystics" who would gain great influence in the Vatican. Of course, this didn't happen. The gentleman in question now attributes his erroneous call on other "mystics" who gave him false information.
Coast-to-Coast listeners are also making a big deal about the fact the Pope was born under an eclipse, and that his funeral also coincides with another eclipse. This is an interesting bit of trivia, and many predictions for the future of the Catholic Church are coming our way. In the meantime, I'll keep my up with the coming Conclave and hope that some of those Marxist Latin American cardinals don't get elected.
Of course, there's always the St. Malachy Prophecies. This interesting set of Latin phrases is supposed to describe the Pontiffs from the reign of Celestine II in the Twelfth Century all the way to the "Last Pope", described as "Petrus Romanus". A recent guest on Coast-to-Coast, self-described "rogue" astrologer John Hogue. Mr. Hogue wrote a book about said prophecies, entitled The Last Pope. According to these prophecies, we only have two Pontiffs left before judgment day. Here are the recent pontiffs described:
Pastor angelicus (An Angelic Pastor)– Pius XII: 1939-1958
Pastor et nauta (Shepherd and Sailor) – John XXIII: 1958-1963
Flos florum (A Flower of Flowers) – Paul VI: 1963-1978
De medietate lunæ (From the Half Moon) – John Paul I: 1978
De labore solis (From the Sun’s Labor) – John Paul II: 1978-2005
Now, some of these are rather convincing - Paul VI had three lilies on his crest (hence the flower), and his Papacy represented the flowering of knowledge as Vatican II came into force. The John Pauls are also convincing- John Paul I lasted about a month, from one half-moon to another, and JPII's title can also be construed to mean "Laborer of the East", hinting at his Polish ancestry.
Conversely, a lot of them don't fit. Pius XII is known as the "Angelic Pastor". The Jews might wish to contend that, considering Pius XII horrific failure to condemn the Holocaust. John XXIII's title of "shepherd and sailor" only fits in the most cursory fashion- John was the pastor of Venice before he became Pope. This sort of cursory fit seems more or less typical of this list.
Given my cursory knowledge of Renaissance Popes, let's examine them:
Præcursor Siciliæ (A Forerunner from Sicily) – Innocent VIII: 1484-1492
Innocent VIII was Genoese, not Sicilian, though he did spend time at the Neapolitan court. However, this court was in Naples, not in Sicily. His forerunner, Sixtus VI, was also Genoese, not Sicilian. A cursory fit at best.
Bos Albanus in portu (An Alban Bull in the Port) – Alexander VI: 1492-1503
My least favourite renaissance pope (which is saying a lot), Alexander was a Spaniard named Rodrigo Borgia. Albanus might be a reference to Britain, which makes no sense. Amusingly, his successor refused to say mass for the departed Alexander, saying "it is blasphemous to say mass for the souls of the damned."
De parvo homine (From a Little Man) – Pius III: 1503
Reigned for only twenty-six days. I know little about him, except that he tried to reform the corrupt Papacy after Alexander VI's orgies and nepotism. I have no information about his height.
Fructus Jovis juvabit (The Fruit of Jupiter Will Help) – Julius II: 1503-1513
My favourite renaissance Pope, Julius was more a soldier than a priest. His operative quote might be his remark before riding off to meet the King of France in battle- "Let's see who has bigger balls." Julius was very king-like, and sought the unification of Italy under the Papacy. Jupiter is usually associated with kings, though an association with Mars might be more appropriate.
De craticula Politiana (From a Politian Gridiron) – Leo X: 1513-1521
Leo X is the archetypical renaissance pope. A Medici, he remarked upon his accession to the Throne of Peter that "God has given us the Papacy. Let us enjoy it." He was corrupt, nepotistic, and used his anal fistula as an excuse to engage in hunting and mock poetic triumphs involving elephants. He came from a political family, which might make sense, though the Latin phrase is rather confusing.
Leo Florentinus (A Lion of Florence) – Adrian VI: 1522-1523
This makes no sense whatsoever. Adrian VI was the last non-Italian pope until John Paul II. He was a Dutchman, not a Florentine. His priestly career focused on Spain primarily, and the Spanish Emperor Charles V was instrumental in his election. He attempted to re-form the Church and was known for his modest habits. This didn't please the Italian noble families, and they were glad when he died after a short Pontificate. Most of his papers disappeared. My second favourite renaissance Pope, Adrian claimed that the Pope could err in matters of faith (haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem assurondo). This doesn't sit well with many Catholics who like the Vatican I doctrines. It sits very well with me, however.
Flos pilæ ægri (From the Flower of the Ball) – Clement VII: 1523-1534
Another Medici. This phrase actually fits well, as Clement was the better of the two Medici popes. The Medici family coat-of-arms has balls (palle in Italian) on it, and is still visible in many Florentine buildings. Was Pope during the Sack of Rome, during which he hid in the Castel Sant'Angelo and was almost killed by French musket-fire. He was a shrewd diplomat, but didn't fit in well. During his reign, Henry VIII broke off with the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England.

As you can see, this list is pretty spotty when it comes to predictions. Here are the last two Popes:
Gloria olivae (From the Glory of Olives) - ? : 2005-?
If taken at face value, it sounds like an Italian will re-capture the throne of St. Peter and will be well respected and do much for the Church. Though I'd prefer an African, anyone who continues in JPII's tradition will be respected. More reforms of the Roman Church would be nice though.
Petrus Romanus- In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremêdus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.
"In extreme persecution, the seat of the Roman church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will pacify the sheep in many tribulations, at the end of whose term the city of Seven Hills will be destroyed and the whole world (literally "populace") will be judged by the Great Judge. The End."
Doesn't bode well for the chances of the planet, does it?

On a happier note (and also on Coast to Coast), an extremely clever Australian has solved the efficiency issues regarding wind power by sending the windmill to 15,000 feet! The efficiency of this machine might be as high as 90% in some areas, and it's completely clean. It uses electric motors to stay aloft, which run off its own power. The rest of the power is transmitted via cable to the ground. There's no fossil fuel, no nuclear waste, and it's cheap.

Admiralty FAQ

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm writing a personal FAQ. I'll update as needed.

Who the hell are you?
The Admiral.

That doesn't tell me anything. You have a name?
'deed I do. Unfortunately, given the current tendency of governments to regulate blogging, I'm keeping my identity under wraps. Those who need to know do know.

What do you do?
Professionally? Nothing. I'm more or less a permanent student.

I've read your blog. It's all political stuff. Do you have a shred of a personal life?
Yes, but nothing to write about. If something remarkable happens, I'll point it out.

What are some things you like?
Political events, bad movies, some good movies, philosophy, history, war, and firearms.

Anything else?
Maybe. When I think of it, I'll update.

What do you not like?
Don't get me started.

People say you're a bit of a hermit. Why is that?
Mostly because I don't like people. More specifically, I'm quite deliberate in the type of company I keep. I don't see the point in speaking to people who truly have nothing to say.

Why don't you drink? Everybody's doing it
All the other nations are using the metric system. This goes to show that popular arguments tend to be wrong.

Are you the weirdo who walks around all the time?
I am said weirdo.

What do you do it for?
I'm working.

Why don't you have a girlfriend?
Don't want one. Girls tend to be expensive, and I'm not given to compromise.

But what about love?
Love isn't a big part of most relationships I've seen, though perhaps I'm mistaken, he really loves you, and it really is "more than just physical".

People seem to ask you about relationships often. Why?
I'm as puzzled as you are.

Do you have any relationship advice for me?
I can supply someone else's:
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
A pretty woman makes a man look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he married her
Then she starts doin' the things that will break his heart
But if you make an ugly woman your wife
You'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks your meals on time
An she'll always treat you kind
-Jimmy Soul

I hear you're a war nut
You've heard correctly. War is the only real sport. Everything else is just a pale imitation.

I also hear you're a gun nut
I don't think a sixty year-old surplus rifle qualifies me for that exalted state, but I'll try harder.

What is your future career?
I'm going to law school eventually, but I've no desire to be a barrister.

Why do you have to be such a smart ass?
Better a to be a smart ass than a dumb ass.

You don't look so tough. I could take you on.
You don't sound too smart. Strength is not the sole virtue in conflict.

What's a "Tranzi?"
"Tranzi" is short for Transnational Progressivism, a philosophy which is based on "emerging international norms" which can be defined as "what the Europeans are doing". Tranzis are inherently anti-democratic. They believe society must be managed from the top down, and individuals entirely subject to the discretion and needs of the state. Rights are gifts from the government rather than part of man's nature, and the state can abridge them for convenience's sake. They're also virulently opposed to the free market and personal discretion. Embodied most purely in the United Nations and the European Union. Also prevalent in the major news-media.
Term shamelessly stolen from Samizdata.net's blog. See their concise definition here.

Since you hate the international standard so much, what government do you want?
One where I can live without fear of foreign invasion, and without fear of my own government's excesses. Basically, I want to be left alone.

What do you believe?
I am fairly religious, though my religion is free of Popish Superstition and other similarly undesirable elements.
With regards to philosophy, it's a more difficult question. Let me just say that there's an unseen world which exists alongside ours that we've not the nature to perceive, yet still affects us.

How Sexy Are You? Grroowwwwllll.
Those who should know do. Those who don't will probably be disappointed.

What Should I get you for your Birthday?
Anything from Fulton Armory.

What's your ideal day?
Spend the day out-of-doors, and the evening indoors with a good book and a fire. Trite, isn't it?

Why doesn't anyone comment?
Good question. Get to work before I have to tell you twice.

And just for Tom:
You need to convert to Roman Catholicism. Oo-ee-oo.
I'll convert to Catholicism when its doctrines coincide with my own. Until then, the answer is nyet.

Any suggestions for future questions will be entertained. Submit them in the comments section, s'il vous plais.

The Vatican, and the Clash

Pope John Paul II Dies
First, a salute to the late Pontiff- ave Ioannes Paulus II, Pontifex Maximus. Requiescat in pace.
John Paul II has dominated the Papacy like few other Pontiffs. Nearly all Cardinals, Bishops, and other Church officials have been appointed by him. He has led the Roman Church through a great deal of modernisation, while keeping intact its old values. He has also increased the sense of interdenominational fellowship amongst the Christian faiths, and also has fostered a sense of brotherhood with other faiths as well. His numerous other accomplishments are better listed elsewhere.
His chief gifts to the Roman Church were two-fold: first, he was a strong leader. Second, his uncompromising defence of life and the dignity of the human person. Without him, it seems Catholicism is at a cross-roads. There are those who want to "liberalise" the Roman Church- i.e. bring its position into line with contemporary Tranzi standards, especially in regards to birth control, abortion, and "right-to-die" issues. Of course, there are those (such as the news-media) for whom this would be a dream come true. The aura of moral legitimacy which the Papacy possesses would be a boon to their cause. One can imagine them now- "see?" they would say, "Even the Pope agrees that ours is a sensible and moral idea. Thus, everyone who argues against it is an eeeeevil extremist who foams at the mouth and should be muzzled."
Naturally, the moral legitimacy of the Papacy that John Paul and his predecessors took years to re-build after the tragic failure of Pius XII and the historical debauchery and corruption of the Vatican would be instantly squandered on such an act. Tranzi philosophy regarding life is based on the idea that human beings are nothing more than a sum of chemical reactions which do nothing except seek pleasure and avoid pain. To Tranzis, there is no spirit, nor any other thing which would make life precious. Instead, living things are merely a problem to be managed, like so many animals in a herd. Tranzi philosophy specialises in playing one ethnic or religious or other group against another in a game of comparative victimhood. As the Romans would say, divide et impera.
The respective views of life of Religion and Tranzi/Scientism are fundamentally irreconcilable. There either is a spirit or there is not. If there is a spirit, life is precious and should be cherished and preserved unless extreme need or justice demands other-wise. If not, life is really nothing special, and may be terminated as desired in order to enhance the "quality of life" of others.
Let us take, for example, the child with trisomy 21, or Down's Syndrome. Now, they are genetically determined to be retarded. They are going to be hard and expensive to raise, and they will require special care for most of their lives. They won't ever really be productive citizens per se, though this is not always (but usually) the case. What would you do?
In the option of life, advocated by the Late Pontiff, one would assume the hardship of raising the child because his humanity alone merits his continued existence. Yes, he'll be hard to raise, but it is his right to live. He has committed no sin for which man may punish him with death, nor is he required to lay down his life in defence of principle. The special schooling and other associated costs are an unfair burden to the parents, but life isn't fair. It is not the child's fault that he represents an unfair financial burden; he did not choose to have trisomy 21. Those involved must look after him because there is no other moral alternative.
In the "quality of life" option, the family realises that the child will be an unfair financial burden, and will be unproductive. Furthermore, the child's life will probably be greatly unpleasant. Thus, they elect to destroy the child in some way, either within the womb or immediately outside of it.
Why do the "quality of life" types do this? Simple. The worth of a man is not measured in spiritual terms: merely in concrete ideas. A man is nothing more than the wealth he creates, the children he might produce, the car he rides, and the pleasure he enjoys. When the pain outshines the pleasure, life no longer has meaning. He has no value other than what he contributes, and has no intrinsic value to his person. The trisomy 21 child, because he does not "contribute" and only "takes away" is worth nothing, and is disposed of appropriately.
Such an attitude is frightening to anyone with moral sentiments. This sort of philosophy has spawned the most horrendous crimes the human race has ever witnessed. The gas chambers of the Nazis were put into use because the Jews were a "parasite" which "sucked the blood of the Aryan race". The lives of Jews had no value to the Nazis because they did not believe that life itself had an intrinsic value. This is also evident in the T4 Euthanasia programme. In addition, Stalin's infamous purges and famines were a result of this same sort of calculation- the lives of Stalin's people had no more meaning than their service to the Soviet State. When they became a thorn in Stalin's side, they were dealt with. One of the most frightening moments in the excellent book Darkness at Noon is when capital punishment is defined. Executions are not the just retribution of a society against the most horrible criminals, but rather the "cessation of political activity". People were shot because their talk had become dangerous, and it shut them up permanently.
Modern Tranzi philosophy is based in the thought of Marx and others who denied the human soul and believed that human utility was the ultimate definition of a man's worth.
This same thought process which spawned the horrors of eugenics, genocide, and mass murder is being used to-day. Even now, eugenics programmes of a sort are being carried out. I've already mentioned the terrifying Gorningen Protocols which enable Dutch physicians to Euthanise children up to 18 years of age based on a cost-benefits analysis of their future worth and ability to obtain pleasure. Another one worth noting is the San Francisco Programme to sterilise obese men because of a "genetic link". I thought social Darwinism spawned racism, genocide, and other things which we loathe to-day. Yet, we're still using the same old methods to eliminate "undesirables" from the gene pool.
The next Pontiff must fight against the philosophy of the Tranzis. It's an uphill battle, but the end is worthwhile. The Catholic Church, cooperating with people of faith around the world, can stop the obscene "culture of death" which is making headway into our society. By making a determined stand against programmes like euthanasia, we can demonstrate the value human society places on life and not the accidents of living.
The next Pontiff, ideally, will be a philosopher and a fighter. He'll need eloquence to spread the message of life against a tide of propaganda against it. He'll need resourcefulness and an uncanny knack for bringing people together to aid in the fight. He'll need a spotless record and great personal integrity to survive the salvos aimed at his character from the opposition.
But most of all, he'll need a great reservoir of internal courage, and faith in his convictions. The clash between the culture of life and the culture of death is at the core of the so-called "culture wars" which are raging now in the media. The new Pontiff will be one of the leading figures in the fight, and must possess the virtues of a soldier and a leader if he desires victory.
If a pontiff who represents the other side is elected, I can only see disaster for the Roman Church, and an irreversible setback for the culture of life. I'm keeping close watch on the upcoming Conclave. I think everyone else should, too.