Featured

Poe’s Law

Poe’s Law states that without complete disclosure that what are you are writing is satire and should not be taken seriously, no matter how outlandish and exaggerated ones writing may seem, it can and will however be taken literally by some persons on the internet. Clear explanation of the writer’s intent must always be given for there is a certainty that some readers will mistake the article for a sincere expression. Poe’s Law is a recent development coinciding with the development and mainstream adaptation usage of the internet however its core message dates back much earlier.

A Modest Proposal was a piece written by Jonathan Swift in 1729 with proposed that the poor eat their own children to ease their suffering. This essay was written with the full intent to raise a point through the use of satirical irony, however at the time it was met with confusion and outrage as many members of the public took the proposal literally.  A Modest Proposal is no doubt not the first time that a satirical piece was mistaken for a genuine article however given the content of the essay it definitely had some of the worst possible consequences. Given this human nature and the fact that satire is actually one of the hardest writing styles to portray to the reader I present to you the following disclaimer.

This is my Blog, There are many like it but this one is mine 🙂 But in seriousness -Any resemblance to persons or event is entirely coincidental or is intended purely as a satire, parody or spoof of such persons or event and is not intended to communicate any true or factual information about that person or event. This blog is NOT intended for a mature, sophisticated and discerning audience. The writings on the following page are the delusional ramblings of a Madman and are not meant to be taken seriously by anyone. If you take offence to anything I say go and kill yourself.

“One of the artifices of Satan, is to induce men to believe that he does not exist: another, perhaps equally fatal, it to make them fancy that he is obliged to stand quietly by, and to meddle with them, if they get into true silence”.  – Charles Baudelaire.

A simpler way to put it would be, The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

Why do criminal masterminds get caught? Primarily speaking of the mass murders.  Its because of hubris. Its almost like in a way they want to get caught. It’s a game to them. They leave their tell-tale clues as some sic way of rubbing it into our faces of how much smarter they are. It’s a thrill to them to be so close to getting caught but slipping through the cracks. But eventually they fuck it all up and push to far, but you have to ask yourself if getting caught is all part of the plan. What’s the point of foreplay if there is no climax?

Its like when some basic bitch goes to south America and takes a bunch of selfies. You think she gives a fuck about the ancient Mayan ruins? Fuck no. Its to rub it in everyone else’s faces about how much fun she is having. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? If you don’t post pics of Normie-Book for everyone to see did you really go there?  And if some sick Pedo murders little Timmy and doesn’t leave a trail of clues for the Authorities to follow around for a few months, was it all worth it?

To be a truly sick fuck you have to do these deeds with the sole motivation of being a sick fuck. This cant be about some cat and mouse game with the cops. This isn’t about you trying to prove to everyone how smart you are buy getting away with your shit for so long. To murder for the sole purpose of being a murderer. No motivation, No Purpose, Just complete and utter chaos.  Leaving the bread crumbs is armature hour.

To be a true monster is to not exist at all.

And monsters do exist.

 

Disclaimer- No I do Not to claim to be one of these “Monsters” Im writing about. The very act of me writing these piece would infact be one of the bread crumbs, had I gone on a murderous rampage, hence mitigating everything I just said.  So if your currently “glowing in the dark” You can look elsewhere. Sorry.

Capital Punishment Accpetance Bell Curve Distribution.

Quite frequently you will hear somebody say that “they wish they would bring back the death penalty” usually as a result of some news story about the latest horrific child molester or something similar. This is an understandable reaction for the majority of people as it is an emotional response that overrides and clouds the rational part of the part. Some people base their decisions on emotion and some people base theirs on logic.  But there’s much more to this debate that needs be taken into account that is often overlooked by our emotional counterparts.

I’m neither for nor against Capital Punishment, in fact I’m actually for both options. But how can someone be both for and against something? Well it depends on the time and place in history. I like to think of all the cultures on earth in the current timeline, as being on a bell curve where you have the tribal savages on one end of the extreme and super advanced, technological cultures on the other end.  Now a normal distribution bell curve tells us most of the cultures,  (in the current time) will fall roughly in the middle, with some cultures leaning more towards the primitive society end of the spectrum and some leaning more towards the culturally advanced end.  There isn’t actually and never will be a perfect culture as I like to think that the sky’s the limit however there most definitely are the primitive cultures with very little cultural advancement present even today. Some tribes in the Amazon Rainforest and the tablelands of Pupa New Guinea have remained in a prefect tribal state with very if any influence from western civilisation. So this isn’t actually a normal distribution bell curve but one that looks something like this.

So when is Capital punishment tolerated and when can it be beneficial to society? Well I would say that the death penalty should be acceptable at either end of the bell curve, ie the savages and the advanced end and I will break down each side individually. Primitive tribal societies are generally living in pretty crappy conditions. They are at arms with the environment and the weather. Disease and animals are a constant threat and generally just staying alive is a daily struggle. Now I’m not saying that living in these conditions that these cultures do is impossible but if you look at the average life span compared to our own considerably easy lives you will find quiet a difference. So living like this you can’t have little Jonny running around committing heinous crimes. What are they going to do? Send him to a psych and try to rehabilitate him back into society? These cultures dealing with trouble people have far too much to lose with these outcasts running around.  Now these cultures do in fact engage in capital punishment with their own form of judicial system.  It’s definitely not a perfect system and I’m sure wrongly accused people have been executed in these cultures, but that’s the collateral price that needs to be paid for a system that largely works for them in that time and place.

So the other instance where Capital punishment should be implemented is in the higher developed cultures. But to understand why you need to understand why it doesn’t work for the majority of cultures living in the meat of the bell curve.  Call this my argument against if you will. I personally live in Australia which I think would fall smack bang at the peak of the curve. Most western cultures in my opinion would fall in this area. Places like Japan and Switzerland in my opinion are leaning more towards to advance side of the curve while parts of the Middle East and some African cultures are leaning more towards the “shit hole” side of things.  So why doesn’t capital punishment work for those of us at the peak?  Bureaucracy, Corruption, Cost, Not a Deterrent, Not a solution to the bigger problem, Other options available, Rehabilitation available and the list goes on.  But Dude, What about if someone rapes a little girl?!? I hear your mind asking yourself in self-absorbed righteousness. Well congratulations to you for cherry picking one of the very few circumstances where almost every person on earth would agree that capital punishment is fully acceptable. This example however would be such a small percentage of cases that is nowhere near enough reason to implement capital punishment as a whole into these societies. What about the untold millions executed throughout history for their political reasons, race, religion, and even having the wrong ideas? If you allow capital punishment for any reason no matter how heinous the crime, then you open the flood gates for the possibility for being executed for any number of reasons even the more trivial, shown countless times throughout history and even currently. You only have to read a book about any one of the more oppressive regimes to understand what a tyrannical government is capable of. So when have a not too advanced, not to savage culture that has capital punishment implement as a possible solution to criminal activity. Who decides if the punishment is justified? Are there appeal procedures put in place? Are there fail safes to ensure that corruption doesn’t result in unjustified executions? How sure are you that non bias is present in the Jury and Judges? These exact reason are why “some” countries that do use capital punishment have such lengthy and costly procedures. This is even before you get to the actual morality and ethics of the subject.  And it’s in fact these reasons that many countries have done away with capital punishment, opting for the much cheaper and simpler solution of life imprisonment.

So understanding why Capital punishment doesn’t work in the meat of the bell curve, its easy to understand why the perfect advanced civilisation is able to make it all work. These theoretical societies have the resources to mitigate everything I just said. In theory perfect civilisations are free from corruption and bias, have much more refined judicial systems and have unlimited funding for the process. The process has most probably been streamlined and ethically and morally it ticks all the boxes.  So like I said earlier I don’t believe any one culture has or ever will reach the “perfect” status, but some more than others are definitely leaning more in that direction, and therefore in a better place to implement capital punishment.  So looking forward  to the future as certain cultures advance socially and culturally it’s a subject that should become re-evaluated.

Meaningful Conversation

When did it become so difficult to have a decent conversation with somebody? People would rather sit in their eco chambers and regurgitate the same thoughts and opinions fearful that they may encounter a new idea that would deviate from their ideology. Approach anybody these days and try to expand their simple media controlled minds and you will be met with harsh backlash and perhaps even shunned. Why even asking a question that hedges that your opinion sightly differs from the “official narrative” will surely result in you being labelled a conspiracy theorists. A term literally invented by the powers to be to discredit anyone that questions their narrative.

When did an honest exchange of ideas, or what used to be called a debate, turn into an argument resulting in flared tempers and name calling? Expose anybody these days with facts and logic that differs from their own and they will become even more steadfast in their original beliefs. Draw anyone’s attention from their mobile phones for more than 30 seconds and present them with a new thought or idea and you will instantly be laughed at and mocked by the collective. The hive mind if you will.

Ask yourself when was the last time you came out of a conversation having acquired a new understanding of the topic that you once never thought possible? The purest form of conversation is not talking AT somebody, or being spoken TO. That falls under the definition of a lecture. The purest form of conversation involves both parties learning something new as well and discrediting something they previously believed. This is going to be a hard pill for many people to swallow but it might entirely be possible that the person you are speaking to may actually know something you don’t already know. This may be an even harder pill for most to swallow but it is entirely possible that someone has an opinion that is entirely different from your own. And here’s the real ball breaker, when it comes to opinions there are no right or wrong ones. Why even converse with anybody in the current landscape?

With very little to benefit why risk the possibility of offending and enduring the backlash that comes with it. Why would anybody talk about anything other than the token idle chit-chat that has now taken place around the water cooler? What are you watching on Netflix? How’s your sporting team doing? And of course let’s engage in the daily 2 minutes hate of whatever political leader the current media establishment is at arms with. Walk into any break room of an office and you will be meet with vapid meaningless discussion from drones barely able to hold gaze with you from more than 30 seconds without retreating to their mobile devices where they will no doubt be in the process of consuming some form of media that is 100% in line with their view of the world.

When was the last time a group of men “sorry ladies but you can’t do politics” were able to sit in a quiet bar and discuss some of the problems of the world and actually come to an agreement on how to make things better? I challenge you even find a person that hasn’t yet been completely swallowed by the void for some meaningful interaction. The numbers are growing smaller every day.