Leaders and Dictators

Leaders lead people, Dictators dictate to people – without people, there are no leaders nor dictators.

So when we the people have the opportunity to vote and select our leaders, we need to ensure that we are selecting for leadership and not allowing dictators to slip under the radar and dictate to us in defiance of the form of government and the social contract that defines and binds the country.

There are people who seek to be leaders for actually good reasons – but they tend to be naive and idealists – easily crushed by the masses who prefer to hear what we want to hear, rather than object truth, which is harsh and unpleasant.

Marx’s manifesto was such a document, but it was perverted and corrupted by other people for greed and self interest. Age and experience will always trump youth and ideals; which is why there’s never been true communism, Marx was naive.

Luckily, fixing the problems of the globe aren’t hard – we just have to stop trying to fix anything and let the balance be restored – but it’s harsh. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

The reality is that we’ve lost the fight against bacteria – we were in balance until we introduced penicillin – the bugs got better than the medicines because they have a new generation every 20 minutes, their evolution has outraced our artificial selection and artificial impact to the natural environment.

Instead of killing off the susceptible bacteria – to re-balance humans and bacteria, we need to allow the bacteria to kill off the susceptible humans, if we don’t the bacteria will continue to evolve until there’s no human left to be able to withstand them.

So, it’s easy to fix, just hard to get agreement and action on.

Instead of trying to feed everyone in the world, we have to reduce the human population down to the level where it’s matched by the food we can produce – and produce locally.

It’s not cheap produce when it has to be shipped and trucked across the globe – we didn’t do badly eating seasonally according to our region – in fact, we were all healthier and fitter.

We can’t allow for mono-crops and low diversity agricultural – we have to stop with the pesticides that disrupt hormones, because hormones are the same whether it’s bugs or people – we are agriciding ourselves to death.

We nee people in lower density and agriculture more diversified – more bio diversity, not less – more diversity means more things survive drought, disease and extinction-death.

The bees will stop dying when the agricultural diversity is restored – and they are not limited to single foods.

Biodiversity means competition and it’s competition that makes for a strong system.

There’s not a food chain, but a food web – everything is interconnected – and humans have upset the web along all the key support lines:  we’ve over-fished, under-planted, over grown our habitat and left every few places wild and untouched.

Humans will be the extinction event unless we change our ways to sustainability; because  mere existence is the path to extinction;  it is survival that is sustainable.

Right now, humans are not sustainable. Not without the will of the people and moreso, the will of leadership of said people.

To be a leader, one must be popular and popularity is at odds with truth. Specifically, at odds with telling the truth, because we the people don’t want to hear it – we want to hear that things will be okay, even when they won’t.

But they won’t be okay as long as we deny truth – because then, we can’t solve problems when we won’t identify the problems.

This is again were religion points us in the wrong direction – life is special, of all the planets that we know of, ours is the only one with life on it. But the lives of individuals aren’t special or magical or sacred – life itself is.

We are too human-centric in thinking that the universe is our plaything or made just for us, and if we’re good little obedient creatures how don’t play inappropriately with our genitals, then we’ll be rewarded. We are going to die no matter what and who we do with our genitals.

We cannot insist on saving everyone we can, we have to consider the longer picture and think about the people who are only not born, but their parents and their parents and their parents that aren’t conceived yet.

We do not inherit from our ancestors, we borrow against our children.

W e borrow from the future for today – but if we continue to defer the bill, there won’t be a future with humans in it.

Allowing our technology to outstrip our ability to manage it in a way that doesn’t displace people is to doom ourselves tro extinction

How many Easter Islands do we need to see?

Civilizations that used up their resources in worship rather than in sustainable works? Principals and ideals ahead of people do not serve the needs of the people.

The stone heads are interesting, and we know how they were made – but no one is left to tell us why they were made and the making of them – the destruction of the forest for lumber – is what lead to the destruction of the civilization – no forest reduced the biodiversity, lead to soil erosion, lead to famine, to extinction of that culture.

We cannot allow technology to replace human labour and leave nothing for people to do –  this is why the Egyptians didn’t do anything more than discover steam power – it was too costly to figure out how to make use of the power of steam – but also, too costly to figure out work for the displaced workers.

And displaces workers are discontented people, and discontented people tend to revolt and overthrow a system that excludes them.

People with meaningful work are meaningful people, contributing people, people do not sow revolution of the society that they are participating in.

Religion occasionally gets a few things sort of right, but only to ensure that there’s some truth to be found in order to control the masses.

Idle hands are the devil’s playthings, because when you have nothing to do with your hands, it means that you have time to use your mind – and more likely, you will use your mind to see what an evil blight that religion is on the land – and the end of religion is what religion fears the most. It was, after all, the fruit of knowledge that was forbidden.

This is why athiests are a threat to religion, because not only do you not need religion to be good, religion is no good, so no good can come of religion – any good within religion is down to the individual good that people are – it’s despite the/ir religion.

So, bringing it back to election time and leaders and dictators – we the people decide who leads us – either by voting or revolting.

There is an upper limit of how much people can stand a society wherein the social contract is a lie.

This is why no one can win in Afghanistan and we’d been better off to not have gone – change in a nation must come from within – must come from the people.

People won’t change or do anything unless tricked, forced or bribed in normal circumstances and in extraordinary ones – such as we are in in these times of massive social change across the globe – until the truth is less distressing and preferable to the truthiness and lies we generally content ourselves with.

It is time to put aside and away the dictators and lead as we the people. One for all and all for one. Inclusion, multiculturalism, consultation, bottom’s up.

We need leaders who will consult, consider and work cooperatively.

We don’t need wannabes with secretive and controlling agendas who want to be in the big chair and cost us time and money that we don’t have to spend.

So, this Canada Election – remember Danny Williams and mark your ballot – anyone but conservative.

11 thoughts on “Leaders and Dictators

  1. Bethesda, MD— “Super bugs,” which can cause wide-spread disease and may be resistant to most, if not all, conventional antibiotics, still have their weaknesses. A team of Canadian scientists discovered that specific mixtures of antimicrobial agents presented in lipid (fatty) mixtures can significantly boost the effectiveness of those agents to kill the resistant bacteria. This discovery was published online in The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org).
    According to a researcher involved in the study, Richard Epand, Ph.D. from the Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Science at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, “This study may contribute to overcoming the lethal effects of drug resistant bacteria that is becoming an increasing clinical problem, particularly in hospitals.”
    To make their discovery, Epand and colleagues conducted experiments using groups of mice infected with lethal doses of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli (E. coli). Researchers then treated the mice with conventional drug combinations or drug combinations encapsulated in lipid mixtures. They found that certain lipid mixtures caused the drugs to act together in a synergistic manner. In this form, the drugs were much more effective in increasing the survival rate of the mice because they overcame the cellular mechanisms used by these bacteria to defeat therapeutic agents. This study also demonstrated a novel use of a new family of antimicrobial agents called oligo-acyl-lysyls, which have the potential to be combined with other drugs and lipid mixtures with similar properties to yield a platform for other specific applications.
    “As we’ve seen in the recent E.Coli outbreak in Germany, bacteria can mutate to become super bugs that resist antibiotics,” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal, “Thanks to this new, lipid-based antibiotic therapy. multidrug-resistant bacteria may begin to look more like Jimmy Olsen and a lot less like Superman.”

  2. Lots of interesting points. I cannot really cover them all.
    You cripple your argument by not using a theoretical framework as a foundation. Basically, you have used evolution as a starting point, but since you went on to so many topics, it lost its usefulness in tying together your points.

    Evolution problems:

    Yes, bacteria and pests evolve to overcome via resistance (not outright immunity) our antibiotics and poisons. But you are wrong in assuming the existing antibiotics we have are where we stop – as Darwin, above, noted, they are part of the arsenal, not the entire army.

    There are many ways we can use our drugs to overcome bacteria (and pests). One way is to switch them – we could use penicillin for, say, 5 years and then switch to another antibiotic. If this were done worldwide, bacteria would lose their resistance to whatever antibiotic that was not being used (it’s pure fantasy that the world could do this).

    Second, even if we continue to use antibiotics poorly, there is no need to stop and let people die from infection – because, if all bacteria suddenly became resistant to all antibiotics, that would happen anyway. The way in which we use medicine needs to be grounded in morality (more on this below) – the lack of morality with regards to medicine is partly to blame for the resistance we see in bacteria.

    Third, as hinted at above – antibiotics like penicillin are “first line” drugs. We have second and third line drugs now to fight infection, along with surgery and other options should those fail. In fact, the latest antibiotic in use is warm plasma – it simply kills all bacteria on the surface of the skin and so cannot be adapted to (selection = 100%) – these kinds of technologies move us away from antibiotics that can be resisted and toward the giant fly swatter Darwin was discussing above.

    Next, I like your take on agriciding.

    Your take on overpopulation deserves examining, but I don’t know if I can do it justice. Environmentalists often complain about this – but environmentalists come from wealthy, developed nations and not developing nations steeped in poverty. It has ever been the cry and worry of the rich that the poor outnumber them and, at any given moment if they could just unify, could overthrow them (as happened in history).

    Chomsky shows that the laws on the poor act not simply to keep civil society running, but to police the poor and build an underclass that can be exploited by the elite to create wealth. Foucault furthers this argument in showing that the power of the nation is ubiquitous, constantly reaching into the individual and reinforcing social structures and the “societal myths” that keep everyone in place. Consider that it’s bad form to discuss how to overcome poverty or question people’s paychecks – why do you make this much? (a poor example, sorry).

    The notion of structural violence is an economic-developed framework of the two above theories that I mentioned. The rules of society, the economic and healths systems of society can allow people to flourish or suffer. Whenever they stop a person from achieving their full potential, that is structural violence. Unequal access to education, resources and healthcare is structural violence. When someone is born into a poor community, they simply do not have the same chances of achieving a happy life as those born into a wealthy community (or family).

    Consider that the US does not have universal health care. Without this social institution, people who cannot afford health care suffer more than those who can – and are immediately bared from achieving personal happiness in their lives. Fines on people are another form of structural violence: the rich can afford traffic fines, but on the poor – even 25$ is a serious setback and we have fines for almost everything.

    In terms of global health care, the lack of universal health care has caused the increase in drug resistant bacteria. In poor countries, when you get sick you first go to a shaman or local healer. Sometimes they have access to antibiotics have reached the black market – b/c through AID, lots of medicine gets sold/skimmed, never reaching their destination – families typically buy what medicines they have and take them while they can afford them. But, being from the blackmarket, they aren’t always reliable (sell by dates are expired, etc), families cannot afford full treatment courses and so must stop midway, etc.

    Similar problems crop up when those in developing nations go to the hospital – medicines cost a lot, so you buy what you can. With antibiotics you start feeling better before you are. If you are poor, this is when you stop the treatment – you cannot afford full courses. Since antibiotics doesn’t outright kill bacteria (usually they interfere with reproduction), that selects for drug resistant strains – these then develop in the individual. Doctors in poor countries usually do not have the resources to run tests to find out if the bugs are multi-drug resistant (mtdr) and even if they do, they usually don’t have the appropriate drugs to then provide. So they keep giving out the drugs that they already know do not work – patient gets sicker, spreads their mtdr disease around, eventually dies.

    This scenario is how poverty creates mtdr bugs. Allowing all the patients with these strains to die doesn’t work b/c they usually spread them before they die (and people don’t want to die, their families don’t want them to die, so they try to get them help).

    Back to Chomsky and Foucault – basically they would argue that your suggestion that we let nature take its course is a product of the wealthy class projecting their fears and problems onto the poor – we don’t need them, they are causing the problems with mtdr bugs, their morality, they take up too many resources, etc. If you look throughout history, people have been saying this about the poor. These kinds of statements allow the elite and people living in wealthy countries to ignore their own responsibility for the problems that we face today.

    Historically, overpopulation has never been a problem, except locally (Easter Island is not a good example, since Diamond’s discussion is under contention in academia). But with Globalization, European powers spread outward and disrupted the cultures and ecological conditions around the entire world. They displaced people and ruined the land by exporting European farming methods to places unsuitable for them and through mining, logging, and industry. You can pretty much take any place and its history will show that Europeans came in, killed and moved the natives, put some industry in place that initially didn’t work and forever changed the environment, and then replaced it with less damaging industry, finally leaving the ruined land in the hands of some puppet government. Of course we are not allowed to ask these questions or take blame.

    Haiti is a good example. It’s constantly described as the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere. It’s nature is ruined, and that is blamed on the Haitians. Yet history tells a different story: the French went there and killed all the natives, then imported slaves to start a sugar/rum/tea industry. Eventually the black slaves revolted and killed their masters. France tried to take it back, but their military was ruined and they could not afford the war. Haiti tried to establish itself in the global economy, but none of the world powers would deal with them – they could not deal with former slaves, lest their own slaves rebel. So, America, Germany and Britain would show up from time to time with gunboats and steal the treasury – the origin of the phrase “gunboat diplomacy.” Haiti simply could not get together the resources to rebuild their country and could not exist in the global economy at that time, except at the bottom (because the natives who had a subsistence lifestyle and knew how to work the land were all killed, the slaves had no other model except European agriculture and industry and those require being part of the global economy).

    Subsequently, with the US wanting control over its part of the world, it put its own puppet dictators in place, who continued the flow of resources out of the country and basically kept Haiti bankrupt for 150 years. Even as late as the 1990’s, the US forced Haiti to slaughter all of its “creole pigs” – the kind that can eat anything, straw, discarded veggies, etc., and still grow and produce meat – and buy “American pigs” – the kind that require expensive grains as foods, but eventually get bigger and fatter than the other ones. Getting rid of the pigs that were good for poverty had a huge negative impact on Haiti. It diverted resources from this poor country to the US when Haiti had to buy pigs and it further impoverished and created under-nutrition for the peasants who relied on the cheaper, more adaptable pigs.

    I’m going to stop now. Basically, I think your argument would be stronger if you tied it to a moralistic or a social science theoretical framework, dropped evolution out of it, and concentrated on one or two points. Or, you could write several arguments using any of the points and strengthen each through some basic, underlying focus. Poverty and population are complex problems not solved by simply advocating for the deaths of lots of people.

    I also liked your discussion of how to make food local again – this could be tied into policies revolving around the reduction of poverty, which would thereby increase health outcomes of poor nations.

    • wow, thank you for commenting – I think I’ll have to break out this massive blog into several separate blogs once I’ve assimilated all that you and others have written.

      You are right to identify that I have no framework – I don’t have a framework because I am experiencing a meta existentialist crisis and I am still working out the details before I can put the frame around it. The experience is very unsettling and I have lost some concepts entirely – time for example, has no substantive meaning – but when you’re sorting out what has meaning, the framework to establishing meaning is elusive.

      Right now I am still working out survival and thriving levels of meanings and value. I get close to what I hope is a final phase, only to turn a corner and realized that there’s more layers to work through.

      • Hey,

        What is your main point? What is the main problem about society you are questioning?

        Evolution does not make a good moral framework. It has none itself and merely operates as a mathematical algorithm given certain constraints/features.

        What is moral to you? Apply this to your existential framework and see what you come up with.

        Don’t do anything drastic, you are very much worth everything,
        H.

        • I haven’t gotten to were I understand the framework, still working on what’s moral – although, I am not sure that evolution doesn’t provide a framework.

          Things that are adaptive survive, things that are rigid do not – so being flexible is better than being rigid.

          Diversity is a healthier ecosystem and niche than not, so diversity is more enduring and meaningful than mono-anything – so that means that bigotry, intolerance of other people and cultures is not moral, it’s actually self defeating to remove or limit the richness of life and experience.

          In order to be able to live in groups – especially diverse groups – we have to behave and get along and accept each other how we are – and people who behave in anti-social ways, violence be it physical or psychological are a threat to that getting along – so evolution is need socially as well – it need not be so red in tooth and claw all the time, it’s a scale of magnitude – humans no longer have any natural predator except for other humans – so we still need to be vigilant and not complaint about survival and how to survive healthy and whole – especially psychologically.

          Evolution’s mechanism may be mathematical, but it’s application is scalable into other areas – we also continue to evolve individually throughout our lives – genes turn off and on all the time from the conditions that we find ourselves in – chronic stress for example, changes your priorities, your brain physiology and your hormonal soup to stew in…

    • I recognize that being Canadian that I am in the top 10% of wealthy people worldwide – however, I don’t think population reduction should be done only in poor countries, but in all countries where the population isn’t sustainably supported – but not through any government pogrom initiative – and certainly not targeted groups based on group characteristics or identity.

      I also think that much of the anti-abortion sentiment in the USA is the fear of white people of being outnumbered by non-white people – never mind the reality that globally, white people are already outnumbered.

      With less than 1% genetic difference between me and any other person on the planet – I can’t come up with a single reason why I would be more valuable than anyone else – in fact, several reasons why I am less valuable – being near the end of the breeding age and unwilling to have a child, evolutionarily speaking, makes me a dead end.

      The difference between the have and the have not countries rests with educating women – the 1995 UN Women’s conference produced a paper that linked women’s education to reduced birth rates – the problem is then countries which cultures do not support educating and empowering women to be in control of their reproduction.

      So, my motive for allowing the populations to plummet isn’t motivated by racism or classism, but rather a feminist willingness of response to allow overtly chauvinistic cultures to fail.

      The wars that the US is currently waging with the assistance of NATO countries would have been over before a single person was shipped out if the US had announced a force of menstruating lesbians would be leading the charge – the islamic forces would have fled the field for fear of being contaminated.

      Islamic jihads are beheading westerners to play on our fears – I think it’s only fair to play on theirs – menstruating women will have sex on their graves and let’s drop used tampons all over Afghanistan.

      They will beg us to refrain and only build schools for their girl children.

    • I recognize that being Canadian that I am in the top 10% of wealthy people worldwide – however, I don’t think population reduction should be done only in poor countries, but in all countries where the population isn’t sustainably supported – but not through any government pogrom initiative – and certainly not targeted groups based on group characteristics or identity.

      I also think that much of the anti-abortion sentiment in the USA is the fear of white people of being outnumbered by non-white people – never mind the reality that globally, white people are already outnumbered.

      With less than 1% genetic difference between me and any other person on the planet – I can’t come up with a single reason why I would be more valuable than anyone else – in fact, several reasons why I am less valuable – being near the end of the breeding age and unwilling to have a child, evolutionarily speaking, makes me a dead end.

      The difference between the have and the have not countries rests with educating women – the 1995 UN Women’s conference produced a paper that linked women’s education to reduced birth rates – the problem is then countries which cultures do not support educating and empowering women to be in control of their reproduction.

      So, my motive for allowing the populations to plummet isn’t motivated by racism or classism, but rather a feminist willingness of response to allow overtly chauvinistic cultures to fail.

      The wars that the US is currently waging with the assistance of NATO countries would have been over before a single person was shipped out if the US had announced a force of menstruating lesbians would be leading the charge – the islamic forces would have fled the field for fear of being contaminated.

      Islamic jihads are beheading westerners to play on our fears – I think it’s only fair to play on theirs – menstruating women will have sex on their graves and let’s drop used tampons all over Afghanistan.

      They will beg us to refrain and only build schools for their girl children.

  3. Random, you wander on to very shaky and scary ground at times. What we need to do is let people starve to death? What we need to do is stop trying to save everybody? Eugenics here we come.
    I agree that we need to have a reality to our policies. But I think there are ways to get what we want without throwing away a belief that human life is worth fighting to save. The problem of world hunger is not a lack of food, it’s a lack of distribution. The answer is population control, but that doesn’t mean we need to let anybody starve on our watch.
    “Instead of killing off the susceptible bacteria – to re-balance humans and bacteria, we need to allow the bacteria to kill off the susceptible humans, ”
    What? Did you read this after you wrote it? Are you volunteering to forgo the antibiotics that could save your life if you find yourself stricken by a disease that will kill you without antibiotics?
    When antibiotics were first discovered, we should have wiped out syphilis. It was our hangups about sex, and the efforts to deny reality by religious moralists, that allowed this window of opportunity to slam shut. Saying that we should not have used antibiotics where they could save lives sounds downright… strange. What exactly are you saying?
    “if we don’t the bacteria will continue to evolve until there’s no human left to be able to withstand them.” Again, what? Do you really think this is true? As our understanding of biochemistry improves, do you really not think that we can win the fight against “super bugs”. I keep hearing that cockroaches are evolving to resist all our poisons. I think that’s bullshit. That’s like saying a creature can evolve to resist being squished flat by a hammer. The fact is, our poisons have collateral damage. But they work.
    Take mosquitoes, as an example. How many creatures eat mosquitoes? Bats. Swallows. Frogs. Toads. Lizards. Snakes. Dragon flies. Fish (eat the larvae). You kill mosquitoes with poison and you kill everything that eats them. Then you have an environmental drug habit, we’ve lost our allies and all the creatures we love, and next year we have a greater than ever need for poison. But antibiotics are not the same story. I know of no other animals that eat bacteria.
    We have managed wipe out smallpox. Think about it. Smallpox is GONE. It took an international volunteer effort that visited every house in India three times, but we did it. I know a man who contracted polio a year before the vaccine became widely available. Antibiotics are part of our arsenal for taking charge of our own destiny. Don’t go dissing them. They are one of the few things that make modern medicine legitimate.
    And please don’t go thinking that we should let ANYBODY starve for the common good, or die because we don’t want to use an antibiotic that could save their life. Where have you gone with this, Random? I’m shocked.

    • Yes, I am shocked and yes, I mean everything that I wrote – and given what I wrote – you can imagine the ideas and realizations that I didn’t share.

      We need to use antibiotics more sparingly because we are already identifying bacteria with resistance in their shells/outer layer of being penetrated by antibiotics.

      We need to return to brute force and denaturing – there is no resistance of bacteria to bleach and alcohol, which we can use on surfaces – bacteria have no defense against osmosis – gargling salt water means the liquid inside the bacteria go to where it’s more salty and kills the bacteria.

      My personal remedy for colds is to go to bed early with 2 oranges, a bag of salt n vinegar potato chips and a book. Eating the chips scrapes your throat and delivers the salt and the oranges wash it down and deliver vitamin c – and your tummy acid takes care of the rest of it. Sleep lets your body work it’s healing capacity.

      But eugenics? Not exactly – eugenics is intentional selection of characteristics and we cannot trust ourselves with that because foremost, we don’t know what characteristics will be needed in the future – so selection is a crap shoot – but when we have engaged in eugenics, it was politically, religiously and bigottedly motivated – and humans collectively are not pure enough of heart to be trusted to state sanctioned engage in that ever again.

      I am promoting natural selection and natural selection alone – non-interference to return to the balance that we’ve thrown out of kilter.

      We take steps to make the people who are alive as comfortable as we can, but no heroic measures. We are not running short of people that we need to save every prematurely born baby, every comatose or vegetative state person, and try to save and rescue people who are not interested in our doing so (foreign aid to dictator or theocratic run countries).

      I suggest a return to real nature – red in tooth and claw – impersonal, indifferent and in balance.

      Which is not to say that we do not operate with compassion and charity, and do everything to make the lives that can be maintained be maintained in the best possible manner.

      The earth is heading into another mass extinction event – and humans have played a role in a totally natural process – we’ve sped it up and left ourselves no where to go.

      If we don’t slow things down, we won’t find anyplace to go – and really – what planet would want us after what we’ve done here?

      I’m over 40, physically unhealthy and not willing to have a child – so I don’t get a ticket on the space ark – it won’t be built in my lifetime in any event. the world will last long enough for my life span, maybe one more generation.

      But when you realize that the class of 2011 will be the first generation in which:

      1. more people live in cities than in rural areas
      2. less educated than their parent/grandparent generation
      3. less healthy with worse eating habits and less food security in the world
      4 more elderly people than replacement children/workers

      Humans have hit their peak and are now descending towards extinction – and religion is a major reason for that – retarding science and social advances, fear mongering and death focused.

      religion has spread it’s brain cancer and the end times are upon us – but, since there’s nothing after death, the joke is more on them than us.

      Us skeptics are swept along in their wake, along with all the other lemming sapiens.

      we can’t evolve to withstand being squashed and what has separated humans from the rest of the animals is a preference to live within our own shit that the climate change deniers, big pollution business won’t let us clean up.

    • I probably will – they come to me in compressed realizations and I unpack them – as best I can – but as I understand more, I can expand and uncompress more

      power, who has it, who counts, is where the focus on – and everything else stems from that power – so once I have that resolved, I can expand the subjects, on the subjects

      everything I am presently reading – National Geographic, Scientific American, Skeptic, Psychology Today – all seem to have the same talking points – we are running out of time to change our direction and we seem to be moving faster to extinction

      and I am in horror that religion drives that – the religion terror of death and corruption, which basically ensures both

      I can’t understand people who look gleefully forward to being there at the end times because they want to be in heaven looking down at hell and screaming I told you so

      how can anyone feel that they are moral and deserving of good, when that’s their idea of heaven – enjoying other people suffering…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s