Worst. Blog. Ever.

Yeah. I’m about to post the least-popular blog of ALL TIME. Because I know my entire base is going to hate it.

Let me preface this by saying that I despite Hillary Clinton. I want to take every opportunity to attack her. Anything she does wrong, I want to take it, and tear into her, and never, ever let it go, until the Clinton legacy has been wiped from the face of the earth.

But, I can’t get upset, or even oppose, this ‘prison slavery’ thing. And here is why. Please, look at the rational thinking, before you decide I’m a terrible person who is no better than the Southerners who tried to secede so they could practice slavery.

Reason 1: community service

See, people who aren’t in prison are still sentenced to community service. And I know what some will say: ‘Well, you get to choose how you fulfill that service!’ Okay. But really, there are only a few choices. And we could give those choices to people in prison who are required to work. ‘You have five choices: which do you want?’ We could ask them that.

Reason 2: who pays for prison?

Why should law-abiding tax-payers pay for people to be imprisoned?

I recognize that letting anyone make a profit off prison labour is dangerous. So no, nobody should get to do that. But demanding that prisoners be worked so that their imprisonment is not a burden on society… I cannot, in principle, oppose that. Even while I realize that in practice, it can lead to abuses.

Reason 3: Slavery is unconstitutional… for law-abiding citizens

From the start, the constitutional protections are for law-abiding citizens only. The constitution guarantees a person will not be confined against their will, for example. But we imprison people. So, when people point out the anti-slavery amendment, my response is sure, for law-abiding people, regardless of skin tone, but what about the law-breakers?

Think about it: imprisonment would be called kidnapping, if not applied to those whom we consider law-breakers and ‘evil.’ Nobody would go along with it. In fact, one could argue that by imprisoning someone, we are interfering with their right to ‘liberty and happiness,’ because we are certainly imposing on the former, possibly the latter. The point is that punishments are things that violate the rights of the innocent. Period. End of story. We ban cruel and unusual punishments, sure. Saying ‘You must work’ is not cruel and unusual. In fact, pretty much everyone has to work to survive. Ergo, I have no objection to telling a prisoner ‘You work or you don’t get food.’ Because that is how it is for literally every other person (as long as the work required is not beyond their bodily strength).

The fact is, that making prisoners work for food is actually less a change for them (vs. ordinary people), than telling them where they have to live and sleep! We tell everyone they have to work for food, after all, and most people have only a few choices in that regard!

What is ‘cruel and unusual’ is telling an unconvicted person they have to pay for the survival of a convicted criminal. Why the fuck should my labour go to supporting the survival of Jack Murderer?

Reason 4: the new Jim Crow

I know that a book as been written, ‘The New Jim Crow,’ talking about how prison labour is a new slavery for black people. And I’m not trying to specifically refute these claims. However, the fact remains that the problem revealed herein is not that prisoners are worked, but that 1. black people make up a disproportionate number of those workers, and 2. Prisoners being worked are used to give a profit to corporations. In other words, this problem would remain, whether blacks, whites, or an equal proportion, were being imprisoned. And it would remain as long as the profits were being passed on to corporations. The racial element is a result of biased application of the criminal justice system, which is bad (more on this perhaps later), but not an objection to the fundamental idea of prison labour.

So yes, let’s apply laws equally, regardless of race. And let’s stop making a profit for corporations off prison labour. Instead, let’s pay for prison via prison labour, and send people to prison based on legal violations, not skin colour.

Reason 5: no benefit to prisoners

Well, maybe, maybe not. I would argue that getting to get out of their cells is a benefit. I would argue that interacting with others is a benefit. I would argue that getting to perform beneficent acts for society is a benefit, and could even teach these prisoners something about living in society productively when they are released. It could even teach them a marketable skill, and help them avoid future crime.

In other words, the prisoners aren’t necessarily entirely without personal benefit, even if they do not get paid.

The Upshot:

Look, I’d love to bash Clinton for ‘owning slaves,’ as has been popular on Twitter. I really would. I’d love to bash that shithead for every transgression known to mankind. I fucking hate Hillary. She epitomizes all that is wrong in the world.

But I can’t fault her for using prison labour. I want to. I really want to. But I can’t. She is an horrible human being, but prison labour is actually a rare good idea. I’m afraid that on this point, like on ‘gun control,’ I must take a position that disagrees with most of my fellow liberals.


Postmodernism and activism instead of education

James Lindsay (@Goddoesnt on twitter) has raised the point that critical studies departments have replaced education with activism. This is just a quick note to point out that this is really the inevitable conclusion of the postmodernist belief system.

Postmodernist generally hold to the following points, even if they do not entirely phrase them this way:

  1. There are no objective facts. So narratives (theories) are neither true nor false.
  2. The only function a narrative performs is to confer power on one group or another.

Given these two assumptions, they cannot function academically in the traditional sense. Scholarly work is by definition impossible, according to postmodernism. But what remains possible is to craft narratives in an attempt to gain power.

In other words, critical studies is about convincing other people of pure fictions in order to gain power. Since no narrative is true or false, a critical theorist feels no constraint to make a narrative that fits reality, but is able to concoct any theory they want, with the goal of achieving power.

The most common of these, of course, is to claim that one is a member of a ‘marginalized’ group, which must therefore be ‘protected,’ or, to put it another way, to demand privileges over and above what other people receive. But however it is done, the fact remains that the connection between critical studies and activism is a completely natural one.

We should reject the notion that critical studies have anything to do with scholarly or academic work, and get such departments shut down in respectable universities. I would say they belong in the same category as astrology schools, but this is unfair to the astrologists, because the latter at least believe in objective reality.

Flynn, Russia, Syria, and the Deep State: pt 2

In a previous blog, I talked about why General Flynn may have been forced out by the Deep State. But now, I want to detail how the Deep State really benefits from both the Syrian conflict, and the Cold War 2 with Russia. And the long-term game behind why they had to get rid of Flynn.

First off, the Syrian pipeline is well known. I am not going to talk about that. We all know that Assad is unwilling to commit to giving a pipeline to the United States, so the US is willing to do anything to unseat Assad, or paint him in a negative light, in order to get that pipeline. In doing so, they are driving Assad to side with Russia, and potentially make the pipeline more beneficial to Russia, of course, but again, that is not what I want to analyse here specifically.

What I want to look at is less about the Syrian conflict itself, and more about why the Deep State could not stand Flynn’s proposed Syrian solution at all.

Yes, Flynn wanted to cooperate with Russia to end the ISIS threat in Syria. Ending this threat might cripple ISIS forever as a global threat. And this would be a wonderful advancement for America, the Syrian people, and the Russians. So it would make sense to cooperate with the Syrians and Russians to end this threat, right?

Well… yes, to the average American. And yes, to the average Syrian. And probably to the average Russian. The truth is that the average American, Russian, and Syrian, probably have a common desire to achieve peace. But of course, as I mentioned, the US oil compnies want the pipeline in Syria, and Assad might block that, so yes, they have to demand that Assad be overthrown for… reasons. Reasons that make little sense, but that are probably concocted by Assad’s enemies, like use of poison gas (which the US agreed to send so it could be used to frame Assad…).

Okay, so oil companies want Assad defeated, thinking that we could then take over from Al Qaeda or ISIS. But what else is wrong with the attempt to team up with Russia to defeat these terrorists?

Simple answer: trying to team up with RussiaTHAT is the deeper reason that Flynn had to go. Because right now, the Deep State is pushing a Cold War with Russia again – regardless of whether this would benefit the average American, Russian, or world citizen..

See, Cold Wars are great for three groups of people.

  1. Weapon contractors, who get to sell weapons to the military because ‘the military must be ready, in case the war goes hot!’ And if the weapons are, uh, defective in some way, then new weapons have to be sold! Also, weapon designers need money in order to do research and development, because we don’t want our enemies to get ahead of us, right? So we need basically unlimited funds for R&D, because… who knows what we might find?
  2. US Intelligence Community, who need a threat against whom they can find intelligence After all, if there’s no Cold War, or no independent threat, why on earth should we fund the CIA, NSA, DSA, and 14 other intelligence agencies, who weren’t able to prevent 9/11 (although they were able to ask that INS approve student visas for the attackers).
  3. The political military leaders, who want a budget for the military, which is dependent upon having some enemy towards whom the military must be ready, ideally without having to actually do anything.

Now, Russia nicely fit the bill… until they collapsed when the Soviets collapsed. Suddenly, the military contractors found themselves without a need to develop and provide new weapons. And the IC found that they were rather useless, now that they were not facing down the Soviet intelligence agencies. And the political military found that they, too, had no more threat for which to prepare.

Now, for a while, the Deep State was a bit lost, but they were able to pull two rabbits out of a hat: they got Bush to invade Iraq, and they got Clinton, the neoliberal qua neoliberals, elected, both in 1991. Then Bush 2 came along, who was also willing to go along with their goals…

And suddenly, they got lucky. I’m not one of those people who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. No, I think the Deep State took advantage of a ‘fortunate’ opportunity, to push the usefulness of the IC, along with the need for military contractors and the military budget, on the American public. And even if it were an inside job, the same conclusions apply.

The point is, for several years, the Deep State had Iraq and Afghanistan. But then, eventually, all good things come to an end (or at least burn themselves mostly out) – and how would the Deep State keep getting money? So, the Deep State kept pushing for continuing occupations – but that couldn’t last forever, right?

Well, they are trying. They are still trying. Pushing destabilizations here and there, like in Libya. But the Deep State realized that they needed another Cold War. Because ISIS is getting their ass kicked by a bunch of Yazidi women. America is realizing that ISIS, though a real threat, are not actually hard to defeat, and especially that, if a group of passionate women who had been made into sex slaves and raped by ISIS could now be defeating ISIS by filling the terrorists full of lead, that maybe the world’s most powerful nation could crush them like an ant. If you really think America would have a problem defeating ISIS, when the YPJ are stomping their asses at literally every opportunity, you are probably the sort of person who has no concept of military capabilities and strategy.

So the Deep State focused on a new target. A target that was a nation which had, three decades ago, been a lucrative source for them. A target which was now led by a man who had worked once for the Soviets. And their thought was… let’s tell the Americans that Russia is evil, and we need to oppose them diplomatically and be ready to go to war with them at any moment!

It is the perfect psyop. After all, the US does not depend on Russia – which also refuses to kowtow to the Rothschild world banking system (and maybe the Rothschilds are also encouraging the west to oppose Russia for this reason). And historically, Russia was a ‘threat’ as recently as three decades ago, so for those who are older than millenials, there is a sort of childhood fear of Russians into which they can tap.

Now, here comes Flynn. As I said before, this man is a soldier, first and foremost, and not a politician. This is something I can absolutely respect, even if I disagree with his political positions. He saw a military threat to the United States and to freedom, ISIS, and he saw a potential useful ally, Russia. So, why not try to team up with them to crush a common threat? To a soldier, this is a ‘no shit Sherlock’ kind of idea.

But to the Deep State, the ‘why not’ has an easy answer – because, never mind how much the Deep State hates Assad and his independence, in the broader picture, if we can work with Russia in literally any way, how in the hell can the Deep State keep pushing their ‘Russia is the epitome of evil’ narrative? It’s hard to maintain ‘These guys are the most evil dudes on the planet, but, let’s fight alongside them,’ when you’re trying to psyop the public into a cold war state of mind.

So, Flynn was forced out, not just because he did not line up with the Deep State on Syria as such, but because he was (unintentionally) showing the American people the great lie that we’re being sold about Russia. He was showing us that Russia is a potential ally against terrorism and islamism, even if they have their flaws, and the Deep State cannot allow that, because it contradicts every effort they have made to sell us the ‘new cold war’ narrative. Never mind Syria itself, allying with Russia in any capacity, even in the name of the good of the United States and for preserving freedom in the world, is anathema to the Deep State and the establishment.

Putin’s government has many failures. So does our own. It’s time that we take allies against islamic theocratic militarism from any source that we have. Let us call upon Washington to reject the Deep State and to form a partnership with Russia against terrorism, and make Flynn’s dream a reality.

Why Flynn had to go

I have a theory about why General Flynn had to go. And it isn’t the reasons that we’ve been told.

I believe the Deep State had their own reasons for wanting Flynn gone – and they almost got away with it, but one publication let slip something which turns their whole game tits up. This is just a theory, but it seems to me to be quite plausible.

Before I continue, let us be clear on what the Deep State means in this context. I’m not talking about a conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the US Intelligence Community and arms manufacturers, and anyone else who benefits from having an endless ‘terrible threat’ to the United States out there somewhere. If you want to know more about the Deep State, look at the beginning of this article by Caitlin Johnstone. Now, let’s move on to what Flynn did that scared the living shit out of the Deep State.

Take a look at this article: Michael Flynn had a plan to work with Russia’s military. It wasn’t exactly legal.

It’s not a commonly read article. Maybe the Deep State assumed very few people would see it, and that given the source, that anyone reading it would be anti-Trump and anti-Flynn by association. But I ran into this article by accident, and it got me to thinking.

Here is the gist of that article. The NDAA is an act which, as I understand it (bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer), authorizes the military of the United States of America. Now, you would think such an authorization would basically say ‘The US can have a military, and it can do what’s best for America.’ However, as it turns out, Washington does NOT go with such an act. Instead, the act comes with lots of caveats. One of those caveats currently is: under no circumstances can the US cooperate with Russia, or even coordinate with them, not even against a common foe, no matter what, period. If necessary the US must cut off its nose to spite its face to avoid any sort of coordination with *shudder* Russia.

Now, if you have studied any military history, and I have, you’ll think ‘Well, that’s a load of bollocks. Who the hell knows whether we might find ourselves needing to team up with Russia?’ But the politicians in Washington apparently don’t grasp this, or, more likely, don’t care.

Enter General Flynn. Here was a man who was a true military man, who looked at threats on a military level, and tried to solve them as problems to be handled on a military level. He looked at ISIS in Syria, and he noticed something: Both the US and Russia had an interest in fighting ISIS. So, he wanted to cooperate with the Russians against a common threat. He had no specific plan for this, just a general idea. To quote the article:

Accordingly, Flynn, through the NSC, began suggesting the Pentagon embrace Russia in Syria. A senior defense official summarized Flynn’s entreaties as: “Well, we should work more with the Russians, so we’re fighting the same enemy in Syria.” Although Flynn never communicated a formal plan or articulated an actual series of steps, he wanted the Pentagon to use the deconfliction channel to explore what the Russians considered possible for a team-up against ISIS.

If put into effect, such a proposal would clearly violate the NDAA prohibition on cooperation with Russia. A cadre of Pentagon lawyers had already aggressively reviewed the provision and provided guidance to keep the Pentagon on the right side of the law. That contributed to Pentagon opposition to a 2016 proposal from John Kerry to expand intelligence sharing with Russia over Syria in order to keep the Russians aboard a ceasefire.

You will notice the article tries to paint this suggestion as highly illegal, maybe even treason – but this kind of idea goes back to both sides of the aisle, since Kerry had proposed something similar. And yes, it would probably technically violate the NDAA – but it would likely have 1. worked and 2. been in the interests of the people of the United States, not to mention Syria. As such, although the article tries to frame this as tantamount to treason, it actually seems like the most sensible plan to come out of Washington in a decade. But herein lies the true problem with it: it would actually stand a chance of defeating ISIS and bringing peace to a big chunk of the middle east.

In other words, General Flynn was proposing we actually team up with a potential ally and kick ISIS’ ass once and for all. It was, from a military point of view, pretty much a no-brainer. It had a decent chance of succeeding in permanently crippling and perhaps ending the threat of ISIS.

This is anathema to two groups in particular: weapons contractors and the US Intelligence Community.

See, after the fall of the Soviet Union, these two groups realized something: they needed there to be a permanent threat against the United States in order to make money (in the case of weapons contractors) or justify their continued violation of our rights and their bloated budgets (in the case of the IC). In other words, these two groups needed endless war, or, best of all, the threat of endless war, along with lots of proxy wars to fight abroad (after all, if war came to America’s shores, or became a world war, citizens would demand that it actually be resolved). Thus, a couple of years after the end of the Cold War (which was a gift of ambrosia to both the weapons contractors and the IC), they pushed us into war in Iraq. But it ended quickly and did not lead to any long-term threats. Then a decade later, they pushed for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, with the help of the MSM, were able to garner support for wars that continue to this day. But those wars were getting harder and harder to justify and maintain – until ISIS just happened to spring up (doubtless, the IC, and Hillary’s State Department, had nothing to do with planting the seeds for ISIS to take root, and this was a coincidence).

What Flynn was suggesting was a way to end the conflict with ISIS, or at least deal that conflict a devastating blow, in addition to leaving Assad, a secular ruler who largely maintained peace for the various sects in Syria, in charge. Which was bad, because Assad is 1. not totally committed to shafting Russia on a pipeline, and 2. has refused to allow a Rothschild bank to tank over his nation.

The Deep State could never allow such a successful military operation. So Flynn had to go. Unlike Kerry, whose proposal could simply be shut down, Flynn was too highly placed, and his influence went too far. So the Deep State had to find a way to get rid of Flynn, and thus, they pressured him away with Trumped (excuse the pun) up Russian connections.

Remember this, the next time some politician gets accused of some kind of impropriety. Politicians commit improprieties all the time. Comey’s testimony revealed that Lynch obstructed justice in the Clinton investigation, and his previous statements confirm Clinton violated the Espionage Act. So remember, when a politician gets in actual trouble for a supposed impropriety, it is never about the law. Instead, ask cui bono? ‘Who benefits?’ And remember, the one who benefits will be in the Deep State. And then ask yourself, what was this person doing to subvert the interests of the Deep State? In Flynn’s case, that was trying to implement a military solution to a military threat, not just to the United States, but to the world – but for the Deep State, it was a threat to their wallets, and so he had to go.

Maths levels humanity

This is going to be a two-part blog. The first part is about how a claim which sort of seems to be logical can also be utter bullshit. But the second is about how mathematics, logic, and science, far from being tools of white patriarchal oppression (as some critical theorists claim), are in fact the great levellers of humanity.


I just had a job interview. And I knew they would ask about diversity of students, and how I felt about it, etc. So I thought about this, and I came up with a great answer. I started by responding by describing my experience teaching students from diverse ethnicities and backgrounds (which is true – my experience teaching at SUNY Buffalo and Oakland University, I have taught people from many groups, and one thing I have learned: dumb people can come from any group). But then, I went on to say that one of the great things about diversity and mathematics is that maths teaches us our common humanity, because, as one of the Greek philosophers said, ‘there is no royal road to geometry.’ In other words, before mathematics, we are all equal. None of us are better or lesser than another.

The director of HR replied, rather impressed, saying that she had never thought of it that way. And here is the thing: I wasn’t exactly wrong, but seriously, 99% of people will not learn this lesson from mathematics. I’ve been studying mathematics at the university level for 16 years, and I literally first thought of this last night.

Now as I will argue below, despite this, my statement is actually sort of accurate. But there are many people in the critical studies fields who will make connections, and then claim that these connections are both valid and widespread. For example, there was a claim, which I will not dignify by citing, that the white marble used in classical Greek sculptures contributes to white supremacy, because good art features people who are pale. In fact, I think the Greeks painted said statues (and even attached fake pubic hair to them), so they would not have seen the marble, but so what if they did? Almost nobody looks at these statues today and thinks ‘what is good about this is that the person is depicted using white marble, which is pale!’

And here is the thing: the connection between the marble, which happened to be white (which is nice for making it bright and easily visible and whatnot), and the fact that Europeans tend to have paler skin, is not one that is significant. It is a connection that can be made conceptually, if you really try, but not one that the artists or the viewers have in mind.


Now, most students of mathematics will not notice the levelling effects of mathematics and logic. However, some philosophers have. Nietzsche said, of logic, that ‘it treats even the crooked nose as straight.’ What he meant by this is that the Jews (those with ‘crooked noses’) were generally looked down upon by christian Europe. They were very much an ‘oppressed’ and ‘marginalized’ class. However, logical arguments cannot be denied via appeals to authority. Whereas someone in a ruling class can make a declaration and be followed by virtue of their power, the power of logic lies in its irrefutable nature, rather than in the power held by the person who uses it.

(As a side-note, although the ‘crooked nose’ comment might sound anti-Semitic to modern ears, Nietzsche was not at all anti-Jew, and in fact believed Jews were capable of leading Europe – and that this might be beneficial for Europeans and Jews alike. But this is neither here nor there.)

Now, critical theorists will claim that logic, critical thinking, mathematics, and science, have been used to oppress others. It is true that junk science has sometimes done this. However, real science, and real mathematics and logic, simply are what they are, and in this way, are levellers of humanity. If a member of an oppressed class writes down a logical proof, there is no refuting this by saying ‘They’re merely an X.’ Long before women working was a normal thing, Emmy Noether gained acceptance in the mathematics and mathematical physics community, by virtue of the fact that she wrote down brilliant logical deductions in mathematics. Similarly, long before women working was normal, Madam Curie gained fame for her scientific work with radioactivity.

The point is, with science, if you present properly gathered and analyzed evidence, your identity does not matter. People might hate you, but they cannot refute your evidence. With maths and logic, again, your identity is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not your proofs are correct.

Of course, people can continue to be biased against you. Perhaps some will refuse to look at your research. But that is due to unscientific/illogical behavior upon their part. They are not following the tenets of science or logic, if they permit the identity of the scientist or mathematician to influence their judgment about the results. In both of these areas, science and mathematics, the only thing that matters has nothing to do with the identity of the person who does it. In science, all that matters is the evidence. In mathematics, all that matters is the logic. The result is that, in both cases, there can be no such thing as privilege (when such fields are correctly applied). Indeed, the greatest tool of the oppressed is logic. The oppressor can appeal to emotion and authority, but cannot refute the logic of the oppressed, no matter how oppressed they might be.

Why Islam cannot be reformed

Omar Makram


There has been a lot of talk recently about whether reform of Islam is possible. I will try to describe below what would take to do it, in my opinion, and accordingly why I believe it is highly unlikely to happen.

Religion is, for the most part, derived from the scripture, for it is the manifesto of the religious ideology. It contains the “divine message of god” and that of his prophet, and the instructions of what is right and what is wrong, and how its adherents should be leading their life. Hence to reform religion, you either need to reform the scripture or reform your relationship with it.

To do that one would have to start with the holiest book in Islam, the Quran.

The majority of Muslims should be persuaded that Quran is not the literal speech of God, but merely a divine inspiration invoked in a simple man…

View original post 1,633 more words