Media Lies - A Plea to End Ignorance Forever

"Is that a fact, or did you hear it on FOX News?" Sadly, thus phrase works for almost all media, I say almost only because I don't have the time (or stomach) to go through all the media.

When the Twin Towers were destroyed by religious people fighting over their imaginary friend I heard about it on the street before the news even aired it. Homeless people in Seattle knew before the news stations even knew what they were suppose to say to the public.

That alone is sad, then Charlie Hebdo thing happened and news media did not say anything about their own being shot for at least a week. It was all over the web the second it happened.

Nostalgic morons will tell you that this has not always been true, they're wrong. One musician said it best, the media are nothing more than trolls disguised as professionals (paraphrased Akira the Don: Don't Feed the Trolls).

There is a method to their madness that we have never truly understood until the advent of social media, when news came at us in real time and world wide. Our information overload phase is long past, so why do people still buy into media's trolling?

The answer is something that makes me sad to publish, considering we have had 20+ years to break the cycle. Religion is part of the cause, but the bigger impact is the reason people buy into religion still, that feeling of belonging to an exclusive club that knows something no one else knows.

It is also the same reason people buy into conspiracies and meaningless fads like organic or homeopathy. It's a genetic imperative to belong to a small group, we are not really a social species on a large scale.

Our species is group oriented only within very tight limits, if the group gets too big we start to go insane. At least that's nature's prerogative, we should have adapted past that a long time ago and if we don't we will destroy ourselves.

Admittedly, allowing the species to destroy itself has a pleasant ring to it and I have been reluctant to offer this warning in the past, but then I lose all my cool technology, medicines that keep me alive, and Starbucks. The fact of the matter is that we must cut back our population growth, and we must manage it reasonably.

We must also stop pushing people to be social in person, online you can easily shut off the overflow of attention and manage your groups better. But most importantly we must adapt to the global community so these scams and religions will die off on their own, when you no longer need made up answers the groups based on those will die on their own.

This also means you must turn off the news, all of it, and listen to the global community instead. In the 80s we were lucky if we got a snowstorm warning more than 5 minutes before the power died because if it, and that was only if you were tuned into a newscast or media program at that time.

Online we often get messages and even notifications and phone calls hours before the snow falls, directly from the actual weather stations the weather reporters use. The big difference is that it's not censored, filtered, rerouted, or reworded like all media is.

The government regulates media, all of it except social media and private forums. This has many problems, one is that all information must be filtered by the regulatory agency first, that same agency is trying to force the internet to abide by it's rules.

Enter hacktivists, Anonymous is the biggest group and is made up of more than just script kiddies, though script kiddies are employed to launch attacks. If you want the truth about Anonymous, you will never find it.

This particular group is not run by a single power, but only a single idea, all life is equal and no one can control information. Because of this no organization is ever needed, everyone knows their goal and the missions are easy to spot.

The really funny thing about Anonymous, then back on topic, it's made up of all the people who you made fun of in school. Maybe you should be wary of who you mock now.

Anyhow, the need to belong to an exclusive club is the lure of media, and of trolls, it is what they use to draw in an audience. Another example of why you do not except news for facts, a cable channel that claims to air scientific programs aired one on how mermaids were possible.

First of all, no, mermaids are not possible because the skin cells are an all or nothing effect of genetics. You cannot have half an animal with cold blooded skin and the other half with the brownish skin of a warm blooded organism, one of the skins will die.

The chemicals responsible for making hair or scales would effect the entire organism or not be present, not half and half. The chemicals are one or the other, mixing both would have a completely different effect.

Another such "scientific" program tried to state that flying, fire breathing, dragons were possible. Anyone who knows about reptiles would laugh so hard at this claim they'd probably have a heart attack.

Flying reptiles are not unlikely, but at that size they'd have to be eating every minute of the day just to fly for a few minutes at a time unless they were on Luna, it's why birds got smaller. So no, dragons are not possible, and fire breathing anything is laughable beyond sanity.

There is so much wonder and splendor in the real world, in reality, that to believe something just because it sounds cool in a headline is ludicrous. To accept something as fact just because it's easy is lunacy.

The chemical reactions involved in life and the universe are so fabulous, so wonderfully simple and elegant in their chaos. The forces of nature interacting offer us a ballet of such poetry that each atomic twitch, each vibration, every electron's movement is one grande story of reality.

The way in which hydrogen bonds to oxygen to form H2O makes you so happy to be a part of a universe in such a profound way, for we are the universe trying to understand and improve itself. We are reality's manifestation, the hands used to perfect it's chaotic and self destructive universe, we are one of the species capable of bringing actual order to the universe.

Instead we squander our talents, we give into our base instincts and kill each other over fears of the unknown, we deny the very reality that needs us to help bring order to the universe. We slaughter each other over mythology, and let others die out of greed or ignorance.

So here's a challenge to the entire species, use the tool we created for testing reality and learn how reality itself works, stop anthropomorphizing everything, and stop being so damned egocentric. We must prove ourselves worthy before we can ever claim to be better.

Animals - Our Best Family Members

It is often pointed out that "today's animal abuser is tomorrow's serial killer" by us animal rights activists, but many still ignore the impact religious doctrine has on this phenomenon. Continuing on my "why there are no true moderates in religion" line of discussion.

For a human to bring harm to any other living thing they must believe themselves to be different from that which they kill, such as not being an animal in spite of being the very definition of what an animal is. This allows them to ignore their empathy, conscience, the very things that make them mammals.

In essence, religion makes one behave like reptiles, we should have evolved beyond such behaviors. For this reason, today's believer is ultimately tomorrow's serial killer.

Once a person believes they are in any way better than anything else without earning such a title, they no longer worry about destroying it. This is why religious people must oppose any efforts to protect the environment, defend other animals, even deny our inherent and proven connection to the other animals.

Many will claim this is only the fundamentalists, but then ignore the fact that the ones they claim to be moderates are following the same doctrine, and prone to the same violent responses when their doctrine is challenged. When something need interpreting it is no longer objective, nor fact, and all interpretations become just as valid.

This opens the gateway for the religious preachers, their leaders, to change the interpretation when it suits them, and then convince the followers to do anything they want. We see this every day, in all countries that give religion special status.

To become more specific I will focus on the one I know best, the bible followers. Putting aside the hundreds of different versions and thousands of different "interpretations," the book was written to be contradictory as a tool to control the mindless masses it produces.

The scam of the bible is, itself, a wonderful example of how human thoughts can be manipulated when the human is prevented access to any information that contradicts it. The oldest snake oil claim is "anyone who denies my words is merely a tool for the opposition," a phrase reworded many times in all religious texts that claim absolutes.

A quick side note, the pagan religions rarely claim absolutes so I do acknowledge that some religious beliefs are nit founded on the delusion of an absolute. Please do not consider yourselves the same as Christian, Islam, or even Judaism. Judaism is one that's quiet but still a possible threat, which is why most Jewish people, like me, no longer follow it.

The doctrine of the absolute claims contain many verses discouraging the exploration of reality, thus allowing the leader to supplant whatever reality they wish into the masses. Then the doctrine commands that the followers breed more, and indoctrinate their offspring, thus increasing the number of mindless slaves to the religious leaders.

See, the one way to actually break this cycle of indoctrination is for us atheists to accept responsibility, for the religious leaders are our bad apples. Religious leaders are the atheists who consider the masses so stupid that they can be manipulated with something so obviously a scam.

Eventually the religious followers will see it, the more we remind them that their leaders think they are fools enough to fall for their scam, a scam created by atheists to allow atheists to manipulate the masses, a scam called religion. Reminding them of this fact will push them to begin to break the indoctrination, because it is the last realization of any atheist.

I first noticed this fact when I was really young, about 10 years of age. When the religious leaders of the church first discovered I was asking questions that shattered the doctrine they took me aside and filled my time with teaching instead of learning it.

I was about 8 years of age when they first began to prepare me for helping them to manipulate the flock of sheep, to prepare these sheep for whatever slaughter they wished. After a couple years I began to see what was truly going on, behind the curtains, where even the elders of the church were not allowed, but they allowed me there.

My mother thought it was some calling from their god, the leaders told her that, and she was so very proud in spite of the fact that even if this was true, she had nothing to do with it. It was my deductive reasoning that conquered all indoctrination, making it impossible for them to convince me that snakes talked, even as a metaphor. But it was my empathy and conscience that prevented me from accepting this chance to rule.

It also had a bit to do with the misogyny, a thing I could not support even before transitioning. Males were the ones in charge, because women were too kind to spread the indoctrination and scam, if they had not denied the genetic cause of being transgendered they'd have realized I was more woman than their own wives.

So I bided my time, pretending to lead while actually empowering the other youth, my mother bought it, and only a few of those youth still believe that religious nonsense because of my efforts. Yes, it is us who are ultimately destroying religion, the ones Christians attack and deny exist, as we hide among you to avoid your wrath and violence.

Now some preachers who are cishet have also joined the effort to destroy the  hold religion has, I shall not name them, nor shall I say which churches they reside over, but their efforts are noted by me. Today is the greatest day to be alive, for it is always a step forward.

Humans Kill For No Reason - The Failure of Counter Arguments

I often here the counter argument about survival instincts of other species causing them to kill without cause, which is completely incorrect. I'll counter the three main examples and lay this matter to rest.

First they often cite chimp or gorilla behavior, the often violent reactions to perceived invaders. There, I just explained why they kill each other without even touching on the science and why this example is not valid. But I'll continue anyway.

Every species has evolved a certain set of traits that help it's survival, not as individuals but as an entire species. Territoriality is one of those very effective traits to help a species, even humans have this trait but I'll get into that at the end. It is a method of ensuring there are enough resources for the group, often maintained by closer relatives and any others who threaten the resources are seen as enemies.

Us failing to see a valid reason for these behaviors is not proof that there is no valid reason. We anthropomorphize far too often, and in doing so we attempt to apply human logic to actions which are often instinctive.

A better example would be how the gorillas treat kittens when there is plenty of resources and security, many videos and stories of this type permeate the internet now. They are kind and gentle, even forgiving to a fault. Remove the instincts and they behave much more humane than most humans.

The second example are male lions killing cubs, another instinctive behavior. Again, that alone demonstrates that it is necessary, they do not have the social structure that allows the luxury of any other behavior, unlike humans. Male lions also do not kill them all, their instinct even has limits.

This behavior allows them to strengthen the pride and keep it stronger. It is a trait resulting in thousands of years of natural selection, because it works to help with their social structure. When placed in a situation which lacks the pressures of the wild, the instinct rarely kicks in, their environment is different and favors different traits.

So yes, both of those examples are not relatable to human logic and human caused suffering. They are both instinctive and cause by environment, by altering the environment the instinct is not triggered and they do not harm others without reasons easier for humans to comprehend. So stop anthropomorphizing before coming up with some counter argument.

The third, and I saved the best for last, is the domestic felines' tendency to play with their prey. Another example of anthropomorphizing, and one that is regularly misused. The "toying" is actually caused by a suppressed instinct to hunt, we selectively bred them like this so it's our own fault anyway.

When in the wild, felines have to battle for food, they have to chase and strategize to capture their meals. We selected the most playful felines for hundreds of years, playful being how we viewed this instinct, and bred them to a point in which this instinct is no longer bound to the need for food.

Yes, we made domestic felines sadistic to suit our own desires. We altered an instinct that was refined by natural selection without considering the long term consequences of this genetic engineering. There are many more examples of this problem in other domestic species and even ourselves.

So thus is not an example of animals killing needlessly, it is an example of why genetic engineering needs to be more scientific than it once was.

As humans we have one rare trait, seen in only a few other animals, it is the ability to alter our own instincts through knowledge, understanding, and willpower. We have no excuse to harm any other animal without a good reason, none. This us very important because of our population growth, too many humans causing unnecessary harm will destroy the ecosystems and make the planet uninhabitable for our own species.

We needs these other animals to survive, plain and simple. Nature needs the diversity to ensure the survival of these other animals. Our interference in any way will always cause more harm than good.

We have engineered some species for our food supply, there is not need to hunt the wild species now. So yes, humans are the only animal that causes unnecessary harm.

Evolution and Why There Are Still Things

Can we stop with the whole "why are there no monkeys turning into humans" and "why are there still monkeys" arguments? Please, it is pathetic now. These kind of arguments only demonstrate a complete lack of education and tell us that you are not interested in facts.

The first one, if any species ever evolved more human traits it would still not be a homosapien, it would be a completely different species from us. This is also assuming that our set of traits is always beneficial for all species in all environs, and that is laughable at best.

Evolution has no direction, none, humans are not the goal. Our particular set of traits contain a lot of vestigial traits and many flaws. It is only by our intelligence that we have over come these flaws before we were driven extinct, and then many still plague us. The real advantage we have is the combination of traits, all our individual traits appear in other species in varying degrees.

Your first hurdle with the argument of why nothing else evolves into humans is that you have to demonstrate evolution is directional. The whale demonstrates how lacking in direction evolution is, so you have a lot of work to do before you can convince anyone you have a point.

The second one is so ignorant I feel pity for those who ask why there are still monkeys. This argument is the same as asking why you have aunts, uncles, cousins, and distant relatives. Yes, monkeys are very distant relatives, chimps are closer, and other apes are practically the same family.

This leads me to the third idiotic argument, sorry religious nuts, we are apes. We are animals, because our traits are what we use to define such things. Evolution has nothing to do with us being apes or animals, this is just basic biology.

Humans Are Animals

So I am working on blogging more about my adopted cat, Pepper, right now, and I still keep seeing people deny that humans are animals. I find this troubling, not because they deny this very basic and well known fact, but their reasons.

Every time someone denies that humans are animals it's either "god dunnit" or "aliens dunnit." The problem is that neither of these would change this very basic fact even if true. Humans are animals by definition, life is broken up into kingdoms for scientific categorizing and we are categorized as animals because of our physiological traits.

Now for the psychoanalysis of this cognitive dissonance. The primary reason people want to deny that we're animals is not because they want to feel superior, but because they want to reason away their guilt. This means that they have, at some point in their life, needlessly harmed another animal.

This notion is more frightening for us who do not harm without a valid justification, because since we are animals, those same people are just as capable of harming another human. It does not take much to see that we are animals, and the denial is only a thin barrier, so once that barrier is pierced they become a danger to others of their own species if they do not feel guilt after realizing they were wrong.

For us friends of nonhuman animals, it's also worrisome in many other ways. These particular humans can use their "we aren't animals" excuse to hurt our best friends and the other animals we cherish, and many do. To make it clear, I am not against harming when there is a need, so long as it is as humanely as possible, I am speaking about all needless harm and torture of other animals.

One day our technology will advance enough that we will need to harm not other organisms, even plants, to survive. The problem is that most of the harm we do is unnecessary for our survival, and many times this harm endangers the entire species. To make matters worse, many of the people who do these things are proud of it.

Let's look at trophy hunting, the horrible act of cowardly shooting an animal that is trapped, from a distance. There is no courage in these people, no skill, no strength of any kind. They are cowards, weaklings, and generally useless even for humans. Being a boxer takes courage, even staged wrestling takes courage, but to fire a gun at an unarmed animal from hundreds of yards away does not take courage.

Karate takes skill, fencing takes skill, soccer takes skill, but using a high powered rifle with long range scope to fire at an imprisoned animal does not take any skill. This is actually a sign of how little skill you have, the scope does all the work now. Video gamers have way more skill than that, and most have never killed a fly ... too busy to swat one.

An iPhone user carrying an iPad and wearing an iWatch is wealthy. Someone driving a new, completely electric, fine tuned sports car is wealthy. Someone who climbs Mount Everest every summer is wealthy. But a trophy hunt is not a sign of wealthy, it's a sign of arrogance compared to the others.

Bill Gates donates large amounts of his money to charity, we know he's wealthy and we praise him for his deeds. Try doing something good with your money if you can't at least be trendy with it, instead of showing us how much of a coward you are.