Osama Bin Ladin worried about climate change:
Osama bin Laden wrote a letter calling on the American people to help President Barack Obama fight “catastrophic” climate change and “save humanity”, in the latest evidence of his worries about environmental issues, newly released documents show
As with the left, Osama didn’t care about climate change. Osama, like most narcissists, was consumed with envy. Narcissists hate nothing more than seeing others enjoying life to the fullest. When America thrived, every loser narcissist in the world would focus on us, enraged. The reasons they gave for attacking us were always phony justifications for acting out on their envy. Nobody attacked Denmark or the Netherlands, despite them enjoy far greater degrees of moral debauchery. This was about greatness, and the narcissist’s inherent hatred of it.
So it is with all global warmists. The second I hear that out of anyone’s mouth, I immediately see a small, insecure, hateful little troll, railing futilely at a world of happy, contented people. This is only reinforced when you see how if they are rich they are always flying private and driving SUVs, and if they are not flying private and driving SUVs it is only because they can’t afford it.
It should not escape anyone’s notice that Osama’s modus operandi was to dispatch other men to execute his “brilliant” attacks, and when he was finally confronted, he died hiding behind a woman, desperately trying to save himself at the expense of everyone around him.
Rabbits are the same the world over.
[…] By Anonymous Conservative […]
Terrorists seem to get stronger when war is waged against them. Surely war as a K-stimulus given that is not only selects for fitness but creates artificial scarcity would destroy rabbits rather than strengthen them. For example ISIS and al nusra are resurgences of Al Qaeda that when put under selection pressure ended up stronger.
Yeah, I’ve wondered sometimes if the most effective method of war is to provide your enemy with free resources for three generations.
Very expensive though to do that. But it could be done. Drowning your toughest enemies in luxury if they end up ruling is the surest way to their overthrow in the long run.
But back to that topic. Does war actually make terrorists more K? Given the above selective pressures I cited before?
I think it makes the fighters more K, within bounds of their cultural and genetic baselines, as will any meeting with death. But there are limits. I think if a Nordic civil war went hot, Sons of Odin will never be raping innocent young girls, or taking underage sex slaves like in the Mideast. I also think many of them would be willing to die a secular death against a vastly superior enemy for their cause, and would not require stories of virgins and paradise to let them feel as if the death was a great thing.
There is a fundamental difference there, whether it is genes/epigenetics (more likely) or cultural norms they were raised with (less likely). Much of the Mideast is opportunism, and even where it isn’t, it is delusions creating an image of opportunism, to motivate a reasonable facsimile of K.
So basically once a population becomes more genetically r. The pressures of conflict would mean that they can never return to their previous levels of K?
I remember listening to Dan Carlin once on his show talking about what his father was saying during the Cold War that the USA should instead of completing the soviet in weapons instead should be flying over the iron curtain dropping blue jeans to take out the Soviet Union.
It is also interesting to find out years later that the black market was big in the Soviet Union (something Mises did not take into consideration when he wrote back in the 20s on how communism would fail). This was a big part of the reason it lasted so long.
The biggest reason communism lasted so long in the Soviet Union wasn’t because of the black market, but because of outright slave labour from all the millions of prisoners of conscieience, who were sent to Gulags for no reason other than some nosy narcissistic neighbour who didn’t like them wrote an anonymous letter saying they overheard their neighbour say something bad about Stalin, or something bad about communism.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago is a devastating 3-volume documentation of the real extent of the Soviet system of slave labor camps, it is considered the ultimate knock-out punch against the Soviet system, because it dispelled a lot of myths about the role of slave labor in Communism, and the history of political prisoners in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union and leftists everywhere have always denied reports of Gulags in the Soviet Union, and there were two main myths that were absolutely destroyed by Solzhenitsyn’s work: one myth is that it was Stalin, not Lenin, who corrupted the communist system and enslaved so many political prisoners. Solzhenitsyn’s work proved that Lenin was the actually the one who started a mass-program of enslaving political prisoners and forcing them into a life of hard labor. It was Lenin who set up the whole thing. Sure, Stalin ran away with it and took it to a more extreme level, but it was Lenin who laid the foundation for it.
The second myth that apologists for communism would cling to was that, although Gulags do exist and are “an unfortunate necessity” in a world full of capitalist saboteurs, they are actually a very small part of the communist economy. Solzhenitsyn’s work completely devastated this line of defense by clearly showing the vast scale of the Gulag system – the thousands of camps, the millions of prisoners, the hundreds of dams and factories and electrical plants that were built by Gulag slave labor. Solzhenitsyn’s work did not just dispell this myth, it actually showed the opposite to be true – that the Soviet Union was extremely reliant on slave labor, that slave labor accounted for the overwhelming majority of the labor used in major infrastructure projects and daily economic operations of the USSR. If it wasn’t for slave labor, the Soviet Union would have collapsed a long time ago, and they would never have gone through the accelerated industrialization during those two five-year plans in the late twenties and early thirties.
Very interesting comment. The Romans were big on slave labor too, and it extended their Empire’s life, and probably made it worse in the long term. In that light, the exploitation of the national debt is kind of the same thing in the US, as we head down that rocky road.
There is nothing a progressive lives more than the idea of banning the masses from eating meat. Anywhere there is a climate worrier, you can be sure they will was with delight about how when the magic climate change happens, we are all going to eat bugs.
In fact, if you told them they could force everyone to not eat beef and be force fed bugs and worms once a day on condition of never mentioning the words “climate change” ever again, theyd jump for it… Until it became so routine that the lost their powerhungry fix.
Its an astonishing correlation.
Rotten souls.
OT, but you might want to have a look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-do-we-know-america-is-anxious-about-a-president-trump-shrinks-and-massage-therapists/2016/03/03/e5b55a22-e0bb-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html
It seems the rabbits are frightened of Donald Trump. I wonder how many will follow through on their threats to leave the country.
So the “Israel test” really does explain everything. It’s interesting how many of the world’s problems are at root caused by narcissistic injury.