MUSLIM WOMAN HOLDING SEVERED CHILD’S HEAD IN METRO STATION!

Gulchekhra Bobokulova, a  Muslim woman from Uzbekistan holding a child’s severed head, has been arrested near a metro station in Moscow. She was shouting Allahu Akbar and threatened to blow herself up.

The victim was a girl, identified as Nastya M. After the murder, the female Muslim went to a metro station, where she was stopped by a local police officer. She immediately took the severed child’s head from her bag and started shouting that she had killed the child. The Muslim is currently being detained by police authorities.

“The end of the world is coming in a second…I’m your death,” the Muslim is heard shouting in the video released online. “I hate democracy. I’m a terrorist.”

She is heard shouting that she has been “cursed” and “destroyed” “so many times.”

“I’m your suicide bomber… I’m going to die in a second…The end of the world…,” she shouted.

The woman appeared near Oktyabrskoye Pole metro station in northwest Moscow.

Eyewitness Artur Manzhesov told us he couldn’t believe that the decapitated child’s head being carried by the woman was real.

“I saw her coming out with the head in her hands. I thought, wow, it must be a replica,” he said.

The man says he heard the perpetrator shouting: “Allahu Akbar… The Russians will be hanged like this. The Russians will be slaughtered.”

The woman was dressed in black “like Muslims,” but her face was open, Manzhesov recalled.

“I thought she just went mad… When I saw the head I started shaking… I saw the child’s face and blood coming from it. It was very scary,” he said.

Russia’s Investigative Committee later released a statement that rescuers have found a body of a three or four-year-old child after extinguishing a fire in a Moscow apartment block. A preliminary investigation revealed that the Muslim is a children’s nanny in her late 30s.

The suspect waited until the child’s parents left the apartment with an older child, then killed the child and set the apartment on fire, the Investigative Committee said.

The mother of the murdered child was taken to hospital in unconscious after she learned the news.

Earlier on Monday, reports emerged that police had found a child’s headless body while extinguishing a fire at a Moscow apartment block. The child was about three or four years old.

Bobokulova committed the murder because of her husband’s betrayal. She failed to explain how the child was connected to her husband. The woman was reportedly drugged, a source in police authorities told us.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk said: Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.

Non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and impose Islamic law upon them, and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

Jihad, Arabic for struggle, is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology. Many passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur’an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the Verse of the Sword: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful (9:5).

Establishing regular worship and paying the poor-due (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim. Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah’s Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr).

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with power politics, because Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, protected people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur’an’s command that they feel themselves subdued (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience. Some even actively identified with the dominant class, and became strenuous advocates for it.

Spearheaded by dhimmi academics and self-serving advocacy groups, that same attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, school textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash.

But in this era of global terrorism it must be said: this silence, this distortion, has become deadly. Before 9/11 it was easy to ignore and whitewash dhimmitude, but the atrocities changed the situation forever. In jihads throughout history, untold millions have died. Tens of millions have been uprooted from their homes. Tens of millions have been stripped of their cultural identity.

To continue to gloss over the destruction wrought by jihad ideology and its attendant evil of dhimmitude is today to play into the hands of jihadists, who have repeatedly vowed to dhimmify the West and destroy any recalcitrant elements. While jihadist groups, even with their global diffusion, are not strong enough to realize this goal by themselves, they have a potent and destructive ally, a genuine fifth column, in the dhimmi academics and dhimmi journalists they have recruited in the West. They have succeeded in confusing millions in the West into mistaking honesty and truthfulness for bigotry, and self-defense for oppression.

Islam is not a monolith. Sunni and Shia Islam are the two main denominations of the religion divided by major differences. Within the two, there are many branches and various types of schools with, sometimes, even bigger differences to separate them. The debates between Sunnis and Shias has always existed but there was a particular kind of balance between the two.

The confrontations flared only when attempts to tip this balance took place. The national divisions have exacerbated the religious strife. The Arabs and the Turks have vied for dominance inside the Sunni denomination. Iran has been traditionally dominant inside the Shia branch of Islam. The other reason for tensions intensification has always been interference from the outside.

The West believes that in recent years Iran has been responsible for the instability in the region. After the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran has been consistently expanding its influence provoking Sunni neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia, into taking countermeasures. The West cites the Shia government in Iraq, the Iranian volunteers operating in Syria and the advance of Yemeni Houthis in the south of Arabian Desert as examples to prove the point.

An impartial assessment shows that the current instability in the Middle East is mainly provoked by outside forces. Suffice it to say that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iranian revolution, insisted the movement was Islamic, not Shia only. He instilled a policy of takrib, meaning the bringing together of sects, and he accordingly abolished prohibitions concerning praying behind a religious leader from another sect. It was not Iran who tipped the balance, but the United States as it intervened in Iraq in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim. The Shia majority came to power in Baghdad as a result of US meddling, not the intrigues of insidious Persians.

After the intervention, Washington started to instigate the Persian Gulf states concern over the Iran’s growing ambitions. The monarchies say they defend themselves from the Persian expansion by intervening into Syria and Yemen though, obviously, these actions, as well as the execution of Nimr al-Nimra, a prominent Shiite Muslim cleric, by Saudi Arabia, make Tehran take retaliatory measures. The United States sided with Sunnis by chance. Washington easily changes allies pursuing its own unchanging interests. Everything could be quite different if, for instance, the Iranian monarchy remained in power and the leftist regimes still ruled in Baghdad, Cairo and Damascus. It all may change along with the course of history. Some Western Orientalists say that the Shia branch of Islam is a dissident movement, which is closer to the Western ideas than the hegemonic Sunnah. The West chose Sunni Muslims pursuing its oil and other interests.

The US Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11, produced in 2011 outlined administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa and launched the Operation Arab Spring to strengthen the US clout in the region. Taking advantage of existing Sunni-Shia contradictions was an important element of this concept. It is evident today that the Obama’s Middle East policy has failed to bring democratic changes to the Middle East. Instead, the region has plunged into chaos. In an effort to save face Washington pretends to control the situation. It is playing the Shia threat card. The United States has ceased the calls for liberal reforms implemented in Sunni monarchies. The White House fully sides with them, especially with the Saudi royal family, in their confrontation with Iran. It brings results. Only a while ago the Saudis could not hide their exasperation with the US-inspired Arab Spring.  There was a split in the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Now the Kingdom views the United States of America as the main ally again. This comeback could be viewed as a success of the United States administration in comparison with its past failures. But the situation is fraught with danger for the Middle East with a religious war looming at the horizon.

When it comes to assessing the balance of forces, experts normally say that among the world’s estimated 1.2 billion Muslims, about 85 percent are Sunni and about 15 percent are Shias. These figures are not enough to make a clear picture of the balance. About 50 percent (out of 85 percent) of Sunnis live far from the region where the direct confrontation takes place. For instance, many reside in South, South-East and Central Asia (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Uzbekistan etc.). They are not eager to get involved into the sectarian violence. At least half of the remaining 35 percent live in Africa. They can hardly be viewed as possible reinforcements for Riyadh.

Only about 20 percent of Muslims in the world live in Arab states. It makes the correlation of Sunni-Shia forces in the Middle East almost balanced. Shias make up 98 percent of population in Iran, 75 percent in Bahrain, 54 percent in Iraq, 45 percent in Yemen, 30 percent in Lebanon, 27 percent in the United Arab Emirates, 25 percent in Kuwait, 20 percent in Qatar, 20 percent (including Alawites) in Syria and 10 percent in Saudi Arabia.

 

Advertisements

SWEDEN’S MIGRATION INDUSTRY

By Nima Gholam Ali Pour

When you talk to journalists from the U.S. or the UK, they often seem to think that Sweden is a humanitarian superpower that has received refugees because the Swedish government is following some ideology based on doing good deeds.

That Sweden is a humanitarian superpower, eager to lead by example, is a myth that needs exposing once and for all. The recent migration wave to Sweden has made some people poor and others very, very rich.

Every day one reads news in Sweden about the winners and the losers in the migration industry. One of the winners in Sweden’s migration industry is ICA Bank. In November 2015, it invoiced the Swedish Migration Agency $8 million for providing asylum seekers prepaid cards. For every cash withdrawal, ICA Bank takes a $2 fee, and for every prepaid card activated, it takes $21. ICA Bank won the contract without any competition; its contract with the Migration Agency extends to March 2017.

Many asylum accommodations in Sweden are run by private operators and are making huge profits. In 2015, the 30 largest companies that run the asylum accommodations invoiced the Swedish Migration Agency an estimated $109 million. The losers, on the other hand, were the Swedish taxpayers who had to finance these decisions.

In November 2015, it was reported that Sweden’s Migration Agency had paid $174 million during an 11-month period to private sector property owners for asylum seekers’ accommodation.

Many of the companies running the asylum accommodations have a profit margin of over 50%. Defakon Renting AB has a profit margin of 68%. Nordic Humanitarian AB has a profit margin of 58%. Fastigheterna på Kullen AB has a profit margin of 50%.

The biggest private company running asylum accommodations, Jokarjo AB, is owned by Bert Karlsson, known in Sweden primarily as director of a record label. In the early 1990s, Mr. Karlsson was the leader and founder of a political party, New Democracy, that advocated reducing immigration to Sweden. Between 1991 to 1994, as a representative of his party, he sat in the Swedish parliament. In 2015, his company billed the Swedish Migration Agency $23.9 million. Mr. Karlsson explained his business plan for running a home for asylum seekers in a simple sentence: “My idea is to make it cheaper and better than anyone else.”

One method he used to make his business more profitable is that asylum seekers have to buy their own toilet paper, apparently despite having agreed with the Migration Agency to provide asylum seekers with toilet paper, sanitary napkins and diapers. In December 2015, the Swedish media revealed that asylum seekers have to buy all these products themselves.

One can only imagine the situation for asylum accommodations run by minor private operators.

This is what the Swedish “humanitarian superpower” is actually about. It is all about money, and it is about winners and losers.

The companies running the asylum accommodations are becoming rich at the Swedish taxpayers’ expense; at the same time, asylum accommodations are not managed properly.

Here are a few of the violent incidents that happen every day:

On January 25, 2016, the police arrived at an asylum accommodation in Annerstad, southern Sweden, after hearing of a brawl there between Syrians and Afghans. When the police arrived, according to their report, no one — not even the people working there — could speak Swedish.

In January 2016, there were reports that a ten-year old boy at an asylum accommodation in Västerås had been raped repeatedly. In February 2016, there were reports that a boy at an asylum accommodation in Maglarp, in southern Sweden, had been raped by two other boys at the same asylum accommodation.

If liberal journalists outside Sweden believe that rape is humanitarian, then Sweden has a humanitarian migration policy.

What is actually happening in Sweden, however, is that private companies are making millions of dollars at taxpayer expense, while the newly arrived migrants are living a horrible existence in which rape and other abuses are a part of daily life. This is what other European countries will experience if they follow Sweden’s liberal migration policy.

Children who come to Sweden without parents (“unaccompanied refugee children”) must, according to the Swedish law, be assigned a legal guardian. The guardian, instead of the parents, is responsible for the child’s personal relationships and managing daily affairs. In December 2015, it was reported that there are guardians responsible for up to 29 unaccompanied refugee children, and who earn more than $7,000 a month. It is not, of course, possible for one guardian to take care of 29 unaccompanied refugee children. The migration industry in Sweden has created opportunities for people with no conscience to become wealthy. Meanwhile, thousands of unaccompanied refugee children are disappearing and no one knows where they are.

Another part of the migration industry that has grown of late are foster homes for unaccompanied refugee children. In February, reports surfaced that one of the heads of the Swedish Migration Agency also runs the private company, Starkfamn Familjehem AB: a business that provides foster homes to unaccompanied refugee children. It is not only people in the private sector are making money from the migration industry, but also people working inside the state apparatus who want to do well.

The biggest private company running asylum accommodations is owned by Bert Karlsson (left). In 2015, his company billed Swedish taxpayers $23.9 million. His homes require asylum seekers to buy their own toilet paper, apparently despite having agreed with the Migration Agency to provide asylum seekers with toilet paper, sanitary napkins and diapers. Wafa Issa (right) is head of the Migration Agency for the Stockholm region. She also runs a private company that is paid to provide foster homes to unaccompanied refugee children.

One of the losers is the Swedish police. They have reported that they can no longer cope with their jobs because they cannot handle the hundreds of young men in Sweden right now from Morocco and other countries in North Africa.

When you talk with journalists from Britain or the United States who think that Sweden’s migration policy is a role model, you have to think of those journalists who once saw the Soviet Union as a model. Communism did not work; Sweden’s migration policy does not work. That Sweden is a “humanitarian superpower” is truthfully nothing but marketing: the Green Party and some Social Democrats want to export Sweden’s liberal migration policy to the rest of Europe.

Although a small clique in Sweden have become millionaires because of the migration industry, the schools, police, social services and taxpayers in Sweden have lost a lot and have a difficult and uncertain future. There will be major conflicts in Sweden. There is nothing “noble” in Sweden’s migration policy. The Swedish migration model, far from being a good example of how a migration policy should function, is an embarrassment and a disaster, and its final result is chaos, conflict, and corruption.

GOD DELUSION OF STATES

The Roman Catholic Church is selling indulgences, the Orthodox Church is selling absolution certificates (συγχωροχάρτια – synchorochartia), and the European Commission is selling pollution allowances! 

God delusion is a neurosis of hoi polloi, a magnificent tool to fool the voters towards your direction.  Faith is retarded thinking, opposite of reason.

Sigmund Freud regarded God as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure; religion, necessary to help us restrain violent impulses earlier in the development of civilization, can now be set aside in favor of reason and science. Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind: neurosis, with its compulsive behavior, is an individual religiosity, and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a universal obsessional neurosis.

Albert Einstein said: The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this. I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

How stupid is your state?

Mississippi, Alabama and other Southern states are among the stupidest states in the nation, while New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine in New England are among the least devout, according to some of the key measures used to determine levels of religiosity in the Pew Research Center’s most recent Religious Landscape Study.



All states, ranked by % of adults who are “highly religious”

1. Alabama 77%
1. Mississippi 77%
3. Tennessee 73%
4. Louisiana 71%
5. Arkansas 70%
5. South Carolina 70%
7. West Virginia 69%
8. Georgia 66%
8. Oklahoma 66%
10. North Carolina 65%
11. Texas 64%
11. Utah 64%
13. Kentucky 63%
14. Virginia 61%
15. Missouri 60%
16. South Dakota 59%
17. Ohio 58%
18. New Mexico 57%
19. Iowa 55%
19. Kansas 55%
19. New Jersey 55%
22. Florida 54%
22. Indiana 54%
22. Maryland 54%
22. Nebraska 54%
22. Wyoming 54%
27. Arizona 53%
27. District of Columbia 53%
27. Michigan 53%
27. North Dakota 53%
27. Pennsylvania 53%
32. Delaware 52%
33. Idaho 51%
33. Illinois 51%
35. California 49%
35. Minnesota 49%
35. Nevada 49%
35. Rhode Island 49%
39. Montana 48%
39. Oregon 48%
41. Colorado 47%
41. Hawaii 47%
43. New York 46%
44. Alaska 45%
44. Washington 45%
44. Wisconsin 45%
47. Connecticut 43%
48. Maine 34%
48. Vermont 34%
50. Massachusetts 33%
50. New Hampshire 33%

There are many potential ways of defining what it means to be religious, but for the purposes of this analysis, we looked at four common measures of religious observance: worship attendance, prayer frequency, belief in God and the self-described importance of religion in one’s life. 

Relusion is the religion delusion. The reluded person is ignorant to science and fact and convinced that the holy scriptures of their religion are fact. The church tries to relude its members. Most of reluded people are victims of childhood indoctrination.

Religion is a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else but in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion. Religion’s eleventh commandment is Thou shalt not question.

People maintain core beliefs about what they feel they absolutely must do, claims of conscience.  There are no good reasons for the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious claims. The current status quo is predicated on a fundamental inequality.  Namely, your claim of conscience counts if it is based in religion. My claim of conscience doesn’t count if it is not based in religion. That is a pernicious and indefensible inequality in the existing legal regime.

Blasphemy laws are used to infringe upon human rights.  They frequently lead to arbitrary arrest, detention, poor treatment in custody including torture, dubious legal procedures and poor application of justice.  The definition of the offence can be in the hands of police and judicial authorities.

Governments have used blasphemy laws to silence political opponents.  Individuals have fabricated blasphemy charges against others in communal disputes.  Religious extremists have used blasphemy laws to attack opponents.  Religious authorities have used blasphemy laws to impose orthodoxy on members minority religious groups with the sanction of the state.  And people accused of blasphemy have been subject to violence by unofficial mobs.

It is important to guarantee an environment in which a critical discussion about religion can be held. There is no fundamental right not to be offended in one’s religious feelings. Religions per se do not hold rights. Churches and religious groups should be open to hearing criticism, just as every group in society. Intellectual and cultural advance rely on the free exchange of ideas.  Protecting any ideas from criticism does them no favor. It allows them to survive unchanged without being adapted and improved.

Shielding religion from criticism cannot be regarded as a social good. Criticism which is false can be tested and met with legitimate counter-arguments, while criticism which is true should be heard for the sake of correcting errors. In some cases, criticism helps religious thinkers improve theology. In more substantive cases, criticism is essential to shedding light on immoral or unlawful practices carried out in the name of religion.

fsm photo: fsm behold FSM.jpg
shutterstock_86590264

What does it mean to be “highly religious”? In our analysis, this includes any adult who reports at least two of four highly observant behaviors – attending religious services at least weekly, praying at least daily, believing in God with absolute certainty and saying that religion is very important to them — while not reporting a low level of religious observance in any of these areas, such as seldom or never attending religious services, seldom or never praying, not believing in God and saying that religion is “not too” or “not at all” important in their life. We also define a person as “highly religious” if they report three highly religious behaviors and a low level of religiosity on a fourth measure.

A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them or even think about doing them.

A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.

Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist’s metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

In Alabama and Mississippi, 77% of residents are highly religious by this definition. In both states, for instance, 82% believe in God with absolute certainty. In addition, three-quarters of Mississippians say they pray at least once a day and 77% of Alabama residents say religion is very important in their lives.

Bible and Quran are the most disgusting violent fictions.  Whereas Christians rarely read the Bible, Muslims read the Quran frequently and many of them have memorized most verses.  That’s why Muslims are much more violent than Christians.  All Christians I know never read the Old Testament of the Bible.  If they did, they would freak out from the huge violence.

Francis promotes the one world religion nonsense, equating Bible and Quran! Both books are silly fictions of a bloody deranged God, but Allah is much worse than the Christian God. The Bible and Quran are the two most barbaric fictions ever put together, full of hate, misogyny, stupidity, racism, and genocide.

The God of the Bible and Quran is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Vatican is a disgusting saint mill.  Some saints are the greatest corrupt sinners!  Padre Pio was a charlatan stigmatist and sexual harasser, Saint Constantine murdered his wife and son, and so it goes.  Sainthoods can be bought for a couple of million euros, and indulgences and absolutions for a few thousand euros!

If the petitioner is praying to a god which is omnipotent and all-knowing, it would be presumptuous for the petitioner to believe they understand the grand scheme of things sufficiently to pray for what is best. The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right.

Prayer may relieve theists of the need to take active measures to address issues around them. If they really wanted to do something useful, they could devote their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they can do something about. Some theists rely on prayers instead of seeking medical treatment for family members for easily curable conditions which later result in death.

Clergy know perfectly well that prayer is not intended to gratify the theist. So that, every time they accept a donation in return for some petition, they are accepting a gross negation of their faith. Clergy also reinforce religious hoaxes in order to bewilder theists with multiple prayers and donations.

Meanwhile, only about a third of people in New Hampshire (33%), Massachusetts (33%), Vermont (34%) and Maine (34%) qualify as highly religious by these criteria. Roughly one-in-five residents of these states report attending religious services at least weekly, and roughly half or fewer say they are certain of God’s existence.

VENITISM

Venitism is a new paradigm in economics and politics.

Black Hole: Taxation is armed robbery that feeds the black hole of political corruption; it’s the perfect index of corruption and tyranny. Only evil governments tax citizens and companies.

Constitution: The only purpose of a constitution is to protect citizens from government abuse. Reform treaties of a confederation, such as the Lisbon Treaty of EU, not voted by the citizens are null and void.

Corruption: Political corruption is proportional to the square of the size of the government.

Democracy: Every democracy is eventually hijacked by rabblerousers, pullpeddlers, clans of kleptocrats, bumptious bugaboos, busybodies, butterbabies, nabobs of nepotism, cranks of cronyism, pusillanimous pussyfooters, riffraffs of rascals, socialist sophists, and Machiavellian mafiosi. Democracy tends to kleptocracy. Anarchy should replace democracy.

Depression: Only governments can cause economic depressions and funny money. Lower tax rates, a reduction in the burden of government, and elimination of kleptocracy and VAT are the only way to boost growth.

Education: There is no direct relationship between education and schooling. You might be schooled but uneducated, and you might be educated but unschooled. Schools are concentration camps for the drones of society.  Unschooling is much better than schooling. Internet is the best source of knowledge and information, replacing schools, libraries, media, parliaments, and postoffice. 

Environment: The best way to save the environment is vasectomy.  Deadly viruses are Gaia’s antibiotics against the cancer of overpopulation.

Equality: Death is the only equalizer. Egalitarianism brings death to society, transforming citizens to zombies.

Evolution: The ultimate phase of human evolution is the complete domination of soul.

Government: The only purpose of government is to protect citizens from criminals. Public services, central banks, and fiat money should be abolished.

Heroism: Entrepreneurs, innovators, anarchists, and heretics are the real heroes.

Insurance: Citizens with proper individual retirement accounts and health savings accounts should be allowed to opt out of State Insurance.

Intervention: Any government intervention deteriorates an existing trend. Laissez-faire is the only progressive policy.

Laws:  All laws that citizens are required to know should not exceed 300 pages of type size 12.  When a new law is born, another law must die. 

Legislature: Parliaments should be abolished, because they continuously create laws that enslave citizens, constrain economic activity, loot producers, reward drones, and encourage political corruption.

Misery: Throwing money to misery brings more misery.

Money: A deluge of fiat money brings financial plague and haemorrhage of economy. Real money is tied up to precious metals and strategic metals.

Patriotism: Patriotism is addiction to local hysteria.

Privacy:  Nobody, including your government, has the right to break into your home, your land, your accounts, your computer, your files, and your secrets.  You have the natural right to protect your privacy from intruders.  Molon Labe! 

Property: Governments should not own or regulate any property, including electromagnetic waves. The first individual who improves or cultivates any unclaimed property is entitled to that property.  Governments cannot own, allocate, regulate, or manipulate frequency fields and media. Eminent domain is null and void. 

Religion: God delusion is a neurosis of hoi polloi. Faith is retarded thinking, opposite of reason.

Selfownership: You own your body and your soul, and nobody should dictate what you take in and what you take out. Speech, education, heresy, habeas corpus, military service, mating, healthcare, food, abortion, cloning, drugs, guns, and euthanasia should be personal choices.

Style: Your soul needs to resonate with mighty words and unique acts that express your style and destiny. Your government cannot dictate your language, your words, and your culture. Resonate now and sing your song!

System: The most efficient political system is anarchy, where everything is private, there are no taxes at all, there is no government, and there is no parliament. Government has deteriorated to a racket that benefits the political elite by taking money from average people.

Taxes: Taxes destroy the economy. Raising tax rates is masochism. Smart stimulus is to cut tax rates. Stupidus stimulus is to increase spending, which stimulates the cancer of statism! 

For more insightful understanding, invite Basil Venitis to speak at your meeting. venitis@gmail.com

https://venitism.wordpress.com

https://libertychurchonline.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/2c22a-1zirqvul.jpg?w=795

FACTS ABOUT ONLINE DATING

LA_CootieCatcher

Digital technology and smartphones in particular have transformed many aspects of our society, including how people seek out and establish romantic relationships. Few Americans had online dating experience when Pew Research Center first polled on the activity in 2005, but today 15% of U.S. adults report they have used online dating sites or mobile dating apps.



 

MAGIC WOMAN

By Basil Venitis

 

I dream of a soulful woman

Someone with style and love

Someone with charm and wonder

Magic woman far above.

 

There is a woman out there

Someone who offers real love

Some sweetheart somewhere

Magic woman far above.

 

I wonder where is this person

Where is this Goddess of love

Striking in hard and headon

Magic woman far above.

 

Come down real beauty

Bring to me some soul love

Bring in joy to this guy

Magic woman far above.

 

I don’t care where you come from

When you drive to my heart

Real love will bring me freedom

Magic woman far above.

 

I don’t care what you do for living

Just show up for soul love

Cheer me up and keep me living

Magic woman far above.

 

I don’t care what you know

Know me and bring me love

Please don’t answer with a no

Magic woman far above.

 

Come and dance with me with joy

Bring me peace like a dove

I am a man but not a toy

Magic woman far above.

 

 

 

SPIRITUAL LOVE

By Basil Venitis

 

There is a love that never fails

 A love as peaceful as a dove

 A love that grows and hails

 That’s spiritual love.

 

 There is a love for soulmates

 A love that lasts far above

 A love that always elates

 That’s spiritual love.

 

 There is a love I cannot live without

 A love to touch without glove

 A love that I’ll never doubt

 That’s spiritual love.

 

Here are five facts about online dating:

1. Attitudes toward online dating grow more positiveOnline dating has lost much of its stigma, and a majority of Americans now say online dating is a good way to meet people.

When we first studied online dating habits in 2005, most Americans had little exposure to online dating or to the people who used it, and they tended to view it as a subpar way of meeting people. Today, nearly half of the public knows someone who uses online dating or who has met a spouse or partner via online dating – and attitudes toward online dating have grown progressively more positive.

To be sure, many people remain puzzled that someone would want to find a romantic partner online – 23% of Americans agree with the statement that “people who use online dating sites are desperate” – but in general it is much more culturally acceptable than it was a decade ago.

2. Online dating has jumped among adults under age 25 as well as those in their late 50s and early 60s.

The share of 18- to 24-year-olds who use online dating has roughly tripled from 10% in 2013 to 27% today. Online dating use among 55- to 64-year-olds has also risen substantially since the last Pew Research Center survey on the topic. Today, 12% of 55- to 64-year-olds report ever using an online dating site or mobile dating app versus only 6% in 2013.

One factor behind the substantial growth among younger adults is their use of mobile dating apps. About one-in-five 18- to 24-year olds (22%) now report using mobile dating apps; in 2013, only 5% reported doing so.

3. One-third of people who have used online dating have never actually gone on a date with someone they met on these sites.

If you haven’t found quite what you’re looking for on an online dating site, you aren’t alone. Two thirds of online daters—66%—tell us that they have gone on a date with someone they met through a dating site or dating app. That is a substantial increase from the 43% of online daters who had actually progressed to the date stage when we first asked this question in 2005. But it still means that one-third of online daters have not yet met up in real life with someone they initially found on an online dating site.

4. One-in-five online daters have asked someone else to help them with their profile.

Many online daters enlist their friends in an effort to put their best digital foot forward. Some 22% of online daters have asked someone to help them create or review their profile. Women are especially likely to enlist a friend in helping them craft the perfect profile—30% of female online daters have done this, compared with 16% of men.

5. 5% of Americans who are in a marriage or committed relationship say they met their significant other online.

Despite the wealth of digital tools that allow people to search for potential partners, and even as one-in-ten Americans are now using one of the many online dating platforms, the vast majority of relationships still begin offline. Even among Americans who have been with their spouse or partner for five years or less, fully 88% say that they met their partner offline–without the help of a dating site.

The eternal search for Mr. or Ms. Right has long been big business, but more of that business is moving online. Nearly 7% of the web’s users currently use a dating app, and that amounts to a $3 billion worldwide market.

Netizens have to be aware of huge online dating fraud. According to police who investigate online romantic cons, the scams follow a surprisingly consistent arc. Here’s how swindles typically unfold.

  1. The Bait

The scammers set up a fake profile on a social-media or dating site. The man they invent is a ruggedly handsome, middle-aged widower who yearns to love again. He usually works in a macho job in a far-flung location—some-thing that provides good excuses to avoid face-to-face meetings.

  1. The Grooming Phase

Once a woman gets drawn in, the scammer showers her with gestures of affection through email or instant messaging: declarations of love, plagiarized poems, compliments on her beauty. The scammer also asks personal questions about the victim’s life—the key to establishing an intimate connection.

  1. The Gift

Satisfied that the mark is infatuated, the scammer concocts a situation that can be solved with a bit of money: He claims to need a few hundred dollars for a visa or money to travel. If the victim agrees to provide the cash, the scammer knows she’s on the hook.

  1. The Crisis

Suddenly something goes horribly wrong. The scammer pleads for several thousand dollars to pay for a major surgery or to escape a legal predicament. Afraid she’ll never get to meet her beloved unless she complies, the victim wires the requested funds.

  1. The Bleed

More aggressive demands for money ensue, until the victim either loses everything or gets wise to the con. At that point, the scammer either vanishes or tries to convince the victim to launder money on his behalf.

SUPER TUESDAY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS

Race and ethnicity of Super Tuesday states

Once an election season starts, politicians appear to act according to their own separate rulebook. But one of the most convenient things to forget when observing their behavior is that politics is a tough game.

We often make the mistake of thinking that politicians don’t have a clue what they’re doing. These things are hard. How do you structure a trade deal? How do you negotiate with China? What do you know about immigration? These are extremely hard problems with few ready solutions in a sea of self-interested partisanship.

But politicians don’t just have to untangle such issue intricacies. They also have to appeal to what might be simultaneously the most fickle and discerning crowd out there: voters.

Elections are entertainment for the masses. The U.S. electorate this year will be the country’s most diverse ever, and that is evident in several Super Tuesday states holding primaries or caucuses on March 1 in which blacks could have a significant impact.

In five of 12 Super Tuesday states, blacks account for at least 15% of the electorate, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2014 census data. Black eligible voters have the largest footprint in Georgia (31%) and Alabama (26%), while Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas also have sizable black electorates.

In a reversal of historical migration trends, Southern states have seen their black populations increase more than twice as fast as non-Southern states since 1990. From 1910 to 1970, 6 million blacks left the South, with many pursuing industrial jobs in Northern cities in what is called the Great Migration. But since then, blacks have increasingly chosen to live in the South.

Blacks far outnumber Hispanics among eligible voters in the five Southern Super Tuesday states with large black electorates. For example, among eligible voters in Georgia, 2.2 million are blacks, compared with 291,000 Hispanics and 179,000 Asians.

Blacks have long leaned toward the Democratic Party, according to Pew Research Center surveys. In 2014, 80% identified as or leaned Democratic, compared with 56% of Hispanics and 40% of whites.

Hispanics have a large presence in the Super Tuesday states of Texas and Colorado. In Texas, Hispanics make up 28% of the electorate and outnumber blacks 4.8 million to 2.2 million. In Colorado, Hispanics make up a rising share of eligible voters, standing at nearly 15% in 2014, up from nearly 13% in 2008. Overall, Hispanics favor the Democratic Party, but to a lesser degree than blacks. Exit polls in 2014 in some states showed significant shares of Hispanic voters supporting Republican candidates in races for governor and U.S. Senate.

Several other Super Tuesday states have largely white electorates. For example, whites make up 95% of eligible voters in Vermont and 88% of eligible voters in Minnesota.

Alaska stands apart from other Super Tuesday states because of its large Native American population. American Indians or Alaska Natives make up 13% of Alaska’s electorate (and in Oklahoma they make up 7% of eligible voters.)

We peel back campaign chicanery and party posturing to show how politicians walk the tightrope of public opinion by crafting their messages, performing acrobatic acts of pandering, and actually changing constituents’ opinions to win elections.

There is a signature dilemma of representative democracy: What happens when a politician must choose between an unpopular policy that she believes is in the public’s interest and a popular one that she believes is not?

The game-theoretic model lays out such scenarios for incumbents seeking reelection. On one hand, politicians can display true leadership: Go with the better policy, even though it flies in the face of public opinion. The flipside would be to pander: Support the popular policy, even though politicians know it isn’t in the public’s best interest.

Which do they choose? Often, it depends on how long they’ve been in office. Newly elected leaders who display leadership early on have time for the public to come around to the idea that the policy was good. They actually have an electoral incentive not to pander, even though pandering would give them a short-term jump in popularity. But, as the election gets close, then the politician has more incentive to pander, because it’s less likely the voters are going to observe the effects before the next election.

This tension could help explain, for example, some curious about-faces on issues like free trade during election seasons. Voters typically think that free trade is a bad thing. Economists think it’s a good thing. Politicians probably know more about what economists think about free trade than a typical citizen does, but come election time, politicians become less pro-free trade. And they’ll do a variety of other things that voters think is in their interest, but that the politician doesn’t think is in their interest.

In addition to the timing of the election, the closeness of the race can also play a part in determining the heft of this incentive to pander. A politician who’s far ahead has the luxury of ignoring the urge to pander. Similarly, one who’s far behind could also be disinclined to pander, opting instead for an unpopular policy that serves voters’ interests, in the hope of being electorally rewarded if the public changes its views. But in close contests, where any advantage could be pivotal in securing the election, the pull to pander is especially intense.

Any time there’s a tight race, we get really worried for policymaking.  Our concern is that people are going to take lots of positions that sound good but aren’t.

Conventional wisdom says that Americans like optimistic leaders. Voters place optimism among the highest-ranked traits in a politician, above charisma and daring, and below only reliability and intelligence.

But too much of a sunny disposition can backfire. Voters are harsh judges of politicians who seem to have direct control over outcomes that fail to meet expectations, such as a president directing a foreign-policy disaster. They also punish politicians who fail to make the right call even when they have no meaningful control over the outcome, such as a leader of a small country who says the global economy will pick up and then it doesn’t.

Optimism is a double-edged sword. Even if politicians can’t be blamed for poor results, they get punished for being too optimistic because it signals that they may be incompetent, that they weren’t able to accurately predict an outcome.

When it comes to safeguarding reelection prospects, the better bet might be to under-promise and over-deliver. The Iraq War is an example. Instead of painting the war as a challenging, long-term engagement, the George W. Bush administration had Dick Cheney go on the morning news shows and make predictions about how quick the war will be, how they will love us after we depose Saddam Hussein. Even though Bush eventually won reelection in 2004, it’s likely that he would have enjoyed a much easier election by setting more somber expectations.

Candidates shouldn’t temper their optimistic demeanors, but if they aren’t certain of the outcome, they could face steep repercussions. Think hard about whether you absolutely need to set the high expectations to convince people. If you’ve got a list of arguments for a policy that you can bring to the table that don’t have to do with setting expectations, that’s the better way to do it.

Do politicians who lie win more often? Quite the opposite. For politicians picking their way down the campaign trail, there often seems to be little downside in delivering empty promises to get elected. But do lies actually help a candidate succeed? The pervasive presence of lying actually increases the level of honesty in campaigns.

Imagine placing politicians on a spectrum. At one end is a perfectly honest candidate who is either unable or unwilling to promise things that deviate from his or her true intentions, whether for moral, personal, or societal reasons. In other words, a candidate who considers campaign promises to be binding. At the other end is a candidate who feels no such compunctions, and is eager and willing to misrepresent his or her true intentions. In short, someone who is willing to say anything to get elected.

A basic conclusion would be that dishonest candidates should dominate elections. After all, they can promise everything that honest candidates can to sway voters, and then some. And yet, this isn’t quite the case.

There’s a natural limit to the effectiveness of lying. The reason stems from the fact that voters don’t take what a candidate says at face value. They’re also trying to get a bead on the politician’s character. Aside from whatever they feel about the policies on display, voters don’t want to elect people they suspect are untrustworthy.

In other words, a field of candidates willing to misrepresent their true intentions and march in perfect lockstep with public opinion creates a strategic incentive for a candidate to take what might be a more unpopular stand, thus signaling a level of sincerity. If they’re all liars, then there’s an opportunity for someone to distinguish themselves by being a little more extreme, but being a little more honest.

Indeed, politicians might be wise to say some things that are discordant with what the voters want. In a sense, agitate them and displease them a little bit, because you’re signaling that you’re not just saying what they want to hear, that you take positions you believe in.

For a lot of people, the appeal with Trump is that they see him as this independent figure who speaks his mind and isn’t pandering. To his supporters, he’s someone who has his own positions, makes up his mind quickly, and, because he’s independently rich, isn’t pressured by outside interests. Is this the strong guy who’s going to do great things? In some sense, people would love to have someone like that in power.

 

But there is a note of caution regarding the downside of being seen as too much of a loose cannon — something that Trump might encounter if he wins the nomination: This captures his appeal, but also his limitations. It’s one thing to be independent, but if you’re not responsive at all to what the public wants, then it’s really dangerous.

Sometimes voters outright disagree with politicians, particularly on hot-button issues like the death penalty, abortion, or climate change. But studies show that politicians can sway a voter’s opinion simply by changing the angle of their messages.

A senator might tell a fellow pro-immigration supporter about an amendment she introduced to allow more green cards for parents of U.S. citizens, but mention to an anti-immigration constituent that she voted for an amendment providing more money for border security. So, without being entirely dishonest, the senators nonetheless presented a very different face to different audiences.

Senators were able to boost their support among constituents who disagreed with them on the issue by sending tailored letters. In fact, in some instances, the senators could confuse people into thinking they took the opposite position from the one they explicitly stated earlier in the letter.

These people are good strategic communicators who can potentially take very extreme positions that are out of step with their constituents but then massage them with language.

Politicians might not even need to do that much to change their voters’ opinions. Overall voters do not change their approval of legislators who stake out positions they oppose. Voters are also significantly more likely to change their stance and agree with their legislator’s position. What’s even more astounding is that these patterns do not change depending on whether the legislator provided arguments for her policy positions. In other words, efforts to convince constituents are almost entirely unnecessary. They adopt the legislators’ positions on the issues just as readily without any justification.

It’s possible that when people learn that their representatives are pursuing policies they oppose, they decide to defer to their representatives’ policy judgment rather than judge their representatives’ actions negatively.

This is strong evidence that, rather than being constrained by public opinion, political elites have broad leeway to shape it. Several things could explain why. First, for as much as we complain about politics, we might have high levels of social trust in our elected officials. Or it could be a psychological reaction to authority.

Another possibility is that people just really don’t care that much about these issues. They’re not going to spend the time and effort to research and understand every single complex issue, which in some ways is the same thing as saying that they’re willing to trust politicians.

Some people say this is bad news for democracy. Actually it as very good news for our system. There wouldn’t be benefits of having representatives if they always just did what a majority of people wanted. At least on many issues, politicians could say what they really think and stand up for what they believe in.

American politics are far more exciting, consequential and charismatic than European politics. This is in part due to the status of the United States among the democracies of the world as the leading Superpower. The world has for a century turned on the American axis. Yet, it is more than just power with a capital P. The United States – politically, aesthetically and culturally – is a far more vibrant and glamorous country than Britain and EU, and thanks to the creative power and influence of the American entertainment industry with its citadel of Hollywood, churns out American politicos who run political campaigns as if they were producing blockbuster movies.

The American political process – with the myriad of domestic and international policy issues involved, passionate civic organizing & quirky public engagement along with the cast of larger than life political characters – has always had a stronger grip on my imagination and attention than the dreary, trivial, boring and deeply parochial political village of Westminster. Dipping into pop culture, if American and British politics were to be compared to television soap dramas, the US polity would surely resemble an episode of CBS’s 1980s global mega hit Dallas which dominated American and World TV ratings for much of that decade – and the UK polity a cross between EastEnders meets Emmerdale.

Only in America could a Head of State have his regime brought down by a newspaper with the saga turned into a film All the President’s Men while only in Britain could the current Mayor of its Capital City simultaneously sit in the lower house of its National Parliament – supposedly able to carry out two publicly funded jobs at the same time – without so much as a howl of protest from the British electorate (or media) due to the fact that when compared to the rest of the grey British political class Boris Johnston is considered a colorful character.

One wonders what the reaction in New York City amongst the voters and press would have been if Mayor de Blasio had followed Boris Johnson’s greedy example and announced he was running for the House of Representatives and would still carry on as NYC Mayor. Something tells me – unlike Londoners – New Yorkers would not have taken such a proposition lying down. We also wonder if the Mayor of London claims two publicly funded salaries and two publicly funded expense accounts for the two jobs he performs as if he were Superman, though without the awesome splendor of Henry Cavill’s Superman physique.

The old adage that democratic, electoral politics is acting for ugly people rings true when one casts one’s eye over the green benches of the British House of Commons. British MPs – as a body of people – are not exactly the easiest on the eye, putting it politely. The vast majority of Members of Parliament, both in the Commons and Lords, are physically underwhelming and ascetically un-photogenic, yet ironically this seems no restraint on many of them posing for the television cameras and seeking out publicity at the drop of a hat.

This may sound superficial; however, it goes to the heart psychologically of why many people stand for Parliament in Britain and other democratic political systems – not out of any high minded ideological, intellectual principles and convictions – rather a burning desire to achieve the personal recognition and attention to massage their swollen egos which eluded many of them throughout their lives prior to becoming an MP. A very senior British politician once told me when it came to the fickle voting public the most important attributes of appealing to a democratic electorate in a 24/7 mass media/consumer/entertainment age was not your political beliefs, policies, strategic vision, intellect, rhetoric or life/professional experience – rather how you look and how you sound – than anything you actually say, do or believe in.

This also goes a long way to explaining the rivalry that exists within political parties. The majority of politicians in a democracy have to go out of their way to artificially attract attention to themselves and generate interest in their persona among the public while a tiny minority of democratic politicians attract attention naturally through the effortless way of their being. From an anthropological Darwinian perspective, in a society and political system of mass democracy, you have people who stand out of a crowd due to the dominance of their physical presence, personality, style and charisma. Then you have the majority of people who are the crowd and blend into each other forming a sea of unremarkable and forgettable faces.

You have a tiny minority of people who can turn heads by just walking down a street or command the attention of a room full of people simply by entering it as they are blessed with the natural ability to captivate others just through being themselves. However, this blessing can also be a curse, as those few politicians who do possess natural star power must contend with the envy of other politicos (and the voting public) who are forever trapped within the confines of the supporting cast yet crave to be the lead actor.

Indeed, the world could be soon presented with an American Presidential Election reminiscent and worthy of one of the greatest television shows ever to grace the small screen – the fantastic Dallas mentioned above. If it is to be Donald Trump for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats come November 2016, the contest for the White House would be like Trump as the ruthless, megalomaniac (but entertaining and loveable) scoundrel JR Ewing (played to perfection by the masterly Larry Hagman) doing battle in Southfork ranch (White House) with Pamela Barnes Ewing (played with equal perfection by the brilliant Victoria Principal) in the form of Mrs Clinton.

Americans and American politicians are heavily influenced by Hollywood, so if it is to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be intriguing to see if Americans would rather have JR Ewing calling the shots in the Oval Office or Pamela Barnes Ewing. This in a nutshell explains why Donald Trump has taken off the way he has within the American body politic and the Republican Party. Trump, unlike the rest of the GOP field, is entertaining and compelling precisely because of his controversial charisma. The overlap between American television programs, music, films and plays with its politics is institutionalized.

The multi-billion dollar American Presidential Election cycle is, in a way, an extension of the multi-billion dollar Los Angeles entertainment industry. Why else did Mrs Clinton turn to Hollywood movie mogul Steven Spielberg to recommend media consultants to help coach her with her public oratory and stump speeches? Why else in US Presidential election campaigns is so much money spent on television advertising, so much time and resource spent on television interviews and television debates, social media outreach, the courting and roll out of celebrity endorsements, make-up, clothes, hair styles et al.

Western democratic publics are not the most politically aware and educated, policy astute and erudite of peoples with most of the western democratic consumer masses more interested in the latest reality TV show, pop band, goings on of the grotesque Khardashian family, shopping at the mall, the latest gadget, internet trends, talking about what they had for dinner on Facebook/Twitter, taking selfies or decorating their suburban homes. Of course non-political types would retort that this is what normal people are interested in, however I always remember what the inspirational American Army Ranger and motivational fitness guru Greg Plitt said about normality: Normal is what weak people call living… I call it death.

Therein lays the rotten truth of the Western democratic capitalist model. It is nothing more than a facade and charade in order to keep the weak and feckless masses entertained and distracted rather than truly politically, intellectually, culturally, physically and economically empowered while the elites exercise real power, furthering their own policy agendas and interests alongside manipulating the masses through the false language and corrupted institutions of so-called democracy. Western democratic publics moan and complain incessantly about their democratically elected leaders. Yet these democratic leaders are merely reflections of the democratic systems and democratic publics who elected them in the first place. Democracies deserve the leaders they elect.

The idea that Western style democracy is the most superior system of government perfected by humankind is a dangerous fallacy and nonsense. After all, Weimar Germany boasted one of the most democratic constitutions and systems of government ever engineered in the democratic West and we all remember what that led to – the democratic election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. Many people who know little of history forget Hitler came to power through a democratic election.

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years” – Lyndon Johnson

Citizens who make the big mistake of voting try to choose the less evil.  Smart citizens stay home, voting for nobody.   Nobody is the best politician. Nobody is not evil.  Voting is a religious ritual. Just as the ancient religious rituals served to confirm the divine right of ancient kings, the ballot box is used today to bestow the same kind of blessing on the secular rulers.  

Monarchies actually safeguarded peoples’ lives and liberty far more than democracy has. Western leaders routinely speak of democracy as a virtue unto itself, even using religious phrasing such as rooted in the sanctity of the individual. In actuality, democracy is simply a decision-making process in which the majority gets its way.  Democracy is the dictatorship of majority.

Do not vote, as it encourages the bastards!   A large turnout gives legitimacy to rulers and sedates the people. Voting is merely the mechanism by which the extremely corrupt political system fools hoi polloi into supporting it.  No human has any right to rule and rob another. Yet government, and the voting process by which it is legalized, is in the exclusive business of ruling and robbing others.

A majority of the public harbors antimarket, antiforeign, and make-work biases.  The market’s beneficial undesigned order is counterintuitive. Systemic irrationality is an excellent reason to keep important matters out of the political system. Even politicians who know better will be motivated by their passion for power to ignore their best judgment and cater to the voters’ irrationality.

Two major parties in every Western country try to commoditize all voters, transforming them to vegetables in the center field!  Rabblerousers gravitate to two dominant parties running for the center, trying to offend as few people as possible. This produces a groupthink where everybody avoids the issues when they’re running for office. Most Westerners are disappointed in both major parties. They’re hungry for a new approach, a new party, truly committed to substantive ideas, and not just to getting elected and focusing on their particular election cycles. 


Lemmings are Arctic rodents of poor eyesight, which can drown en masse. American lemmings vote for Republicans or Decocrats.  Europeans behave like lemmings when they masochistically vote for kleptocrats. British lemmings vote for Whigs or Tories.  Are you a lemming? Are you a victim of taxation and kleptocracy? It’s time for soulsearching and vision examination.


Kleptocrats promote phobias and bogeys in order to take the attention of voters away from taxation and kleptocracy, and to have a fantastic opportunity to present themselves as Moses who leads the people to salvation! Rabblerousers make a living out of convincing people that the sky is falling. The essence of statesmanship in a free society is just the opposite, helping people understand the facts and proposing real solutions to real problems.

Don’t vote, it just encourages the bastards.  Voting tells politicians that they’ve fooled you.  Either you, the voter, are so vacuous that a sweating politician will determine how you vote, or perhaps worse, you’re so naive that no matter how many failed political promises you’ve been fed, you’ll always believe the next one will actually be fulfilled.

VENITISM

Venitism is a new paradigm in economics and politics.

Black Hole: Taxation is armed robbery that feeds the black hole of political corruption; it’s the perfect index of corruption and tyranny. Only evil governments tax citizens and companies.

Constitution: The only purpose of a constitution is to protect citizens from government abuse. Reform treaties of a confederation, such as the Lisbon Treaty of EU, not voted by the citizens are null and void.

Corruption: Political corruption is proportional to the square of the size of the government.

Democracy: Every democracy is eventually hijacked by rabblerousers, pullpeddlers, clans of kleptocrats, bumptious bugaboos, busybodies, butterbabies, nabobs of nepotism, cranks of cronyism, pusillanimous pussyfooters, riffraffs of rascals, socialist sophists, and Machiavellian mafiosi. Democracy tends to kleptocracy. Anarchy should replace democracy.

Depression: Only governments can cause economic depressions and funny money. Lower tax rates, a reduction in the burden of government, and elimination of kleptocracy and VAT are the only way to boost growth.

Education: There is no direct relationship between education and schooling. You might be schooled but uneducated, and you might be educated but unschooled. Schools are concentration camps for the drones of society.  Unschooling is much better than schooling. Internet is the best source of knowledge and information, replacing schools, libraries, media, parliaments, and postoffice. 

Environment: The best way to save the environment is vasectomy.  Deadly viruses are Gaia’s antibiotics against the cancer of overpopulation.

Equality: Death is the only equalizer. Egalitarianism brings death to society, transforming citizens to zombies.

Evolution: The ultimate phase of human evolution is the complete domination of soul.

Government: The only purpose of government is to protect citizens from criminals. Public services, central banks, and fiat money should be abolished.

Heroism: Entrepreneurs, innovators, anarchists, and heretics are the real heroes.

Insurance: Citizens with proper individual retirement accounts and health savings accounts should be allowed to opt out of State Insurance.

Intervention: Any government intervention deteriorates an existing trend. Laissez-faire is the only progressive policy.

Laws:  All laws that citizens are required to know should not exceed 300 pages of type size 12.  When a new law is born, another law must die. 

Legislature: Parliaments should be abolished, because they continuously create laws that enslave citizens, constrain economic activity, loot producers, reward drones, and encourage political corruption.

Misery: Throwing money to misery brings more misery.

Money: A deluge of fiat money brings financial plague and haemorrhage of economy. Real money is tied up to precious metals and strategic metals.

Patriotism: Patriotism is addiction to local hysteria.

Privacy:  Nobody, including your government, has the right to break into your home, your land, your accounts, your computer, your files, and your secrets.  You have the natural right to protect your privacy from intruders.  Molon Labe! 

Property: Governments should not own or regulate any property, including electromagnetic waves. The first individual who improves or cultivates any unclaimed property is entitled to that property.  Governments cannot own, allocate, regulate, or manipulate frequency fields and media. Eminent domain is null and void. 

Religion: God delusion is a neurosis of hoi polloi. Faith is retarded thinking, opposite of reason.

Selfownership: You own your body and your soul, and nobody should dictate what you take in and what you take out. Speech, education, heresy, habeas corpus, military service, mating, healthcare, food, abortion, cloning, drugs, guns, and euthanasia should be personal choices.

Style: Your soul needs to resonate with mighty words and unique acts that express your style and destiny. Your government cannot dictate your language, your words, and your culture. Resonate now and sing your song!

System: The most efficient political system is anarchy, where everything is private, there are no taxes at all, there is no government, and there is no parliament. Government has deteriorated to a racket that benefits the political elite by taking money from average people.

Taxes: Taxes destroy the economy. Raising tax rates is masochism. Smart stimulus is to cut tax rates. Stupidus stimulus is to increase spending, which stimulates the cancer of statism! 

For more insightful understanding, invite Basil Venitis to speak at your meeting. venitis@gmail.com

https://venitism.wordpress.com

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES

By Anna T. Pinedo

Corporate governance has changed dramatically since passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The level of shareholder engagement and institutional investor expectations regarding governance practices have also changed significantly. The passage of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act in April 2012, which helped spur the initial public offering market, raised concerns among certain groups that new initial public offering (“IPO”) candidates would view certain of the accommodations available under the Act as a rationale to relax their governance practices and to rely on phase-in periods. However, emerging growth companies, or EGCs, availing themselves of the JOBS Act’s Title I “IPO on-ramp” provisions generally have adopted rigorous governance policies and procedures.

We assess the corporate governance practices adopted by EGCs. We examined the filings of (i) the approximately 580 EGCs (on an aggregated basis) that completed their IPOs in the period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015 and (ii) the 157 EGCs (on a standalone basis) that completed their IPOs during the year ended December 31, 2015. Our objective is to provide data that will be useful to you in assessing whether your company’s current or proposed corporate governance practices are consisted with EGC market practice.

Under the JOBS Act, an issuer will remain an “emerging growth company” until the earliest of:

  • the last day of the fiscal year during which the issuer has total annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more;
  • the last day of the issuer’s fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the first sale of common equity securities of the issuer pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act (for a debt-only issuer that never sells common equity pursuant to a Securities Act registration statement, this five-year period will not run);
  • any date on which the issuer has, during the prior three-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt; or
  • the date on which the issuer becomes a “Large Accelerated Filer,” as defined in the SEC’s rules.

Period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015

In this section, we present data on an aggregated basis, considering all of the EGC IPOs undertaken in the last three years. Based on these companies, here are our key findings:

  • 84% of non-controlled companies had a majority of independent directors at
    IPO pricing
  • 71% had staggered or classified boards
  • 62% separated the Chief Executive Officer and Board chair positions
  • 68% had all independent directors on the Audit, Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees upon completion of the IPO
  • 93% had a “financial expert” on the Audit Committee at IPO pricing
  • 40% had “exclusive forum” provisions in bylaws
  • 74% had “super majority” shareholder voting provisions
  • 46% allowed shareholders to take action by written consent under specified conditions
  • 22% were “foreign private issuers”

Below we discuss the observed trends in more detail and provide resources intended to assist companies planning their IPOs.

The Filers

A “foreign private issuer” is any foreign issuer (other than a foreign government), unless: (i) more than 50% of the issuer’s outstanding voting securities are held directly or indirectly of record by residents of the United States; and (ii) any of the following applies: (x) the majority of the issuer’s executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents; (y) more than 50% of the issuer’s assets are located in the United States; or (z) the issuer’s business is administered principally in the United States. 

We identified the IPOs of 717 issuers in the period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015, of which 94 or 13.11% were not EGCs. We reviewed the EGC IPO filings, but excluded the 42 master limited partnerships completed during the period, as well as one offering that priced but was withdrawn before closing. See Appendix A of the complete publication for a list of the EGC IPOs we reviewed and Appendix B for a summary of the benefits enjoyed by EGCs under the JOBS Act. 

Of the remaining 580 EGCs, 127 were foreign private issuers, or FPIs.

Of the 453 U.S. domestic companies, 86.9% were incorporated in Delaware, followed by Maryland (5.7%) and Texas (1.3%).

Of the 580 EGCs, all but two listed on either the Nasdaq or the NYSE. 

“Controlled companies” represented 17.1% of the 580 issuers. The securities exchanges exempt controlled companies from certain requirements. To the extent “control” was relevant, we
note that below.

Figure 1: N=674
mofo1

Both the NYSE and the Nasdaq define a “controlled company” as one in which more than 50% of the voting power is controlled by an individual, a group, or another company. Many private equity-backed and venture capital-backed IPO issuers choose to be considered “controlled companies,” at least for a period following their IPOs while the sponsors remain significant holders.

Figure 2: N=580.

mofo2

Figure 3: N=453.

mofo3

* Excludes FPIs.

All of the Maryland-incorporated issuers were real estate investment trusts, or REITs, because Maryland’s corporate law has specific accommodations for REITs. 

Figure 4: N=580.

mofo4

Ten of the “controlled companies” were controlled by non-U.S. parents, two of which were Chinese entities. Of the 99 “controlled companies,” four disclosed that they were controlled by venture capital funds, 52 disclosed that they were controlled by private equity funds, and two were controlled by both.

SERVANTS OF TWO MASTERS? THE FEIGNED HYSTERIA OVER ACTIVIST-PAID DIRECTORS

By Yaron Nili

Director compensation in the U.S. has garnered much less attention than the compensation of executives. Directors are most often elected without challenge, based on the company’s recommendation. They serve, at least in theory, all shareholders and owe their duties to the corporation. In each company, directors are compensated equally regardless of their affiliation, credentials or tenure. This parity has been lauded as a crucial element in promoting board “cohesiveness,” to the benefit of all shareholders.

Recently, however, activist investors have asked shareholders to elect director-candidates who receive a lucrative compensation package from the activist in addition to their compensation arrangement with the company. Incumbent managers and their defenders, such as Wachtell Lipton, have sharply condemned this practice, terming it a “Golden Leash” that subjects the nominated director to the activist’s control. They argue that the payment of incentive compensation by a sponsoring shareholder establishes a two-tiered compensation structure for the board, creates dissension and lack of cohesion in the boardroom, and fosters continuing allegiances between the director and the activist shareholder following the election therefore calling into question the independence of the director. Further, they argue that these arrangements could cause the firm to be too “short-term” oriented. Activists, however, claim that these arrangements help recruit talent that would otherwise not serve on a board for regular director pay, particularly in the case of a contested election and that structuring it as performance-based pay serves a number of useful functions that may not be achieved by fixed compensation.

In recent weeks, Nasdaq has joined the debate. On January 28, 2016, NASDAQ filed a proposed rule with the Securities and Exchange Commission requiring disclosure of any compensation arrangements with individuals who serve as dissident director candidates. In addition, the exchange is expected to solicit comment on other matters related to third party compensation arrangements, including whether such payments impair directors’ independence and could affect boards’ committee structure.

I critically present and evaluate the arguments against such side payments, explaining why these opponents of supplemental-pay are mistaken. In fact, I argue, activist-paid directors can be expected to improve corporate performance at poorly performing firms, and the cost of such arrangements, if any, is likely to be much lower than that of similar arrangements that are already widely used throughout corporate America and are welcomed by these opponents. I further assert that even if such arguments are taken at face‌ value a strong case can be made for allowing such payments under certain conditions.

Specifically, I argue that current boards have already been suffering from many of the issues that those opposing supplemental pay are invoking as potential concerns arising from side payments, that activist-paid directors are not expected to change this landscape dramatically, and that given the benefits that supplemental pay provides to shareholders and boards themselves this categorical opposition to supplemental pay is unmerited.

First, addressing the concern of damaging board cohesiveness, I argue that in many cases it is more likely to be that the board is too “cohesive,” preventing it from being effective and from taking the hard steps necessary to improve the firm performance. More importantly, the argument that paid activist-nominees will reduce board cohesiveness assumes that such cohesiveness already exists on companies’ boards, and that the cohesiveness is dependent on the directors being elected as part of one slate and with similar financial incentives. In reality, however, these assumptions are far from an accurate representation of how boards are comprised. Finally, supplemental pay may actually serve as a way to even out the financial interests between the incoming directors and the more tenured directors already serving on the board.

Second, addressing the concerns regarding the independence of activist-paid directors, I argue that activist-paid director are (i) independent of the activists, and (ii) even if they were dependent on the activists, they would be no more dependent on a particular shareholder than directors in other settings. Finally, I argue that no harm would flow if these activist non-affiliated directors were in fact dependent on the activists.

Third, addressing the “short-termism” concerns raised by opponents of supplemental pay, I argue that there are several bases that should alleviate the concern regarding corporate short-termism. Since boards have directors with far worse short term incentives, for instance directors who are about to retire, activist-paid nominees might actually be an improvement as far as short-termism is concerned. Further, since activist-paid directors can only act if they convince other directors, as most often these nominees only account for a small fraction of the board, any action taken by the board reflects more than just the opinion and wish of the activist nominees. Finally, a question exists regarding the merits and validity of the short-termism concern in the context of activist campaigns.

Taking the benefits that activist-paid nominees may provide to companies, I suggest that instead of reacting with unfounded hysteria to these pay structures, a more nuanced approach is warranted. Such an approach would balance between the benefits these marquee directors could provide to companies and the valid concerns that some pay arrangements may present. In laying out this approach, I present key factors that each board and shareholder base should evaluate when an activist hedge fund seeks to appoint a director with a supplemental pay arrangement.