Calvinistic Tribalism

The Marikana tragedy and the ongoing strikes in the mining industry has highlighted a recurring issue in South Africa.

If you read the history of Southern Africa, there has always been wars and arguments over land and resources, the Mfecane lasted 25 years and resulted in an almost complete depopulation of large areas of land.

Then the missionaries came and further fomented and ingrained the tribal identity/hate in the region to the point that we now have smaller tribes of a much bigger variety.

Whether along the traditional ethnic, linguistic, racial or the newer political or trade union lines; we still have the same tribal mentality which was fucked up beyond repair by the silver-tongued missionaries.

I blame them for their misguided attempts at stamping out the traditional beliefs and the results that we are still experiencing.

I cannot be bothered to look up the verse, but you know the one: 'If you are not with us, you are against us.'

This ridiculous black and white mentality has been taught so that it is no longer a sin to take up arms and kill those that oppose you in any way. That is why we have fights and arguments, violent strikes and killings.

Coupled with the traditional tribal beliefs, is it any wonder that people get murdered?

In Marikana the police were opposed to the strikers, they instantly became enemies due to this stupid and idiotic 'us versus them' mentality. The strikes that turn violent do so for exactly this same reason. Once opposed, even if you are in the wrong, you have to retaliate.

Without a huge, concerted effort to recognise and accept differences, I doubt that we will make any headway and the killings will continue.
 

The God of It

In a perfect world we would not need to have this debate at all, but seeing that the US Presidential Election are coming round and half the people voting do so based on their religious beliefs, allow me to piss them off.

When faced with the two most incompatible super powers of their god, I ask myself whether the omnipotence can override the omniscience?

If he knows already what he will do (omniscience), did he choose to do it (omnipotence), or did he know that he was going to make the choice? If he knew that he was going to make the choice, did he make it at all? If not, then he did not have the free will and is not omnipotent anymore. If he didn't know that he was going to make the choice, then he is not omniscient either. This can go in circles all day long, and the question I want answered: Can he change his mind?

If you are a Watchmen fan you will know about the difficulty Doctor Manhattan has in relating to human beings as he can see the past, present and future all at the same time. (Just like Death in the Terry Pratchett novels.)

Towards the end of the movie he decides to leave humanity behind and spend a bit of time alone on Mars. This illustrates the foreign and strange personality and intelligence of a god quite clearly. He has no way to relate to humans as he can see their fleeting and insignificant lives against the backdrop of a whole universe that is there to explore and control.

With the power to accomplish anything, would you still even try?

I remember an argument with my sister a good couple of years back regarding the sex of god, she insisted he was a man because the mysoginistic bible writers said so. End of case. It was bad enough looking at a blue glowing penis for 3 hours, would you want to do that for the next few millenia in heaven?

We tend to anthropomorphize god and ascribe feelings and viewpoints to him based on our own belief systems and mores/values, which are pretty flexible and change over time. If you really believe in the existence of a god with the powers that you want him to have, you would have to admit that he is beyond comprehension and take the agnostic viewpoint.

That being said, it makes whatever he/she/it may be much closer to a complete and utter alien lifeform that we will never be able to understand and turns god into a a Lovecraftian intelligence that will devour us just as easily as save us. It would only use us for its own pleasure and amusement.

This god would be beyond any comprehension as it is literally able to move through time. It would be the most strangest and weirdest thing that we have ever encountered.

The religious can counter that their god is personal and cares and looks after them every day, but lacking any proof to the contrary, I can only think that this makes him the ultimate voyeur in charge of his own Truman Show.

This strange and incomprehensible being/intelligence will have no human morals or values as we understand them. And we still haven't answered the conundrum I posited earlier.

With no human morals or limits, would you really want to depend for your future on such a being? Would you really want this kind of stange alien life to have control over you?

We may just as well start praying to Cthulhu.
 

Got your ticket to Vegas ready?

We cannot say anything other than just think how cool this will be?

lien Hookers To Open Area 51 Brothel In Nevada [Wtf] - http://pulse.me/s/4AzBd

No Pay, No Porn

'An ANTI-porn activist has expressed dismay that a 24-hour satellite sex channel is planned for SA early next year.

The channel will be titled PSat. The P is for porn.

Errol Naidoo, a long-time opponent of porn and the director of the Family Policy Institute (FPI) in Cape Town, said yesterday: “We will vehemently oppose this.” '

And the article from iol.co.za goes on, explaining the detail.

Go to google and enter 'Porn Subscription', it returns over 8 million results.

This fucknut is worried about one channel that you have to pay for to get? That you cannot access on your phone or tablet where ever you are? That you actually have to go home to watch?

A Channel that will be pretty mainstream and not as extreme as the stuff you can find on google.

Really! Can you be more ridiculous?

There is a thing called freedom of choice, which if you choose to exercise it and go through the effort of setting up a debit order and paying money every month, should not be an issue for anyone else but you.

Click here for more detail: http://www.africansatellite.net/astra_4_top_tv.php

vir fok en vaderland

Can, but will?

The latest campaign posters of the ANC seems to be hinting an equal bit Obama and desperation.

Together We Can !

Notice how the Comrades have moved from a specific promise (better life for all) to a more generic 'We Can..'.

But based on their track record, will they?

Anyone can do anything, but will they? And can does not imply being good at it either, as has been proven more than once.

And we cannot help but be a bit cynical about the 'Together build better Communities' bit either.

'Comrades, if the people do not vote and complain about little things like electricity and water, then we say to them: You did not vote, so we can not build your better community, because we were supposed to do it together, see?' 

But when the communities want their own representatives, or less corruption in the municipalities, more service from the people they elected, the ANC comes back and says, that 'The Honorable Comrade is being deployed, we do not work together to see what you want, we tell you because you voted and gave us the power, see?'

(We suppose they had a few extra letters left over from chanting A-N-C at the Scrabble meetings to decide which ridiculous excuse they will use for the next corruption/spying/powerplay expose and thought to use them on the posters, the rest came easy...)

Tsunami causes Emotional Meltdown

Accidents happen, they always have and they always will.

The trick that any right thinking person learns during the formative years is to use those accidents and see where you went wrong and ensure that you don't do what you did before. You learn from your mistakes in other words - the end result is that you are able to walk, run, talk and not bumble around making random noises while falling on your face.

With the unfolding events after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the possibility of a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, the tree-huggers are having an emotional meltdown as well.

Earthlife Africa is 'horrified' and immediately compares this disaster to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Paks.

Courtesy of Wikipedia we can safely say that they do not bear any relation to each other. Chernobyl in 1986 was caused by inadequate training combined with human error and an unsafe design which was recognised as being out of date at the time it was built. The Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979 was also caused by flawed design and human error, with minor effects on the surrounding area and it was mostly contained.

The two incidents at Paks in Hungary does not have any reported effects on the operators or the surrounding towns, and it is still operating as we speak, a non event it seems. We seem to have learned a few things since 1979 and the mistakes of yesterday may just be making a difference today.

What happened in Japan then, was not caused by human error or a flawed design, but the same mother nature that the tree-huggers are so in love with, fucking with us.

The design withstood the type of disaster that it was designed for, the tsunami caused additional problems which we are sure will be taken into account when building future power plants.

If we stopped designing or building or inventing each time that something bad happened which was not foreseen, there would have been very little advancement in the history of mankind.

Imagine the inventor of the internal combustion engine being 'horrified' when the first car accident happened and everyone stopped designing? We would still be traveling at 4 miles an hour with a person walking in front of the car waving a red flag to warn people.

Because of an accident we cannot say that we should not be investigating and pushing the boundaries, if we knew exactly what we were doing, would we be doing it at all?

Christiaan Barnard took huge risks when he did the first heart transplant, a procedure that is almost routine today, but he unfortunately caused the death of his test subjects before he tried the first human.

Should we not take any risks at all? Should we not push the boundaries of knowledge and science because of risks involved?

If we are too afraid of adverse results and end up doing nothing, the result would be no advancement in knowledge or humanity, and we may as well return to living in caves and eating fruit, because inventing the first flint knife may have unforeseen results.