Kim Jong-Un (aka Kim), dictator of North Korea, has been threatening the South Korea, the US, and Japan with nuclear war.
The world is upset and frightened, anti-missile batteries are being installed in Tokyo, pundits are analyzing Kim's every word...
But what if he is actually trying to surrender?
It sounds absurd, but read on. Kim was educated in Switzerland, where as a teenager he witnessed what the west is really like. There is no famine in Switzerland, people well-fed and happy, and their freedoms have not led them to execute their democratically elected government. The country 'just works.'
North Korea, on the other hand, is a mess.
So now we have Kim threatening nuclear war. But what are his chances?
If North Korea were to attack South Korea with conventional weapons then most of the South's casualties would come from their soldiers laughing themselves to death at the sight of thousands of skinny North Koreans storming into their homeland, using museum-grade weapons to strike fear into local schoolchildren and the odd chicken. The North wouldn't stand a chance; not against the South's well-trained and well-equipped army. Plus, there's support from the US which maintains a permanent presence in South Korea. Oh, and then there's the fact that entire battalions would defect to the South if given the chance. Nobody wants to stay in North Korea; even Kim himself lived in Switzerland for a decade or so...
And what if he attacked using a nuke or two? Well, there'd be heavy casualties in Seoul, but in response the US would wipe North Korea off the face of the Earth. That much is certain.
So why does Kim pursue this strategy of provocation? He knows full well that he cannot win a war alone against the rest of the world -even China is calling for him to be more reasonable at this point-, and negotiations have become all but impossible in the current climate.
So once again, what could his reasoning be? And then it hit me: maybe he's trying to provoke a war he knows he will lose.
If he actually cares a bit about his country or his people, then reuniting them with the South should be at the top of his list of things to do. But he can't just tell his generals to throw in the towel. These are men who were trained to hate and distrust the South and the Western world, sworn to loyalty to North Korea. The entire population has been taught to hate the South for 60 years now -several generations of schoolchildren who have never heard anything else but their government's propaganda- and they're not going to give up just because Kim tells them to. He recently executed several high-ranking military and party members, probably in an effort to show strength and unite the military and the party behind himself. If he is so scared of then that he has to execute them, what does he think they would do to him if he were to ask them to lay down their weapons? How would the farmers in the countryside react, would they just accept that everything they have learned in their lives was false? Or would they rise up and create militias and defend their beliefs?
Thus, starting a war that he knows to be lost from the get-go might be the only way to unite the two Koreas. Following the defeat of the North, the SOuth and the US will occupy the North, deliver food aid, and slowly show people what the world is really like. And they, the defeated, will have little choice to accept it, once they see that their ideology has proven to be the inferior one.
What will happen to Kim in this case? A trial for the crimes his short reign caused and condoned? Life in prison, or in exile?
Of course, that is all just my imagination and fantasy talking.
Maybe Kim is just plain old-fashioned nuts, and wants to mount lasers on the heads of sharks.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Please share
"Greetings Citizens of the world, we are #Anonymous, we are #KnightSec.
On December 23, 2012, we released a video detailing the story of a young
rape victim in Steubenville Ohio who was attacked by the Big Red High
School football team and raped and kidnapped carried party to party
unconcious and intoxicated. Only 2 members were charged with the actual
crimes, when everyone present was guilty."
Please share the link on your websites, blogs, facebooks... the more people know about this, the better. Thank goodness for anonymous.
http://stopbigred.com/
https://www.facebook.com/OpRollRedRoll
Please share the link on your websites, blogs, facebooks... the more people know about this, the better. Thank goodness for anonymous.
http://stopbigred.com/
https://www.facebook.com/OpRollRedRoll
Sunday, October 14, 2012
I'm Spartacus!
I've been watching a lot more TV lately, shows like Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, and especially Game of Thrones. TV used to mean lousy acting, low budgets, and cheesy scripts, but those shows have raised the bar considerably. Strong actors, budgets that allow the writer's vision to come to life, and scripts that are unafraid to experiment a bit have all done their part to make TV worth watching again.
In a shocking twist, I am now going to say that I watch porn. Perhaps I shouldn't talk about such private things here, but let's face it: porn rakes in billions of Dollars each year, and that's not me and Charlie Sheen alone. That's hundreds of millions of people, and if recent studies are to be believed, the percentage of women viewers is increasing.
What does that have to do with HBO?
It's quite simple: I recently came across a film that has done for porn what Boardwalk Empire has done for TV: Spartacus MMXII - The Beginning.
It's a pretty straightforward title I thought, a porn parody of Spartacus, the TV series. But I was wrong: the actors are really just that, actors; the sets are utterly convincing; the costumes are worthy of a Hollywood production; and the story is great! So great in fact that the movie has a running time exceeding 3 hours, but I never once felt bored. I never thought I'd ever say this, but I actually watched a porn for the story. Weird, huh? Apparently they even brought in a professional stunt coordinator for the sword fighting scenes!
Aside from the sword action, the "other" action is also great, and watching porn shot with the same type of high-speed cameras used in big-budget TV shows is a different type of experience. It approaches the look of something like Game of Thrones, but with sex. What's not to like?
The trailer below does not feature any naughty stuff :)
These links however are NSFW:
Adult DVD Empire
Official Spartacus MMXII Blog
Enjoy.
In a shocking twist, I am now going to say that I watch porn. Perhaps I shouldn't talk about such private things here, but let's face it: porn rakes in billions of Dollars each year, and that's not me and Charlie Sheen alone. That's hundreds of millions of people, and if recent studies are to be believed, the percentage of women viewers is increasing.
What does that have to do with HBO?
It's quite simple: I recently came across a film that has done for porn what Boardwalk Empire has done for TV: Spartacus MMXII - The Beginning.
It's a pretty straightforward title I thought, a porn parody of Spartacus, the TV series. But I was wrong: the actors are really just that, actors; the sets are utterly convincing; the costumes are worthy of a Hollywood production; and the story is great! So great in fact that the movie has a running time exceeding 3 hours, but I never once felt bored. I never thought I'd ever say this, but I actually watched a porn for the story. Weird, huh? Apparently they even brought in a professional stunt coordinator for the sword fighting scenes!
Aside from the sword action, the "other" action is also great, and watching porn shot with the same type of high-speed cameras used in big-budget TV shows is a different type of experience. It approaches the look of something like Game of Thrones, but with sex. What's not to like?
The trailer below does not feature any naughty stuff :)
These links however are NSFW:
Adult DVD Empire
Official Spartacus MMXII Blog
Enjoy.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Really?!
Recently I read that Voula Papachristou, Greek triple jumper, was banned from competing in the Olympics because of a racist tweet she posted on Twitter. Here is the offending remark:
"With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!"
This, after a recent outbreak of the West Nile virus in Greece.
Now how on Earth is that racist? If I were to say that mosquitoes on Mallorca frequently die of alcohol poisoning due to all the drunk German tourists there, would that be racist? No, and besides, it's probably even true.
But if one involves black people in a joke, all hell breaks lose. Blacks themselves don't complain, mind you; it's retarded white people who are so afraid of being seen as intolerant that they apply political correctness to everything and everyone. They instantly accuse you of being racist as a measure of preemptively defending themselves against similar accusations, probably mentally masturbating to the self-image of helping out the poor blacks, who, after the end of slavery, the civil rights movement in the US, the forming of the African Union, and the end of Apartheid apparently are still in dire need to be saved by some Greek asshat. And then they wonder why black people don't like them.
This asshattery was justified with the excuse that her conduct wasn't in line with Olympic ideals. What ideals would that be? You mean this global sporting event, at which amateur athletes compete for nothing but glory while the International Olympic Committee makes hundreds of millions in sponsorship money has ideals? The same IOC that decided to hold the games in China, where thousands were displaced by the government to make room for new stadiums? They have ideals? Since when?
And so now we have an athlete, probably one of few people in Greece who actually work hard at their job instead of just whining every day that they don't get enough free money from the rest of Europe, being kicked out of a competition she has worked to participate in since she was a teenager.
And all because of a joke that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson make every week on their TV show (which still airs, proving that the BBC do have a sense of humor, bless them).
βλακας
"With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!"
This, after a recent outbreak of the West Nile virus in Greece.
Now how on Earth is that racist? If I were to say that mosquitoes on Mallorca frequently die of alcohol poisoning due to all the drunk German tourists there, would that be racist? No, and besides, it's probably even true.
But if one involves black people in a joke, all hell breaks lose. Blacks themselves don't complain, mind you; it's retarded white people who are so afraid of being seen as intolerant that they apply political correctness to everything and everyone. They instantly accuse you of being racist as a measure of preemptively defending themselves against similar accusations, probably mentally masturbating to the self-image of helping out the poor blacks, who, after the end of slavery, the civil rights movement in the US, the forming of the African Union, and the end of Apartheid apparently are still in dire need to be saved by some Greek asshat. And then they wonder why black people don't like them.
This asshattery was justified with the excuse that her conduct wasn't in line with Olympic ideals. What ideals would that be? You mean this global sporting event, at which amateur athletes compete for nothing but glory while the International Olympic Committee makes hundreds of millions in sponsorship money has ideals? The same IOC that decided to hold the games in China, where thousands were displaced by the government to make room for new stadiums? They have ideals? Since when?
And so now we have an athlete, probably one of few people in Greece who actually work hard at their job instead of just whining every day that they don't get enough free money from the rest of Europe, being kicked out of a competition she has worked to participate in since she was a teenager.
And all because of a joke that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson make every week on their TV show (which still airs, proving that the BBC do have a sense of humor, bless them).
βλακας
Monday, February 27, 2012
Fuck Hollywood
So it's Oscar night again, or, as I call it, Sunday.
Hollywood's greatest and brightest toast themselves; congratulate each other on their fantastic achievements, and some idiot host makes slightly risque jokes at the expense of people the rest of the world has long stopped caring about.
But do these people deserve to be congratulated?
I remember, a few years ago, the academy (as these well-respected scholars of uh, nothing, call themselves) refused to invite Larry Flynt, even though the movie that Hollywood made about his life was nominated by that same academy for several awards. Their problem was that dear ol' Larry's business is pornography, and that's a big non-no.
Aside from the blatant truth that Hollywood has always used sex to sell its movies, the thing that makes this really ridiculous is the fact that the academy nominated (and awarded) Roman Polanski's films several times. Sure, he lured a thirteen year old girl to the house he was staying in, drugged her, raped her, and then fled to France (where he struck up a relationship with a fifteen year old); but hey, it's not like he prints pictures of naked ladies in magazines, right?
Then there's The Hangover: the producer's apparently didn't want to have Mel Gibson in the second part because he left some nasty messages on his ex-wife's answering machine, but they had no problem with Mike Tyson being in the first film. Tyson is a convicted rapist, but unlike Gibson of course, he's still bankable. And that is what really matters.
They try to criminalize the whole world for downloading a movie, "lobbying" (aka buying) politicians to introduce ever-more idiotic legislation, which only ends up costing honest customers more of their hard-earned money, while the pirates continue to laugh at Hollywood's technological incompetence.
They routinely take money from the Pentagon to make America's wars more palatable to the public, yet claim to be liberal pacifists. See the following link for an excellent example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
Turns out Jessica Lynch wasn't really a hero. What a surprise, right?
And then you kinda think, why am I bothering to watch these people? What makes them better than the rest of us? Well, nothing really; except maybe their awesome acting skills.
But have you ever thought about what acting really is? Is not every five year old who has ever managed to convince his parents that the did not take a cookie out of the jar when he in fact did, a better actor than 90% of the people attending the show tonight?
At least with the Grammys, you can wait for Tom Petty or indeed the Foo Fighters to do their thing and then go to sleep.
But why are we watching the Oscars then? To see if Jodie Foster's tits will fall out of her dress? Well, if you wanna see that kind of thing, you could just save yourself three hours of watching friends of child rapists shake hands and buy a Hustler magazine.
Hollywood's greatest and brightest toast themselves; congratulate each other on their fantastic achievements, and some idiot host makes slightly risque jokes at the expense of people the rest of the world has long stopped caring about.
But do these people deserve to be congratulated?
I remember, a few years ago, the academy (as these well-respected scholars of uh, nothing, call themselves) refused to invite Larry Flynt, even though the movie that Hollywood made about his life was nominated by that same academy for several awards. Their problem was that dear ol' Larry's business is pornography, and that's a big non-no.
Aside from the blatant truth that Hollywood has always used sex to sell its movies, the thing that makes this really ridiculous is the fact that the academy nominated (and awarded) Roman Polanski's films several times. Sure, he lured a thirteen year old girl to the house he was staying in, drugged her, raped her, and then fled to France (where he struck up a relationship with a fifteen year old); but hey, it's not like he prints pictures of naked ladies in magazines, right?
Then there's The Hangover: the producer's apparently didn't want to have Mel Gibson in the second part because he left some nasty messages on his ex-wife's answering machine, but they had no problem with Mike Tyson being in the first film. Tyson is a convicted rapist, but unlike Gibson of course, he's still bankable. And that is what really matters.
They try to criminalize the whole world for downloading a movie, "lobbying" (aka buying) politicians to introduce ever-more idiotic legislation, which only ends up costing honest customers more of their hard-earned money, while the pirates continue to laugh at Hollywood's technological incompetence.
They routinely take money from the Pentagon to make America's wars more palatable to the public, yet claim to be liberal pacifists. See the following link for an excellent example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
Turns out Jessica Lynch wasn't really a hero. What a surprise, right?
And then you kinda think, why am I bothering to watch these people? What makes them better than the rest of us? Well, nothing really; except maybe their awesome acting skills.
But have you ever thought about what acting really is? Is not every five year old who has ever managed to convince his parents that the did not take a cookie out of the jar when he in fact did, a better actor than 90% of the people attending the show tonight?
At least with the Grammys, you can wait for Tom Petty or indeed the Foo Fighters to do their thing and then go to sleep.
But why are we watching the Oscars then? To see if Jodie Foster's tits will fall out of her dress? Well, if you wanna see that kind of thing, you could just save yourself three hours of watching friends of child rapists shake hands and buy a Hustler magazine.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Am I evil?
I've been doing a lot of reading about serial killers, Nazis, you know... and with all the bankers and politicians in the news, you could say that I've gotten my fill of evil people for the month. And it's only the 11th...
So this got me thinking, who is the most evil person in the world? Hitler? Ted Bundy? The people who ran over that little Chinese girl a few weeks ago? Or maybe those who saw her bleeding to death, and chose to continue shopping rather than help her?
What is evil? Am I evil?
Well let's start with Uncle Adolf, shall we? Was Hitler a bad, bad man? Why yes, he was, you get 5 points! But he didn't really get up in the morning and said, 'Alright folks, I'll have a bowl of cereal please, and after that I'll do some evil!' I really doubt that. I think in his own mind he was doing humanity a favor, and if he had won the war he would have been a hero; simply because he would have been judged by people who shared his worldview.
But he lost, and was judged by people who had different views- and so now he is considered evil.
Don't get me wrong; I think he was quite the little asshat as well. But this shows that the definition of what is right and what is wrong changes with time. Slavery is a big no-no right now, but the Romans, whom we Westerners generally admire, were really rather fond of it. Does that make all Romans evil? Or was slavery OK for them, in their time?
And does that mean that the Holocaust was then alright from a Nazi point of view?
Was the genocide of American natives alright from a conqueror's point of view?
Yes, it was.
The fact that we no longer agree with the rightness of these historical events seems to show that we create evil- not by our actions, but by our reactions. The action of shooting a Injun was considered normal a hundred years ago; but today we react by saying that it's murder. It is merely our opinion that this is evil, and not an established universal fact. There is no huge stone tablet in the sky that tells us right from wrong. Our opinions and attitudes are products of our time and our society. And therefore, what is evil and what is not changes quite often.
What about Ted Bundy, though? Murdering all those women, and then trying to manipulate the media until the last minute before your execution by trying to blame pornography for your actions instead of apologizing to the victim's families, surely that is evil, right?
Yes, his actions seem evil, but Teddy was psychologically ill. He felt a compulsion. He couldn't help himself. That does not excuse what he did, but it explains it. He too, did not get up in the morning specifically to commit evil. He was simply being himself, as fucked up as that might seem.
So what about the people who failed to help the little girl in China who was run over by two vans on a busy street? Evil, apathetic... if I think about it too long, many unkind words enter my mind. She was only two, and she was crying and screaming and holding her head the whole time, and they just let her die there, in the middle of the street, like roadkill. I wish I could strangle them all, slowly. But would that make me evil? Is some violence justifiable?
Well, is apathy?
Society, by and large, has always been shaped by religion, or religion-like system. The Chinese system, which devalues girls, seems to be at least partially to blame for the little girl's horrible fate. Nazism and its version of Jesus, Hitler, are most definitely to blame for the Holocaust and World War II. Christianity played a large role in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the subjugation of Latin America's people to invading Europeans... all of these things were or are considered 'right', and not evil.
So how is one to know what one should and should not do in today's world? How will history judge us and our actions? Will hindsight be kind to us?
I think the only way to ensure that we do more good than harm during our stay on this little planet is to try to separate our thinking from the norm. Forget about religion, forget about society, forget about politics. Base your actions on humanism rather than on the philosophy du jour. Be accountable for your actions, don't hide behind the shield of religion or the excuse of peer pressure.
I'm beginning to sound terribly preachy there, I know. It's been a long day. Just one more thing:
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
-Shakespeare. I think if you keep that in mind, and act accordingly, you'll be alright.
Good night.
So this got me thinking, who is the most evil person in the world? Hitler? Ted Bundy? The people who ran over that little Chinese girl a few weeks ago? Or maybe those who saw her bleeding to death, and chose to continue shopping rather than help her?
What is evil? Am I evil?
Well let's start with Uncle Adolf, shall we? Was Hitler a bad, bad man? Why yes, he was, you get 5 points! But he didn't really get up in the morning and said, 'Alright folks, I'll have a bowl of cereal please, and after that I'll do some evil!' I really doubt that. I think in his own mind he was doing humanity a favor, and if he had won the war he would have been a hero; simply because he would have been judged by people who shared his worldview.
But he lost, and was judged by people who had different views- and so now he is considered evil.
Don't get me wrong; I think he was quite the little asshat as well. But this shows that the definition of what is right and what is wrong changes with time. Slavery is a big no-no right now, but the Romans, whom we Westerners generally admire, were really rather fond of it. Does that make all Romans evil? Or was slavery OK for them, in their time?
And does that mean that the Holocaust was then alright from a Nazi point of view?
Was the genocide of American natives alright from a conqueror's point of view?
Yes, it was.
The fact that we no longer agree with the rightness of these historical events seems to show that we create evil- not by our actions, but by our reactions. The action of shooting a Injun was considered normal a hundred years ago; but today we react by saying that it's murder. It is merely our opinion that this is evil, and not an established universal fact. There is no huge stone tablet in the sky that tells us right from wrong. Our opinions and attitudes are products of our time and our society. And therefore, what is evil and what is not changes quite often.
What about Ted Bundy, though? Murdering all those women, and then trying to manipulate the media until the last minute before your execution by trying to blame pornography for your actions instead of apologizing to the victim's families, surely that is evil, right?
Yes, his actions seem evil, but Teddy was psychologically ill. He felt a compulsion. He couldn't help himself. That does not excuse what he did, but it explains it. He too, did not get up in the morning specifically to commit evil. He was simply being himself, as fucked up as that might seem.
So what about the people who failed to help the little girl in China who was run over by two vans on a busy street? Evil, apathetic... if I think about it too long, many unkind words enter my mind. She was only two, and she was crying and screaming and holding her head the whole time, and they just let her die there, in the middle of the street, like roadkill. I wish I could strangle them all, slowly. But would that make me evil? Is some violence justifiable?
Well, is apathy?
Society, by and large, has always been shaped by religion, or religion-like system. The Chinese system, which devalues girls, seems to be at least partially to blame for the little girl's horrible fate. Nazism and its version of Jesus, Hitler, are most definitely to blame for the Holocaust and World War II. Christianity played a large role in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the subjugation of Latin America's people to invading Europeans... all of these things were or are considered 'right', and not evil.
So how is one to know what one should and should not do in today's world? How will history judge us and our actions? Will hindsight be kind to us?
I think the only way to ensure that we do more good than harm during our stay on this little planet is to try to separate our thinking from the norm. Forget about religion, forget about society, forget about politics. Base your actions on humanism rather than on the philosophy du jour. Be accountable for your actions, don't hide behind the shield of religion or the excuse of peer pressure.
I'm beginning to sound terribly preachy there, I know. It's been a long day. Just one more thing:
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
-Shakespeare. I think if you keep that in mind, and act accordingly, you'll be alright.
Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)