Christian's & their Golden Urination IV: Introduction to Rules
This is a pretty fucking cool video. However, many of the things you will see in it are the definition of insanity. It can still be cool I guess but to determine whether it's okay for insanity to be insane, you require the ability to establish or determine something I dare say not one of you even has a clue about. Rum Dick may be an exception but the rest of you jokers make a pretty good show of not knowing the first thing about motive.
It's only the single most important consideration there is. It's the reason anyone ever does anything, period. It's pretty freaking important, don't you think?
I'm not sure a single one of you even has a clue about why people do the things they do.
I am rapidly becoming convinced there are very few people in the world with the ability to accurately identify and establish motive. The writer of The Last Psychiatrist and the author John le Carre are both brilliantly proficient. I'm the third person that I know of who is spending time thinking intelligently about the most important thing in the world. I'm sure there are more. I would welcome your informing me of a fourth. I would welcome the entire world becoming proficient in their understanding of motive.
If everyone understood why people do the things they do, we would live in Utopia. There would be no exploitation. No emotional manipulation.
Whether or not the amazing things in the video above are acceptable or not will depend entirely upon motive. Why did the people in this video risk life and limb over and over again to perfect their ability to give you a 3 second "wow"? Chances are, they're not doing it for themselves. If they were, you'd never see the video because no one would ever find out about their skill.
Which means, they're risking their lives to impress others. Is this sane? What do I care, so long as they're only placing themselves at risk. Liberty, imbeciles. None of you allow others to have any, I've noticed. Frightened of terror and shit, what a bunch of sissies. If the 9/11 bombers were serious operators, they'd have flown their planes into the Monday Night Football stadium. You think there'd be only 3000 casualties then?
You morons are too gullible to be plausible.
You have a lot in common with the amazing people in this video of insanity. They got suckered into risking their lives to impress people. They just want to please. That's almost always going to be their motive for being insane.
They're doing what they're doing for the same reasons athletes who have sacrificed their entire lives to:
fail over and over
win (suicidal depression)
if they're 'lucky', win and lose simultaneously (Oprah-style, Michael Jordan-style, Lance Armstrong-style - I think you know what I mean)
...are presently in their final preparations for the Insane Games of the 30th Olympiad: The Celebration of Those Who Shall Compete to Suffer for Your Entertainment. They just want to please.
Don't feel guilty about exploiting them. They chose their insanity.
Right?
You could make the identical argument for the child prostitute who chooses you instead of the creepier pedophile. Free will:: It's what creeps pretend to be awfully confused about.
The question that only creeps ever care about in this world of creepy exploitation, is whether or not the actions of those who have been manipulated into being insane should be permitted. The answer is so horrifying, if you actually understood the truth about the Law (what it encourages and what it pretends to deter, but then I repeat myself), you would lose your fucking mind. Well if you had one to lose, you might.
I'd spent nearly two decades of my brilliant / retarded life of insight / confusion, trying to make sense of the Insanity that is Law. And I got fucking nowhere. I have always been brilliant at establishing motive, but until I understood the things I understood for the first time at 29, I was spun around in circles because nothing made a lick of sense. I had been lied to endlessly, and I was approaching the issue from every incorrect position; all of which involved the ludicrous assumption that the Law was designed and is intended to discourage crime.
The opposite is true, of course. But I've proven that already. Today, I'm going to prove it a different way. I'm going to teach you about motive.
First question: Why are the people in the video above ALLOWED to do what they're doing?
Answer the question and it doesn't matter what your answer is; you just need to have an answer before you can proceed. State your reasons audibly. Say the logic out loud or even write them down. The answer will not be what you personally believe the law should or should not allow. Don't be your generic narcissistic selves. Your answer will be what you believe is the reason the Law ALLOWS all of those activities. You're to answer why you believe they are LEGAL. When you have that answer, proceed.
I'm teaching you how to be brilliant right now. You don't need to trust me. This is not a time for your demented insane laziness. To be or not to be...self-defeating? It's your option but not really. You don't have a right to be stupidly malicious. If Gamble wasn't being a butthurt vassal, I would explain again why his theory of "stupid happiness" (which was my theory as well a decade ago) is logically bunk.
They (as in those that write laws to fuck you and make you miserable) will tell you that you have a right to be stupid. They will viciously defend your right to be stupid and to make others stupid (freedom of religion, etc). They will even encourage your stupidity, to the point where they will incentivise your stupidity with cash bonanzas (amongst other things).
But you don't actually have the right to hurt others, unwittingly. In what idiotic delusional world did you decide it made sense to accept the rights that others gave you? Slap your vassal face every time you wish you were (even) more stupid believing this is the secret to happiness. That's called "limited liability". It's a logical fail. Not to mention, stupid people get raped like all the time.
Once you have the answer to the first question, answer this second question: Why is it against the law to procure and use sleeping tablets like Ambien (Stilnox) without PERMISSION?
For 22 years of my life, I was utterly oblivious to the mere idea that the medical industry had a solution to the misery that I obviously had been forced to simply endure. I believed I had no choice. I'm a lot brighter than you are and I always have been; and this is important because for 22 years I was oblivious to the reality; the medicine that would utterly negate the misery that was the imagined emotional sensation of "pain" (as opposed to the dying nerve-endings which scream at you in warning when you put your hand inside a pot of boiling liquid) already existed - I simply had to reach out and grab it.
For 22 years, I had never been made to be aware of this fact. The suggestion had never occurred to me and, although I rarely require prompting these days, when I was enduring the Hell that is decades of overlapped sleep deprivation, I have every reason to believe I would have died had the suggestion continued to have never been made..
The implications are there to be seen by those who wish to open their eyes. Granted, I had never engaged the medical industry prior to the age of 16, when a doctor gave me advice I would have died had I credited. I knew better than the overworked GP, however; so I didn't take his advice not to worry about the symptoms which didn't fit his limited General knowledge. I'd had the identical symptoms the year prior, and I had almost died from being bed-ridden with fever that had soared past hallucination-causing levels, my body was covered in spots that might have just been heat rash but were the last of my concerns because I was concerned (during moments of lucidity) that I was going to die from dehydration.
I had every reason to be concerned. Waking up on the 2nd day so thirsty I couldn't speak, I staggered into the kitchen and tried to drink some water but it was too painful. I could only manage a few sips before crawling back to my room and trying not to convulse. When I woke again in the evening, I'd been in bed for almost 48 hours. My throat was so dry, it felt like I was choking. I could not even fall out of bed. I had every reason to be concerned this was curtains.
These were the days before mobile phones, and I did not have access to the house phone as the introverted grownup I was paying $60/week to for rent had gone to visit his parents for a month and - understandably but illogically nervous I would be insane and ratchet up a 4 figure phone bill calling sex lines or whatever - he'd locked up the phone inside his padlocked room. This was all a moot consideration I realised after hating him for awhile, only to realise my logical brain was shutting down. I guess I'd have been feeling a bit like you must feel; incapable of drawing lines between dots. Blaming those who aren't at fault. Realising all too late that I didn't have the foresight to prepare for the onslaught (but then I'd never experienced anything like this before).
I knew I was going to die and I was angry. Sad. I was crying. It was unfair. I'd made so many mistakes, I'd been too much of a coward. I'd always taken the 'safe' option and hated myself for it (in regards to social affairs or even just opening my fucking mouth to say something - I didn't for the whole of 1996). I swore to fix everything if I could fluke a miracle and live.
I woke on the third day and that was not going to happen. Unable to get out of bed, I had been forced to relieve myself where I lay. It's okay, I hardly pissed on myself. Nothing happening there. But lying in your own faeces is unpleasant. And yes, I have laid in the faeces of others. Alcohol drinking manufactures that sort of inevitability.
I gotta change hotels.
In Australia, the legislative and judicial campaign against Stilnox has been waged so brazenly for so long in ways that are so ludicrous, you would have to be insane not to fail to think "WHOA. What the FUCK is going on here?"
News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising.
- former NBC news President Rubin Frank
When you want to know what those who control the government want you to feel, open the daily newspapers and read the Editorials. They are never anything but sheer propaganda (even when they appear to be the voice of sanity). Propaganda is lying even when it appears to be sane and true. The Truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Editorials will never tell you the truth. They will only ever advertise what those who control the governments you imagine (in your idiocy) to have democratically elected, want you to feel strongly about.
Quote:
News: Landmark ruling in Stilnox sleep-driving case
Annabel Stafford
April 14, 2008
The controversial (1) sleeping pill Stilnox may have caused a man to drive involuntarily (2) while he was still drunk, a judge has found in a landmark ruling (3) that will raise further concern about the dangers (4) of the medication.
Robert James Kingston was yesterday found not guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol limit of 0.105 - twice the legal limit (5)- after Judge Colin Phegan found on appeal that there was a "real possibility" he was "sleep-driving" after taking a Stilnox tablet (6).
Judge Phegan said further evidence had come to light about the effects of Stilnox (7) - including increased government warnings about its side effects (8) - since Mr Kingston was first found guilty of drink-driving by a local court.
Judge Phegan said in the NSW District Court he was satisfied that the scientific evidence was now strong enough to at "least raise a possibility, a real possibility, that the explanation for what happened on this occasion was a state of sleep-driving caused by the use of the drug" (9).
Mr Kingston, believed to be in his early 30s, was charged with a mid-range drink-driving offences after being involved in a head-on collision (10) on Sunday, April 28 last year about 200 metres from his home in Sydney's Lane Cove. At the time of the accident - in which two occupants of the other car suffered minor injuries - Mr Kingston had been driving on the wrong side of the road (11) for some time and was dressed in shorts and a T-shirt despite frosty temperatures.
Before the accident, Mr Kingston had made a bizarre phone call to a friend who had just left Mr Kingston's house after visiting for dinner. Mr Kingston complained that several couples were waiting outside his home wanting to rent rooms from him.
After the accident, the friend suggested Mr Kingston get a blood test, which showed traces of Stilnox in his blood (12).
Judge Phegan said Mr Kingston's state of undress, his apparent hallucination, the fact that he was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident, and his inability to remember anything of the incident were consistent with a state of "automatism" - where a person has no control over their actions (13)- caused by taking the drug (14). This was different to being heavily intoxicated where a person still had some control over their actions, he said. (15)
Mr Kingston, who broke down when the verdict was read out, declined to comment. His lawyer, Alan Arnott, described the case as a "landmark decision in Australia. It's the first of its kind because it acknowledges the possibility that Stilnox causes sleep-driving and other dangerous sleep-related behaviours" (16).
Mr Arnott said his client - who was originally given a $70 fine, as well as a three-year suspension of his driver's licence (17) - had "gone to great lengths to prove his innocence" (18). If he had not fought the case "there would be no recognition that there is such a defence (of sleep-driving) . . . You've got all these poor people out there getting arrested for something that really isn't their fault and is completely out of their control" (19).
There have been numerous reports of people engaging in strange and sometimes dangerous behaviour such as sleep-driving, walking, binge eating and having sex after taking Stilnox (20), the generic name of which is zolpidem.
In February, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration forced manufacturers to include new warnings about zolpidem, alerting patients to the "potentially dangerous complex sleep-related behaviours" that could be associated with its use (21).
Since the first product containing zolpidem was registered in Australia in 1997, the TGA had received 1032 reports of suspected reactions to it. Of these reports, 103 included mention of sleep-driving. (22)
I didn't say they were shit at doing propaganda. They're practiced.
Christian's & their Golden Urination IV: Introduction to Rules
Linear Mode
