Wimminz – celebrating skank ho's everywhere

July 10, 2014

Linkfarms in life

A link farm is a web page that you go to, following a link, hoping to find X, when you get there, it contains nothing about X, just hundreds of links to other pages that might or might not contain info about X

If you followed and read in some depth the link at the end of the last post, the guy talks about PEOPLE, which is what it always comes down to, and no one who has seen the “troubles” in northern Ireland or the “communist emergency” in Malaysia or any other trouble spot, can fail to see the parallels between what he describes and what they saw, individuals who seem to move from blue team to red team, weeks when blue team is in favour and red team is not, and vice versa, people being heroes or terrorists, depending both on perspective and what week it is, and of course that old one about these types and their relationship to the ordinary guy on the street who just wants to fucking get on with life, not have some new local jackbooted oppressor telling him how said jackbooted one is a hero fighting for the guy in the street’s freedoms, of which the guy in the street sees none.

You see the parallels to link-farms, and in deed back in the day definitions of spammers, who attempt to re-define spam as that which they themselves do not do.

Meanwhile “scientists” are explaining everything to me, like the explanations of why the topology of the nearside of the moon differs so radically from the farside.

Me, having a rational and scientific brain, listen to these “answers” and explanations, and think, meh, OK, add another possible / plausible scenario to the pile or 999 others, but convinced, I think not.

These explanations, whether it be lunar topology or neanderthal genes in backwater chinese corpses or global warming, all share one thing in common.

They all proclaim to show just how such a thing could have happened, or how such a thing did happen.

None of them are scientific, in that none of them show how this is the only possible outcome.

For example, usury, the practice of charging interest on a loan, there can be only two states for a money supply, it is fixed and finite, or it can be inflated and finite (to be infinite, then the value of one unit becomes inescapably infinitely low) and since interest / percentages are indisputably nothing more than an exponential function, then there is only one possible outcome for each.

In the fixed finite money supply, the one charging the interest ends up amassing so much money that the supply fails to meet circulation needs, and the money fails in its primary function.

In the finite inflated money supply, then the value of each unit is devalued on an exponential curve, and as soon as that curve hits the steep slopes, the money fails in its primary function.

These are the only possible outcomes.

It would appear that human nature being what it is, as soon as you get more than a lone individual seeking power, it does not matter one iota what label that group has, whether it be the “legal” state or the “illegal” terrorist, the staple diet appears to be akin to the spammer, redefining what they do as not being the thing they are supposedly struggling against.

I have written before about A E Van Vogt’s book The Anarchistic Colossus, a society in which this human tendency was eradicated, there were military spaceships, but no military, any citizen could board one and command it.

What made all this work was a system of kirlian computers that read each human being’s aura, and stunned them when they were about to do something in spite.

There was a little anecdote about the arms race that ensued, the computers were programmed to stun anyone attempting to steal your mail, but some had discovered that if you merely opened and read the mail without stealing it, you would not be stunned, so the programming had to be altered.

All of which completely fails to address the 9 trillion ton elephant in the room, the human nature of which I speak.

The asshole who not merely genuinely believes that he knows better than me what is best for me, but that he also has an absolute right to try to convert me to his way of seeing things.

Let me be clear on this.

For values of “you” that include the rest of the human population, I do know better than you what is best for you, I just have no interest in enforcing my opinion upon you, I just want you to stop trying to enforce your opinion on me, a vain hope, so, sadly, you will all have to die…lol

I can sit here and make erudite statements about if I were made God, I would decree than every single individual is a soverign state, and while sovereign states were free to combine at will into collectives, no sovereign state or collective of same could in ANY WAY impose their will upon any other.

Who is going to enforce it, when going up against the biggest gang of sovereign states locally? In our case, the State itself.

The people of the United States and the people of the UK are essentially the same, and yet it is legal to fuck at 16 in the UK and illegal in the US, so we don’t even just have the basic “two wolves and a sheep democratically voting on what to have for lunch” scenario that makes the age of consent 16 here, there are no universal constants, even though by rights there should be, we are all the same peoples, and yet we cannot agree on even such basic things, which is a direct function of the FACT that different groupings of sovereign states come up with different answers to the same question, which is itself an indictment of the legitimacy of said sovereign states themselves.

Two big sovereign states and one small one = two wolves and one sheep…. it’s fractal baby.

Logically, scientifically, we come to some inescapable conclusions.

If I am 50 and this girl is 10, and we both agree to fuck each other regularly (and yes, I deliberately pick this most emotive of possible subjects) then in the pure sovereign individual world, there is no harm in this.

Ask anyone in the street if they would vote for this, and they react in horror, and say no.

Ask them who they think they are protecting, by saying no, do they think they themselves as sovereign individuals need protection, then the unwilling answer is always no, they ones they are trying to protect, allegedly, is always some one else, some other sovereign individual.

Which, inescapably, means removing sovereignty from said individual.

In a nation of sovereign individuals, there is no social security, and no taxes to fund it.

Instead we have the old fallbacks that we used to have, charity and compassion.

Amusingly, one of the arguments used against this was that charities could choose not to give help to those who did not behave as decent members of society, this was apparently “bad”.

From 1977, just after the economic harsh times of the mid seventies, of which youtube has not a single video of apparently.


  1. ” . . .it is legal to fuck at 16 in the UK and illegal in the US . . .”

    There is no federal law about fucking in the US. The issue is determined by the states, of which there are 50. In most of them it is legal at 16.

    Of course, supporting your point, even within one country there is no social agreement on the matter. New York is the only northeastern state where the age is not 16, because it could not resolve its own desire for both equal rights and a different age of consent for men and women (it had previously been 16 for men and 18 for women).

    Canada has always held to the traditional age of consent of Christendom, 14, which the UK abandoned in the late 1800s, but was recently pressured into changing it to 16 by the US, even though the US does not agree within itself that that should be the age of consent.

    Comment by kfg — July 10, 2014 @ 3:29 pm

    • How sure are you about that? I knew a guy (who was 21 at the time) who sent a picture of his prick to a 16 year old, and got 10 years time, plus 15 years on the sex offenders registry. The definitions for sex offenses have broadened over the years and don’t have to involve sex. I don’t know what the actual statistics are, but I wonder if most “sex offenses” even involve sex. You can be put in the same ballpark as a violent rapist just by streaking.

      Comment by freeman — July 10, 2014 @ 11:24 pm

      • “How sure are you about that? ”


        “I knew a guy (who was 21 at the time) who sent a picture . . .”

        A picture is not fucking. If he lived in most states he could have fucked her all she wanted, but taking a picture or video would have been a federal crime. That would be considered child pornography. The subject was fucking, not “sex offenses.”

        Yeah, it’s fucked up, but that’s the way it is.

        Comment by kfg — July 11, 2014 @ 3:45 am

  2. australia got the mother-stabbers and father-rapers. america got the puritans. australia obviously got the better deal.

    Comment by let it burn — July 10, 2014 @ 4:53 pm

  3. I’ve re-read this post a few times, and each time I bite off a new chunk of wisdom. One thing that immediate came to my mind was the herd on my dad’s side of the family, and how they fit into the movement from red to blue team paradox. They have “disowned” me for valuing family oriented roles for women. If asked how they would react to the Nazis, if placed in 1930s Germany, they would say that of course they would protest them and fight against them. If asked how they would react to the socialists, or communists, I’m not so sure. It is amazing how people can change from one genocidal ideology to another and be absolutely ignorant to the glaring similarities. I know that despite what they say, they will go along with whoever is in power and force it on everyone else around them, since that is what their actions have shown. Rather than having lost something, I am glad to know who my true friends and family are.

    Perhaps that’s the reason engineers seem socially awkward to most people. Instead of blindly accepting what they’re told, they must ask why something is so, and attempt to explain it. If the explanation seems suspect, the engineer forges his own way and potentially discovers something new. Every day, I deal with one of the few fields that deals in physical laws. If something is wrong, I know I messed something up, or an instrument is out of calibration. If there is a field that deals in universal truths, it is what I work with every day. Even with that in mind, the engineers I deal with will fully acknowledge the gaps in understanding of the field. The ones who should be the most confident in their knowledge, which is one of the only fields that has an impartial standard of knowledge, are the ones who are the most skeptical of said knowledge. Go to any other field based on loose science, and they are absolutely convinced that their “expert knowledge” is unquestionable. Perhaps its because their job depends on their so called “expert knowledge”.

    Unfortunately, I can’t find a video of Peter Bryant, designer of the Ti-22 CANAM car that defied many preconceived notions of titanium fabrication. If you can find it, check out a copy of CANAM thunder.

    For those that invoke the “science” title, I’ve always wanted to ask what the RMS% and peak error was between their predictive models and hard data was. If they look confused, clearly they are bullshit peddlers.

    Comment by freeman — July 11, 2014 @ 12:04 am

  4. By the way, this question might change your worldview. Every time you see a headline, ask “How did they find that out?” Whenever you see a sensational headline, it almost always implies that evidence against someone was obtained illegally, or through draconian measures. This is almost never admitted to, but when you think about it, if people questioned the ability to obtain said information, it would call in to question the whole panopticon. By acknowleding this collection ability, it would completely transform peoples’ behavior, and the panopticon’s ability to record everyone.

    Comment by freeman — July 11, 2014 @ 12:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: