I have to say, that I’m not normally to sanguine about Christmas.  When I was a kid I would get really excited about Christmas but then for about 13 years my dad decided to harass me about something on Christmas which gradually numbed my attitude towards it.  Also I’m not too keen on the pagan origins or all the Santa stuff, but I do like how Christmas is offensive to many liberals.  At any rate, this guy has an interesting perspective on Christmas that I can’t really argue against:

It has always been my position that evolution is not science.  It is a set of extrapolations based on philosophical presupposition rather than empirically verified truth.  It is also my position that evolution is anti-science, because the assumptions involved preclude investigation of some areas.  Given the following thought process, it is not difficult to see why:

The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true.  Evolution is the light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.”

Ayala, Francisco J,. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky: 1900-1975,” Journal of Heredity, vol. 68 (January/February 1977), p. 3

In real science, the facts illuminate the theory either proving it wrong, right, or insufficient, the evolutionary way of thinking is backwards to the scientific approach.  To further demonstrate my point, I would like to post and comment on the following article.  The article appeared on www.sphere.com and was written by John D. Sutter.  My commentary will appear in green:

Source: http://www.sphere.com/science/article/scientists-spot-nearby-super-earth-planet/19285097

Scientists Spot ‘Super-Earth’ Planet Nearby

(Dec. 17) — Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that’s similar in size to Earth.

I don’t know how they can determine that from this distance, but assuming it does then that is a very important discovery.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity’s search for life on other planets.

“The big excitement is that we have found a watery world orbiting a very nearby and very small star,” said David Charbonneau, a Harvard professor of astronomy and lead author of an article on the discovery, which appeared this week in the journal Nature.

The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That’s significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

An assumption derived from evolution (stellar evolution, big bang).  So because they “know” that the theory is true, it eliminates having to investigate certain areas, facts are interpreted within the light of the theory.  The result being that they don’t even bother to look.  The discovery of this planet is one event in a long list of discoveries and facts which should lead them to question their “theory,” and if they were logical they would do so.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn’t spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this “watery world” helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

Of course they will not question the theory, and this is why ultimately evolutionism is an unfalsifiable tautology.  This is an example of how the facts are interpreted within the light of the theory rather than having theories be subject to facts.  A planet cannot just assemble out of space dust or appear out of a star like a baby being born.  It is true that planets have gravity which draw smaller objects down towards them assuming they come within a certain range of the planet, but that gravity is being generated by the planet itself.  No planet means no gravity, and no gravity means no planet.  A cloud of space dust will gradually disperse if there is no gravity well to act on it, and without any planets, or stars, there is no gravity well.  A space cloud does not have a center of gravity.  There is simply no way a planet can form, yet it is taken for granted that planets exist because they formed from space dust on their own.  The reason for this is because evolutionary believers have defined any explanation outside of the universe as non-science, so they are obligated to construct fantastic sequences of how the universe self assembled, regardless of how absurd they are or what natural laws they violate.

“Nature is just far more inventive in making planets than we were imagining,” he said.

This statement is obviously a religious one.  Denying an external creator only leaves one option, the universe is self existing and self creating, which in effect deifies the universe.  Once again, the conclusion they come to is completely wrong because all facts must be made to fit the theory as opposed to making theories that fit the facts.  They seem hell bent on believing the notion that the universe created itself.  If they are capable of recognizing inventiveness in the structure of the universe, the next logical step ought to be to recognize the inventor.  As to why they don’t do that the motivation probably varies with the individual.  Evolutionism is only a rehashing of pantheism gouged in psuedo-science and jargon.  Technically the evolutionists are pantheists not atheists as the notion of the self existing universe simply deifies the universe. 

In a way, the newly discovered planet was sitting right in front of astronomers’ faces, just waiting for them to look. Instead of using high-powered telescopes attached to satellites, they spotted the planet using an amateur-sized, 16-inch telescope on the ground.

So in other words, it was probably spotted from someone’s back yard while they were fooling around.  Who knows what else gets by them because their theory precludes certain lines of inquiry?

There were no technological reasons the discovery couldn’t have happened long ago, Charbonneau said.

Sad.

The planet is also rather near to our solar system — only about 40 light-years away.

Planet GJ 1214b is classified as a “super-Earth” because it is between one and 10 times as large as Earth. Scientists have known about the existence of super-Earths for only a couple of years. Most planets discovered by astronomers have been gassy giants that are much more similar to Jupiter than to Earth.

Charbonneau said it’s unlikely that any life on the newly discovered planet would be similar to life on Earth, but he didn’t discount the idea entirely.

“This planet probably does have liquid water,” he said.

Simply put, a tautology is a nonsense statement, or a statement which is inherently self refuting. 

For example: It is just an assumption that the laws of physics have always been constant.

Someone really did say that to me, a college science (biology) professor to be specific.  The statement is self refuting because a natural law, by definition, is something which is always constant. 

In order for something to be unfalsifiable there must be no way it can be investigated.  All axioms are technically falsifiable, because in order to arrive at the understanding that something is an axiom, it must first have gone through the process of observation and investigation. 

An unfalsifiable tautology is a nonsense statement which is put forth in such a way that there are no conditions under which it can be investigated. 

For example:  Watermelons are ALWAYS blue on the inside until the skin is punctured, at which point the inside immediately turns red.

You can investigate the chemical components of watermelons, the methods by which they reproduce, the DNA, etc. and come to an understanding how the watermelon works and what it is made of, which is sufficient to prove that the statement of their being blue is pure nonsense as every aspect of the watermelon is designed to produce a red interior.  You can eliminate any natural mechanism that would account for a blue interior prior to the melon being punctured.  However, the person making the claim might attribute the alleged blueness to fictitious properties which cannot be investigated, and would state that you can never invalidate their theory as any punctured watermelon is always red.  People who espouse unfalsifiable tautologies often delude themselves into the notion that their claims are axioms simply because they cannot be empirically falsified.  Once an unfalsifiable tautology is arrived at in a debate there is no way the matter can be argued further, however, technically the burden of proof belongs to the individual making the positive or the non-evidence based claim.  

Yes I know this is long.  I very seldom submit anything but when I do I like to be thorough. 

I am going to deal with two topics in this entry, the primary topic being Afrocentrism, with my theories about ancient man as a closely related secondary or subtopic.  But first I am going to post a disclaimer, any readers who are like minded to myself should skip directly over the disclaimer, but anyone on the left needs to read my disclaimer before posting comments. 

Disclaimer: 

Being a white male as I am, at least half of the population in the US and much of the world is automatically going to equate criticism of an idea promulgated by black individuals as racist.  Which just goes to show how messed up modern societies can be.  My motivations are not racist, I have no problem whatsoever with black people.  I do however have a problem with stupidity, and this topic is one which I have ignored for a long time, so it is long overdue for criticism from me.  I think racism is foolish because people cannot help what race they are born into any more than they can help what hair color they get, and not every single individual conforms to the racial stereotypes, so hating people because of that is absurd.  Also, as a Christian Conservative I believe the Bible cover to cover, which teaches that humanity was created in the image of God, and that we all come from a common ancestor who was human.  CREATED, not evolved.  So there is no room in my ideology for the notion of racial stratification.  As a general rule, I dislike racism, and ignorance.  Although I tend to be far more hostile towards stupidly than ignorance because stupidity entails being ignorant on purpose.

Afrocentrism/Black Supremacy:

First of all the term “Afrocentrism” is a misnomer.  It carries the implication that all native Africans are black, and that is false.  There are Mongoloid and Caucasoid elasticities which have been living in Africa just as long as the Negroid cultures have been.  The Amazigh are the native people of the Maghreb (Northwest Africa), and they happen to be a part of the Indo-European group.  The Egyptians also happen to be Caucasoid, more on that shortly.  The Ethiopians and Tuaregs are mixed race groups which makes sense considering that they occupy transition zones between Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa.  The indigenous people of Madagascar are actually Mongoloid, although the indigenous people are not the majority in Madagascar.  Surprised?  For reference, pictures of the groups in question will be posted at the end of the journal.  To suggest that all of the indigenous people of Africa are black is on the level with suggesting that all of the indigenous people of Asia are Mongoloid.  Since the term “Afrocentrism” is deliberately exclusionary I am going to refer to it as what it really is, Black Supremacy, which I will abbreviate as BS.

Hebrews:

Some of the people who advocate BS claim that the ancient Hebrews were black.  The usual claim here is that the Hebrews were originally black and they became white through racial intermixing.  Aside from there being no evidence for that claim the logical question which must follow is why should they be so different from their neighbors?  First of all, the Hebrews originated in Mesopotamia which would be in contemporary Iraq, which is why the Hebrew language is closely related to Aramaic and Arabic.  Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic belong to a language family known as Semitic named after the Biblical patriarch, Shem.  There are direct cognates between Arabic and Hebrew, for example: Shalom (Hebrew) and Salaam (Arabic).  The only Semitic language in Africa (other than Arabic) is spoken in Ethiopia which was once colonized by a pre-Islamic group of Arabs.  One fact about Hebrew society was that they were strongly opposed marrying outside of their culture.  Individuals who did so were frequently ostracized and condemned, so the amount of race mixing has been historically low. 

I once came into contact with a BS advocate who claimed that King Solomon was black because he married a black woman.  The woman described in Song of Solomon does indeed seem to be black, however, that does not make Solomon black.  I dated an Asian woman for a year and it never made me Asian, nor did I have to be Asian in the first place in order to find Asian women attractive.  King Solomon married lots of women, too many.  Much of it was done for diplomatic reasons because under his rule Israel was at the peak of it’s power, and as a result it had to interact with more countries than it otherwise would have.  Political marriages were often used to cement peace agreements between ancient cultures, but with Solomon it is possible that not all of his marriages were conducted for political reasons.  I think that if most men were given the chance to rule over an ancient polygamist society they would have more than one wife, and they would probably try to diversify their wives in order to experience new pleasures.  At any rate, Solomon was a product of David and Bathsheba.  There is a description available for King David:

 ¹²And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

 ¹³Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

1st Samuel ch. 16.

There really is no physical description of Bathsheba except that the mention that she was very attractive.  However, it can be inferred by the mention that she was “the daughter of Eliam” that Eliam was part of the Hebrew community, whereas no mention of the parents of her husband are mentioned as he was a foriegner.  He was “Uriah the Hittite”(see 2nd Samuel ch. 11).

To sum it up, the Hebrews originated in Iraq, they typically shunned intermarriage, and given that individuals with an appearance like David existed that early on in their history there is absolutely no way they could have been black.

Amazigh:

The Amazigh (Berbers) are the indigenous people of Northwest Africa and in pre-Roman times they used to fight with the Egyptians.  There are ancient Egyptian depictions of the ancient Amazigh tribe known as the Temehu, the following image comes from the tomb of Seti I.

The four on the left are intended to represent the native Libyans (Amazigh), the next one is intended to represent a Nubian (Modern Sudan), following the Nubian is a Syrian, and the last is an Egyptian.  Notice the attention paid to facial features.  It is easy to tell that these figures represent different cultures and races.  Out of all the groups present in this depiction, the only black culture represented here is Nubian.  The BS claim is that originally everyone in Africa was black, but during the Islamic invasion the Arabs colonized and either mixed with black Africans to produce white North Africans or some might contend that they drove the black Africans out.  Seti I died in 1279 BC which antedates the Islamic invasion, the Roman invasion, and the Greek invasion under Alexander by a large margin.  As to the racial intermixing the Amazigh belong to the Indo-European group, and genetically they have more in common with western Europeans than either Arabs or black Africans. 

Carthaginians:

Carthaginians were descended from Phoenician (modern Lebanon) colonists.  They actually were not African natives, but I feel the need to address them because they are another group claimed by BS.  Part of the problem can be traced to the Budweiser African Kings project which depicts Hanibal as black.  The Phoenicians are light skinned and Caucasoid.  Persons from Lebanon would not visibly stand out in any modern western country.  Also, there are actual depictions of Hannibal which survive.

Hannibal (246-182 BC), name means “Mercy of Baal”

Egyptians:

This is a group which is claimed rather vehemently by BS, the argument being that ancient Egyptians were originally black but became white or Caucasoid following the Islamic invasion.  This has led to the false perception that modern Egyptians are somehow intruders and despoilers, which leads to misplaced hostility towards modern Egyptians.  First of all, there is a long record of Egyptian art, both paintings and carvings.  Egyptians are always depicted with Caucasoid features.  In the older art it is quite common to see men depicted with brown skin as compared with the women, but when black individuals are depicted in Egyptian art there is no room for doubt.  It should be noted that Egyptian women are often depicted as having ligher skin, sometimes far lighter, than the men.  The reason for this is that it was common for ancient civilizations to idealize women with light skin.  If a woman had light skin it meant that she did not have to work out in the fields, which was an indication of social status.  Minoan culture followed the same pattern in their depiction of men and women.  It is true that the noses are missing from some Egyptian statues, but this is not part of some ancient white conspiracy to erase black history.  Many of the noses are chipped off of Greek and Roman statues.  Chiseling the noses off of statues was a common form of vandalism when invasions occurred in the ancient world.  Also, destroying artwork from the previous dynasty sometimes occurred as the result of a regime change.  Incidentally there is also Egyptian art from the Roman period, which depicts a population identical to that of contemporary Egypt. 

Mixing black and Arab is not going to produce a Caucasoid population.  The Arabs did mix with black Africans along the east coast of Africa, and the result was the Zanj region, where Arabic combined with black African languages to produce the Swahili dialects. 

Prior to the Islamic conquest of Egypt the majority of people in Egypt spoke Coptic.  Coptic is the direct descendant of classical Egyptian. 

The term “Copts” is equivalent to the word “Egyptians.” It is derived from the Greek “Aigyyptos,” which in turns is derived from the ancient Egyptian “Ha-ka-Ptah,” i.e. “the house of the spirit Ptah,” a most highly revered deity in Egyptian mythology. From the Arab conquest and until today, This term refers to the Christian Egyptians to distinguish them from the native Muslims.

The Copts as the successors of the ancient Egyptians are defined as the modern sons of the Pharaohs. They played an essential role in the whole Christian world, especially during the first five centuries.

Their religious background helped them to accept Christianity with eagerness and to enjoy its depth through their ascetic life, meditation and studying of the Holy Scripture.

Source: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/church1.html

Today the majority of Egyptians speak Arabic and follow a form of Islam, but this is a process that took place over time as pressure was exerted upon the native Egyptians to convert to Islam.  Following the Islamic invasion the majority of Egyptians were still Coptic.  A Coptic minority still exists today, although the Coptic language is now primarily used in liturgies.  The essential point here is that a group exists which is unquestionably descended directly from classical Egyptians, so the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians is not a matter open to speculation.

Ancient Man:

Black Africans are indigenous to the sub-Saharan portion of Africa, excluding Madagascar.  I reject utterly the Out of Africa theory, which I shall abbreviate as OOA.  According to OOA humanity evolved from ape like creatures in sub-Saharan Africa and spread outwards from there to other parts of the world.  First of all I reject evolutionism and the subsequent theories of racial stratification, and I also reject sub-Saharan Africa as the origin point for humanity.  I believe that the origin point of humanity was somewhere in the Middle East.  The Bible does state that humanity started in the Middle East following the flood, but there are other reasons beyond that which indicate the Middle East as a starting point.  First of all, it is almost universally agreed upon that the first human civilization existed in Mesopotamia.  If humanity started in sub-Saharan Africa the first human civilizations should have been there.  While I realize that consensus is not always a sufficient method of confirming truth, if one looks at the diffusion pattern of agriculture the Middle East is indicated as a starting point.  It is impossible to have civilization without good agriculture.  Civilization cannot exist without specialization of labor.  Specialization of labor is when individuals devote their working lives to filling a specific function, such as artist, craftsman, priest, historian, teacher, engineer, farmer, etc.  An artisan typically does not spend his time looking for food, he focuses on his craft and sells his skill in exchange for goods or currency with which to purchase goods, including food.  Without agriculture (beyond subsistence dirt farming) there can be no specialization of labor because everyone must focus continually on their own survival.  In that type of situation a tribal society is what develops. 

The existence of civilization is a problem for evolutionists because there has not been one recorded incident of a tribal society becoming civilized on it’s own.  Tribal societies become civilized through either conquest or diffusion.  Sometimes a civilized society conquers an uncivilized one and begins integrating the uncivilized people into it’s own society.  On the other hand sometimes an uncivilized society conquers a civilized one and adopts the trappings of civilization by learning from the conquered people.  On other occasions an uncivilized society adopts methods, practices, and devices from a nearby civilization through peaceful diffusion.  Tribal societies completely left to themselves remain stagnate and never advance.  Once a society falls into tribalism it tends to stay there until one of the three previously mentioned scenarios occurs.  As far as anyone can discern from history, the first civilizations have always been civilized.  Their oldest records indicate a well developed level of civilization firmly in place.  Some of the earliest writings are dismissed as fact by most scholars on the grounds that they contain religious connotations, however, it should be noted that said dismissal is based on assumption rather than fact.

Ancient Africa:

My theory allows for two possibilities.  One being that white and black Africans arrived simultaneously from the Middle East.  Another is that the white Africans arrived first.  Both theories could be wrong.

It may be that the forerunners to the various African ethnicities arrived simultaneously.  If so the white groups may have previously favored a more agrarian lifestyle.  They found that North Africa was well suited to agriculture so they settled there and farmed.  The black cultures may have been more interested in hunting game, and they found North Africa ill suited for those purposes so they moved on further south and settled the areas below the Sahara.  Some did chose a sedentary agrarian lifestyle, such as the Nubians, and settled along the southern Nile which was well suited for their purposes.

The other possibility I am considering is that the white Africans arrived first.  They found north Africa well suited for agriculture so they settled there.  The black Africans arrived shortly after them, found the white Africans entrenched, and decided to move on.  They probably chose to move on rather than fight over it because most of them preferred game hunting.  However, some, such as the Nubians, chose an agrarian lifestyle and were able to maintain a high level of civilization as a result. 

It may also be that other ancient groups of black Africans maintained a high level of civilization, at least for a while.  The Olmecs were the first Mesoamerican civilization, and are considered to be the forreunners of all ensuing Mesoamerican civilizations such as the Aztecs, Mayas, and Teotihuacanos.  Unlike the later Mesoamerican civilizations, the Olmecs seem to have been a racially pluralistic group, with depictions of persons with Aquiline, Negroid, and Mongoloid features (including one with facial hair).  It should be noted that the depictions of persons with Negroid features come in the form of colossal stone heads sporting headgear which is atypical of that worn by Olmecs.  Headgear in all other Olmec depictions is quite large.  It is entirely possible that sailors from a black African civilization actually sailed across the Atlantic and met the early Olmecs.  In order to earn such large effigies they must have done something to impress the Olmecs, who were quite advanced themselves.  Based upon an examination of Olmec art and artifacts (actually photos of it), I have created a reconstruction of the Olmecs and the black sailors.

Ancillary Materials:

Egyptians: Arabic speaking

 

Modern Amazigh

 

Amizagh: contemporary Morocco

 

Coptic Egyptians

 

Ethiopians

 

Congo: Central Africa

 

Madagascar:  This guy is actually the current dictator of Madagascar, his name is Andry Rajoelina.

Health Care: Looking at the evidence and drawing absurd conclusions

I get a great deal of my news off of the internet, pretty much all of it except on those rare occasions when I actually listen to the radio in my car.  I don’t watch TV, at all, and I don’t read the newspaper because I do not wish to donate money to a liberal news organization any more than I wish to donate money to the inappropriately named “National Center for Science Education” or Hamas.  At any rate, the articles that appear on yahoo come from a variety of liberal sources, but I read them because it’s free.  The following article is an excellent example of how liberals can look at evidence and draw incorrect conclusions from it.

The article: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/14/democratic-civil-wars-likely-as-left-weighs-primary-challenges-o/

“Democrats are generally discouraged across the board because they don’t feel that anything’s getting accomplished,” says Ben Tribbett, executive director of the Accountability Now Political Action Committee.

They have the majority and they still can’t get anything done?  They have the majority in Congress and Obama in the White House, and as a result of those two factors they have managed to spend more money than any previous administration, AND they do this in spite of the current economic recession.  I wonder how many of them passed economics? 

Moving on, basically what the author is saying is that many Democrats are being challenged for re-election in their local districts.  The reason she gives is that it is due to their opposition to the “health care” reform agenda.  Every survey and poll I have seen thus far shows that the majority of people in the US are opposed to socialized health care.  Also, let us not forget the town hall meetings where Democrats attempted to sell their health care reform ideas to local populations, and were shouted at and challenged.  Every indication I have seen thus far is that the majority of people in the US are indeed opposed to socialized medical care, although the majority of people in the media are probably not.  My analysis is that Democrats are facing new challenges for relection because their new policies are unpopular.  Furthermore, the reason Democrats are opposing the health care reforms is probably that they recognize how unpopular it is, and actually wish to be relected, even though it is probably too late for them.

Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, points to a PCCC poll in October that found 56 percent of Arkansas residents support a public option; 49 percent have a negative view of Lincoln; and she barely defeats two potential GOP rivals. She does even worse in a Rasmussen poll and only slightly better in a Daily Kos poll.

For those who may not know, “Progressive” is a new synonym for “liberal.”  Some of the leftists thought they might dodge the negative connotations associated with the term “liberal” by adopting a new term.  So basically, I do not trust a poll produced by an openly liberal activist organization as a source of information any more than I would trust a Hamas as a realistic source of information on Israel.  I don’t know how the author can expect to be taken seriously given who she relies on as a source of information for her statistics.  They are going to call or email whoever they want when taking their poll, and even if it is one of those online polls, the sort of people who frequent that website are going to be predominantly liberal.

So it is true that Democrats will probably have a harder time during the next election, but the reasons the author gives for why are false. 

More bad ideas from Obama:

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_banks

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama implored top bankers Monday to help keep the fragile recovery from faltering by boosting lending to small businesses and getting behind an overhaul of financial regulation. “We rise and fall together,” Obama declared.

—and—

Obama’s lecture to the bankers was also part of a broader election-season Democratic effort to tie sluggish bank lending to continued high joblessness — and to try to tie the banking industry to Republican efforts against Obama’s financial overhaul legislation.

What a horrible idea.  Lending money does not generate wealth, and the excessive loaning was a huge factor that contributed to the current recession.  If banks had excersized more responsibility in their loaning then the rate of joblessness would certainly not have been so high.  Obama has it backwards.  What are the banks going to do when they loan money and people can’t pay it back?  Ask for more money from the Federal Government?  All that will do is cause inflation, and inflation is not a good thing during an economic recession, assuming that it is ever a good thing.  What that means, is that I will actually lose money because the value of my money that I have in the bank will go down.  This sort of policy is going to hurt retired people who are living off of money they have saved while they worked and off of fixed pensions, which do not compensate for inflation.

But they also insisted they are getting conflicting messages from Washington when the do try to make more loans. While the White house presses for more lending, regulators are cracking down on banks to lend more prudently and forcing them to keep larger cushions of capital to protect against future losses. That means there’s less money available to lend.

The regulators obviously passed their economics classes while Obama and the Democrats did now.  They can only lend money to people who are capable of paying it back, and with the economy being the way it is right now, such individuals are few and far between.  When the economy is healthy they can increase their lending, when it is not they have to cut back or go bankrupt. 

Obama has complained that, while bankers claim they support financial regulation reform, large banks have been lobbying against portions of overhaul legislation moving through Congress, including a provision to set up a new consumer protection agency to oversee their marketing of credit cards, mortgages and car loans.

Just what we need, more government regulation, because everything the government runs is superior to similar services provided by the private sector, and government programs excell in regards to efficiency (sarcasm).  The problem is that the people who run the banks are experts in their field, people in the federal government are not.  If the Federal Government had any grasp on fiscal responsibility, they would not be in the collosal debt that they are in.

Using a sports analogy, Obama told the bankers Americans might be more sympathetic to outsize pay if those who got it were in the equivalent of a financial World Series, according to a senior administration official who lacked authorization to speak publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The real issue here is that Obama is afraid they will invest money in over seas accounts making it more difficult for him to tax, even though it would probably help revitalize the US economy because it would generate more revenue for the banks.  Obama, like a typical Democrat, is showing how he puts the Government before the citizens.  Democrats put the government first, most of them can think no other way.  To them, government is what defines a nation.

This may seem like a departure from the usual for me, but I have decided that I would post a review of Independence Day here because of the enormous pop-culture/herd mentality following it had.

When I was in my teens my brother and I rented Independence Day but for some reason I was unable to watch it to completion.  Recently I went to visit my brother and elected to borrow the movie from him in order to ascertain whether it was worthy of all the hype.  My impressions from the parts of the movie I saw as a teen was that it was a mediocre film, but could have gotten better as the film progressed.  I remember the other kids in school thought it was so incredible and awesome whenever it came out, but after having watched the movie in its entirety it has served to reinforce my belief that the average person has poor taste.  However, before I get into the negative aspects of the movie I would like to discuss the positive.

The most positive aspect of the movie was the fight scenes.  I have to say that the fight scenes were very well done, and I actually found them preferable to the space fights in the newer Star Wars movies which are famous for their special effects.  There was an element of believability in the Air Force vs. Aliens which minimized the need for suspended disbelief.  Another strong point in the movie was the way they depicted the reactions and mass hysteria to the aliens hovering over the cities.  The looting, and the congestion due to a disorderly panic induced exodus was a very believable and realistic reaction.  Finally, the blasting away of those alien worshiping hippie types was a nice touch, which also added realism.  My beliefs about aliens notwithstanding, if a group of aliens came to earth in a conspicuous fashion, no matter how menacing, twisted, or downright evil they appeared there would certainly be groups of hippies coming out with the “take us with you” blather. 

Now for the weak points…  To make for easier reading I am going to divide the negative elements into subsections. 

The Plot:

The best way I could describe the movie, is that it was like a comedy or spoof with all the humorous elements taken out.  I did not laugh once throughout the entire thing.  I have never cared much for Jeff Goldbloom, never found him funny, and Will Smith is usually funny, but not in this movie.  The humor, like every other attempt to generate an emotional reaction from me, was forced.  The plot is simplistic and dry.  The story is that a hostile civilization is coming to earth to eliminate humanity and drain all of earth’s resources.  The aliens go to a planet, use up all the resources, then move on and repeat the process elsewhere.  They begin by destroying some major cities, and then they reposition themselves to destroy more.  They can’t be stopped because they have forcefields, but fortunately Jeff Goldblooms character manages to create a virus to sabotage their computers, they upload it, and then they blow up all the aliens.  That is the plot, a simple story which could be wrapped up in less than an hour.  Instead, they choose to prolong it, and they way they do so is by adding lots of characters and showing how they all react to the crisis, which amounts to many long protracted scenes of boring pointless dialogue.  One thing that was never addressed is what sort of resources the aliens were after.  Are they after material resources or energy resources, or both.  If all they are after is ore and building materials they could find that anywhere, there is no reason for them to go to earth or any other inhabitable planet for that.  If they are looking for an environment to grow crops and raise livestock (food production), then they would need a habitable planet, but the resources involved in that are renewable, so there would be no need for them to continue migrating unless they are either explorers or migrating to compensate for a growing population.  If they were looking for habitable worlds to compensate for a growing population then that would actually make sense, and it would allow the aliens to be a continual threat even if the humans won because they are in the business of colonizing.  Instead what they have is an enormous plot hole which probably exists for the purpose of getting across some environmentalist message.

The Characters:

I did not identify with a single one of the characters, nor did I particularly care about any of them.  Having lots of characters does not work for a movie.  For a movie it is ideal to have about two or three main characters, plus a few ancillary characters.  The reason for this is that in order to generate concern or an interest in the characters there has to be character development.  It takes time to develop characters, and the more characters there are the less time there is for development.  I did not care whether Will Smith or Jeff Goldblooms characters got blown up with the alien space ship or survived.  I also did not care if Will Smith’s stripper girlfriend survived, nor was I in any way moved by their wedding.  They interjected that wedding as time filler, why not just have them be married at the onset of the movie, and give her some other occupation besides being a stripper?  Then they would not have had to waste time with a wedding.  The only time having lots of characters works well, is when you have a TV series.  A TV series offers more time to properly develop the characters and build up concern for them on the part of the viewer.  The proper way to develop characters is to show them working together, interacting, solving a variety of problems over an appropriate time span (as opposed to cramming a lot into a short period), and gradually making their nuances evident over time.  In the first episode of Battlestar Galactica I did not care if any of the characters died, and some of them I actually hoped would die, but as the series progressed and the characters interacted with one another, faced different problems and overcame them, and as background information was added at moments where it was immediately pertinent, I came to care about the characters.  In Independence day it was as if they said, “here are a bunch of characters, you don’t know anything about them but you should care about them and their plight…”  Well, I don’t.  I did not care at all when the presidents wife died, she was just there.  They added her in and gave her a death scene to add drama and create an emotional stir, but I had no connection to the character because of the complete lack of development, and I didn’t watch that movie for drama I watched it because I wanted to see a good story plus some cool fight scenes.  There were parts of the movie were I considered fasting forward through the lame drama and boring speeches to get on to the scenes where something is actually happening. 

The Aliens:

The design of the aliens was highly unoriginal and cliche.  They basically took the stereotypical alien design, and added a large useless protuberance at the back of the head.  Maybe they tinkered around with the geometry of the limbs, but it was hard to tell because the only full body shots of the aliens were the ragged remains of the crash victims.  But regardless of that, the same overused cliche of the grossly disproportionate head relative to their bodies.  They also have the same overused, repulsive, demonic, stereotypical and cliche “alien” face.  I put “alien” in quotations because I do not at all believe that the stereotypical “alien” face is what aliens would be like if they existed in real life.  On the surface, I would say the grossly enlarged head relative to the body is based off of evolutionism, which has often taught that brain size, and consequentially head size, will increase in the future as it has allegedly increased in the past.  However, I also say that the features are demonic because there are ancient cultures which have used those features to represent evil spirits.  The fact of the matter is, it’s overused, it’s ugly, it’s unoriginal, and it’s a poor design.

 

The overused stereotypical alien design is on the left, the unoriginal knockoff used in Independence Day is on the left.

The structure of the aliens is a poor design because there is no way they could walk.  The size of the necks could not support the weight of their grossly misproportioned head.  And the large pointless protuberance only exasperates the problem.  It is true that the triceratops had a large bony protuberance emanating from the back of the skull, but that animal had a much larger body and thicker neck.  To hold up a head that size and to be able to turn it would require a much thicker more muscular neck.  The people who “designed” the aliens could argue that the aliens typically operate in low to zero G settings normally, except that given that an abrupt turn could easily result in a snapped neck.  It’s a poor design, and it’s unoriginal.  It is also insulting to my intelligence that they expect I would buy into the notion that such an absurd and poorly designed creature could even walk. 

The Message?:

There is a question mark because I am not 100% certain that this movie even had a message, but most movies usually do and there were some elements that could be inferred as messages.  Some people were offended by how Americans took charge of the fight and led the world agains the aliens.  They took it as a slight about how Americans were superior or something of that sort.  The fact is, it is fairly normal for most cultures to be ethnocentric and depict themselves as being either superior or in a position of leadership.  In Japanese movies and Anime situations where Japan or ethnic Japanese are leading the world or spearheading an operation is a recurring theme.  Do I get offended by that?  No, because I could not care less which group is in charge in a fictitious setting so long as they tell a good story.  If there is a movie that involved North Korea saving the world from aliens I would watch it just for the sake of novelty and I might even enjoy it.  That having been said, what I saw in this movie was a makeshift one world government formed, and it appeared to me as though one world government was being touted as a good thing.  I am 100% opposed to one world government, and I do not particularly care for propaganda which advocates that in any form.  When the president was giving his speech about a world “independence day” it almost initiated a gag reflex in me.  In real life a one world government will inevatibly lead to a regime worse than Hitler, with the added bonus of having no place to flee to.  I am very leery of anyone or anything which so much as appears to advocating a one world government.  Generally people who advocate a one world government hate freedom. 

Conclusion:

This movie is not worth the time, it’s a complete waste.  If you feel that you just HAVE to know about it because of peer pressure, then just read my synopsis and watch the fight scenes.  Skip over everything in between because it is slow, boring, pointless time filler. 

I realize that this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people, and that many people are going to be offended, but I believe it is important so I am going to discuss it anyways. 

Normally I prefer not to discuss family or family issues on the internet, but I was rather shocked when my 17 year old sister (the older of the two) told me that she was willing to date and eventually marry someone who was not a virgin.  Basically she said that it was not particularly important to her what a person has done in their past so long as they are not doing it now.  The arguments she used were the same sort of arguments that people have used before against me when they had their feelings hurt upon finding out that I am unwilling to partner with a woman who is no longer chaste. To briefly describe my sister, she has always lived a Christian conservative lifestyle, she has a wide range of interests, and on the spectrum of physical appearance she is towards the better looking end of it.  She has some room to be picky, and I do not feel that a man who has already had intercourse is suitable for my sister.  People who have had sex are in a different category than those who have not.  So what I would like to do is go through some of the arguments I have heard from variety of people, and expound upon my position.  Since my position has come under attack I feel obligated to defend it.  But first, if you have already had sex outside of marriage and you are reading this, do not take this as a personal attack.  Just don’t do it again, and keep in mind that your pool of people you can select from is still very large.  Larger than mine in fact.  Now for the arguments:

1) All of the attractive people are not virgins:  I will admit that most of the more attractive people are not virgins.  The last time I encountered an attractive female virgin in person was…  I cannot remember, but I have seen a few over the internet.  To find a virgin you might have to expand the scope of your search.  In contemporary western culture having sex is almost viewed as a right of passage, and it is done as a matter of course sort of like circumcision in ancient Jewish society.    Attractive people are far more likely to have intercourse because they are under a great deal more pressure, but it does not follow that they all will.  I certainly have not.  I think that this problem can be overcome by expanding the scope of one’s search.

2) If God can forgive them then so should I:  The analogy being used here is just as fallacious as when the evolutionists say that if you disbelieve in evolution you should also disbelieve in the use of forensics to solve a crime.  If someone has not done anything to you then you have nothing to forgive them for.  Forgiveness is not the issue in this case.

3) Well what if they have changed?:  If they are smart then they have indeed changed, but that does not negate the possibility that they could be carrying STD’s and there are lots of STD’s out there besides AIDS even though AIDS is the worst.  And how do you know they have changed?  My second girlfriend was not a virgin when we started dating and seemed to have reformed so I gave her a chance.  We were planning on getting married before we broke up, but afterwords I found out that she was carrying an STD and she knew it while we were still together.  When was she planning on telling me she had an STD?  Being single is no fun, but I would imagine that having an STD is even less enjoyable.    Furthermore, some people carry STD’s without knowing it, as there are some types of STD’s which can remain dormant for considerable lengths of time before manifesting symptoms.  Remember, when you have sex with someone you are not just having sex with them, but also everyone else that they have ever had intercourse with. 

There are some additional reasons why I would not consider dating or marrying a woman who is not a virgin, one being that it would set a bad example for the children as to what sort of behaviors are appropriate before marriage.  Another reason is that in the back of my mind I will always know that the woman is not a virgin, even if it does not come up in conversation anymore.  Also, your virginity is one of the best gifts that you can give to your husband or wife on the marriage night.  If one person has it and the other does not, then you enter into the marriage with an imbalance.  I think that the people who are virgins ought to seek one another out, although as a matter of principle, I do not think it is wrong to marry non-virgins, just less than ideal and potentially dangerous. 

Whenever I speak on the issue of “gay marriage” I put it in quotes because I do not consider it to be on par with real marriage regardless of what the government or the liberal media might say.  I tend to use the Bible as my source of morality and philosophy, therefore, I do not consider human laws or opinions authoritative when it comes to determining right and wrong.  However, my reason for opposing “gay marriage” legislation is actually far simpler and one that anyone should be able to understand regardless of their paradigm.  The key word here is LEGISLATION.  I feel that this is a philosophical issue rather than a legislative one.

Prior to the 20th century, and even in my childhood, “gay marriage” was an unheard of concept.  Even in ancient societies where homosexuality was not frowned upon, or in some cases where it was even encouraged (such as ancient Greece), there never was any “gay marriage.”  It was understood that marriage was between a man and a woman (or a man and multiple women), and that homosexuality was something else.  The modern campaign for “gay marriage” is nothing more than an attempt to use legislation to force an ideological change on the general populace, which tends inevitably to generate some type of backlash.  Why they should wish to force this change is another issue.  But force is the right word, every time that the issue of “gay marriage” has come up for a general or popular vote (in the US) it has been overturned.  The only times it has been passed as legislation is when undemocratic processes were used such as court rulings.  This means that most of the people in the US still do not believe that “gay marriage” is actually marriage in spite of all the propaganda and media hype.

As a matter of principal I believe that homosexuality is wrong, however, I would not support legislation banning the act of homosexuality for the following reasons:

1. It would be hard to prove in all cases.
2. Homosexuality is wrong but banning it would be like passing legislation against masturbation, lust, or pre-marital sex.  When a person is only hurting himself or herself, it is between him and God not him and his neighbors or him and the government. 

That being said, I do not think homosexuality should be illegal, I also do not think it should be illegal for them to go to one of those liberal churches and have a ceremony, live together, or whatever (none of which are presently illegal).  I do think that there will be serious consequences in the next life for what they are doing, but the only consequences they should have to face in this one are the natural consequences that they bring on themselves. 

The problem with “gay marriage” legislation is that it includes other provisions besides just allowing them to play house (which they can already do).  If “gay marriage” is legally declared to be marriage, then government can force businesses and insurance providers to provide them with marriage benefits, and that entails more government control and regulation of the private sector.  That is something the government has no business doing.  It will also allow the political left to attack churches by forcing pastors to “marry” gay couples, or else lose their tax exempt status.  It is an attack on the private sector, and an attack on religious institutions, and that is why I oppose it.

I have recently decided to unsubscribe to Mancouch.  To be honest, I do not even remember why or how I subscribed to it in the first place.  I have some vague memory of seeing it in my friends request box but that is all, obviously I clicked yes for it but I don’t remember when or why.  So what is Mancouch?  It is one of those topical subpages of xanga were specific issues are supposed to be discussed, sort of like datingish, lovelyish, and revelife.  The purpose of mancouch is to discuss masculine things in, supposedly, a masculine way.  While I definitely believe that it is productive to discuss male psychology and to compare notes when it comes to issues of masculinity, I can state definitively that Mancouch falls miserably short of fulfilling those functions.  First of all, most of the entries are of a plebian nature, most of them fall within the same intellectual level (and perhaps category) as small talk.  In spite of my rather pathetic current life status, I still have an above average IQ, so I generally prefer not to read blogs which discuss mundane or plebian topics.  With a name like Mancouch there are a few expectations that I had: 1) Issues and interests pertaining to masculinity would be discussed  2) things would be discussed from a masculne perspective  3) in addition to intellectual things, there would also be topics of a plebian nature but I would ignore these.

It turned out that everything was either plebian or out of context.  They once had a female poster, who wanted to discuss abortion and politics, plus some other things which I cannot remember.  A female poster… on MANcouch.  However, what really cemented my decision to stop watching that group was this entry: http://www.mancouch.com/716711229/the-us-is-the-donald-trump-of-the-world/?page=2&jump=1503873632&leftcmt=1#1503873632  Most of the entry is just irrelevant sophistry, but the part which I found particularly absurd was this section:

And then came Barack Obama, who gave us a decent haircut for once and bought us a new suit (this time just the cuff links are gold plated, rather than the entire suit) and politely suggested that instead of screaming at everyone, spitting on them, and then punching them in the face we should just try to shake hands and treat other people like … well, people.

Clearly this means he’s an evil mastermind socialist thug weakling.

This is not a serious country. We are the Donald Trump of the world.

Aside from being an incorrect analogy and an oversimplification of the issues, that whole section is rather mewling and effiminate.  Many times when debating with liberals I often have to refer to their profile picture or just the part of their profile where they fill out what gender they are, because they often have a rather effiminate way of speaking.  It is hard to believe that someone with facial hair would speak in such an unmasculine way.  But I digress, the subject matter of the entry is not pertinent to masculinity, and has no place on the page.  My analysis is that this is just another example of someone using Mancouch to get attention, and those intentions are at odds with the purpose of the group.  Since I no longer intend to read Mancouch, the logical thing to do was to delete it from my friends list, as I did with Revelife for similar reasons.

I would however, like to address his argument.  First of all, liberals around the world do not like Obama for anything unique to Obama (other than his being black), but because he is a Democrat.  As such, they know that he is far more likely to bow to the wishes of the UN and liberals like the UN because they want world government.  Second, Obama has not ended the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan, in fact he has expanded the war into Pakistan (which is an ally) as well.  The wars which the liberals continually complained about continue to rage under Obama.  Why have the liberals fallen silent on those wars now that Obama is in charge?  Because Obama is in charge.  On principle they are not against war, they just want their people to be in charge.  Aside from the wars, I am not certain what the screaming and spitting on people is intended to be an analogy for.  It may refer to the diminished (as compared with the Democrats) willingness by Republican administrations to bow to UN mandates and wishes, which is actually a GOOD thing not a bad thing because the job of leaders is to look after their own country not to be dictated to by foriegn bodies. 

Obama is not a mastermind, he’s a puppet.  What makes him a socialist is his opposition to the private sector and the fact that he wants to redistribute wealth.  What makes him a weakling is that he gives into the UN.  In fact he is on the UN security council, which is technically illegal according to the Constitution. 

I have decided to do a series on government, so to begin with I have elected to discuss the Tower of Babel incident which was in fact the first post-flood government.

First of all, there is some confusion as to the purpose of the scattering that took place at the Tower of Babel.  I have heard of people using the Tower of Babel to justify racism.  The argument goes something like this, “If God intended for the different races to mix he would never have split them up at the Tower of Babel.”  I think it is far more likely that if God did not intend for the different “races” to mix then he would have arranged things so that we would not be interfertile.  It never says in the Bible that God did not intend for people to marry interacially.  He did not intend for humans and dogs to marry, which is evidenced by the fact that we are not interfertile (with dogs), and the laws of Moses which attached a death penalty for the human AND the animal if they had sexual relations with one another.  “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death” (Exodus 22:19).  Incidentally that verse is soon followed by, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).  Aside from that, prior to the Babel incident there were no races, so it is illogical to think that the Babel incident was a preventative measure to keep the different races from mixing.  There were no races at the time and they would not have had any concept of race.  However, there would have been different families and larger extended family units, but not everyone is going to marry their cousin as their first choice.  I theorize that when the languages were confused the linguistic split was probably based on kinship, so that immediate and close families would not be split up. 

However, the question remains, why would God split up humanity like that, especially considering that he already knew that racism would eventually follow?  He did it because the alternative would have caused even more suffering.  The Tower of Babel incident is as follows, found in Genesis 11:

 ¹And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

 ²And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

 ³And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

 ⁴And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

 ⁵And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

 ⁶And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

 ⁷Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

 ⁸So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

 ⁹Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The first time I read this was as a child, and as far as I could remember it was never properly explained to me so I never understood it.  Unfortunately a lot of Christians today do a less than exemplery job explaining the Bible to the younger generation, which is part of the reason why the evolutionists are converting so many of us.  Here were the conclusions and thought process I had as a child:

God split everyone up?  That doesn’t seem very nice, I wonder he did that?  Oh, it’s because they were building a really tall tower, and it might have reached to Heaven.  God must not like it when people build really tall buildings.  The building must have been even taller than the building that my dad works in and taller than the Arch (St. Louis), because God has never scattered the people downtown with different language.  People had better be careful that they don’t build any really tall buildings or they might be in serious trouble.  I didn’t know you could reach Heaven by building a tall tower, I thought you had to die in order to get there.

I drew a series of conclusions which were all completely wrong.  As a warning to Christian parents, you had better start teaching and explaining more than “Jesus loves me this I know…” to your kids because if they grow up without realizing one can make logical sense out of the Bible they are going to abandon the faith.  But I digress, it is now time for the explanation.

After WWII the Soviet Union moved in and occupied some other countries.  Once there they forced their totalitarian rule and communist way of life on all of the occupied nations.  They also moved to occupy additional countries and spread the communist philosophy through any means possible.  Sometimes through force, sometimes in the form of aid, like the way they supported the communist takeover (Tariki regime) in Afghanistan.  In accordance with communist philosophy, people in the USSR were not permitted to own property, they were told where they could work, what sort of work they could do, wages were fixed, and complaining could lead to death, torture, or life in Siberia.  There was no freedom of speech or expression.  The USSR also attempted to eliminate freedom of thought.  Atheism was the official religion of state, and one of the first things the communists did when they took over was desecrate churches.  Stalin summed up much of his philosophy when he said, “Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.”  Fortunately, the US was able to act as a counterbalance to Russia and was able to mitigate the spread of their power and philosophy to a certain extent, until the USSR eventually collapsed.  Now, suppose that there was no US to mitigate the movements of the USSR?  The world would be a much more difficult place.  As it was, if people could get away from the Soviet Union they had a place of relative safety to flee to.  Now in a one world system where would you go if the regime was opressive or you disagreed with their ideology?  Nowhere, because they rule the whole world.  That is the danger of a one world system, and the less external threats there are to act as counterbalances, the more opressive and totalitarian a regime can and will become.

So here it is, God split them up because they were attempting to form a one world government.  Look at verse six, “And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”  What this means, is that whatever ideas cross the mind of the majority, or it would probably be better to say the ruling regime (because most people don’t come up with their own ideas they adopt what the media and the politicians tell them, most of humanity are followers not leaders), will be implemented no matter how bad they are.  No matter how vile, obscene, or blasphemous, and if you object then under the very best of circumstances you will be ostracized.  How do I know that they would have been that bad?  Well, aside from the fact that any time the state/government gets really powerful things get awful, I also happen to know that they were severely disobeying God (it should also know that this was before the law was given, so it was not easy to disobey God).  In Genesis 9, the first verse God said, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”  I don’t know what the original Hebrew word was but in 1600′s English “replenish” means “fill.”  In Genesis 11:4 the people are saying, “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”  They are deliberately and purposefully going against what God said, and God said it for their own good.  God wanted to give them other alternatives ways of protecting themselves in case a Stalin or Hitler type regime ever arose, and he knew it would eventually.  Furthermore, it is not as though that information was not availible, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were still alive and they heard God when he said this.  So it is evident that there is no way their one world government would ever have amounted to anything good, especially considering the start they had already gotten off to. 

Now keeping in mind that at the Tower of Babel incident they still had Shem, Ham, and Japheth around, and most people still knew about the flood and the Creation event.  Imagine if a one world government were to arise today?