Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog

While randomly enjoying some random intertubes, a friend linked me this with a comment that this guy should be put in his place. I agree, but I don’t think that I have the ability nor position to do so, I just thought I’d run a little commentary on this nasty… I guess technically “article” is the descriptor.

This year will go down in history as the beginning of The Great Collapse Awakening. We have two great opposing forces, never seen before on this planet occurring at the same exact time. On the one hand we have a deepening global great depression, which is in reality a dismantling, or collapsing in disguise. On the other hand, we have at the same time, a great awakening, not only politically, but of the entire human potential emotionally, and spiritually. For the first time in history, humanity is waking up, in mass, to their enslavement by the international banking families. A monumental time in the history of mankind where fundamental choices of how we live will be made on both the international and individual level, by every single person. You will be forced to decide whether you will live in LOVE, or live in FEAR…????

Actually on one hand right now and for the last year, we have a recovering global economy, not a deepening one. The economy always fluctuates, this is normal. I completely disregard this false dichotomy and make the choice to live neither by love or fear but to live by rationality.

Whether you look at small towns, or large cities, across this nation, and around the world, people are waking up to their manipulation by government and corporate entities. One of the top political strategists for the Obama administration, Zbigniew Brezinski, in a 2010 speech before the world elite, said that for the first time in human history mankind is politically awake. I would agree with him, and I would also say that not only are people politically awake, but more and more people are becoming emotionally, and spiritually awake.

What does emotionally and spiritually awake mean? I’m sure it sounds good to some people, but it’s very meaningless without a definition. Does it mean that people can now experience their emotions? I hadn’t known that that had been a problem.

Are you trying to maintain a positive attitude on the inside while all around you your world is crashing down around you? There IS a reason that this generation is the first generation, in recent memory, that could have less than the previous one. The truth is you have been lied to, manipulated, and set up, your entire life. The game was set up way before you were even born. Your parents were lied to also, and their parents before them. While they toiled under these lies, it is only now, in this generation, that ignorance of this system will lead to total disaster. For the power elite that run the game are calling in their cards. This is the pivotal point in history that everything will change. You must wake up. You can regain your vision by learning how to see around their lies. You can be free from those who seek to control you!

Yes, you have been lied to, manipulated and set up by people you’re entire life, so why stop now? Become manipulated and lied to by this douche bag too! Or maybe exclusively if that’s your thing. This is an appeal to fear, which one must remember as it will be important later when this idiot tries to claim that he’s all about love and not persuasion by fear.

Since the dawn of time there has been an ongoing epic battle between the forces of all that is good, loving, and light; and the dark forces, which feed on fear, avarice and evil in men. I have long since chosen which I would stand with. Being on the side of light my heart is often filled with love and a desire to help others who have lost their way. I know, however, that there is an opposing force out there that works in the shadows, plots, and schemes to gather ever more power and control over others.

Such a bold claim should be backed by some heavy evidence, because it’s not a brute fact. Remember the previous sentence where I pointed out the appeal to fear? Well now this guy is putting himself on the “dark forces” side due to his “feed[ing] on fear.” So now he’s clearly against people who feed on fear, while he himself is feeding on fear…

The main objective of those on the darkside is power. The main tool of the darkside is money, not just weapons, and land acquisitions. They are only what money purchases them. You will soon see, if you don’t already know, that these people have long ago acquired all the money they or their families would ever need. Through out history the wealthiest people have been the people who control the money, originally called money changers. It was not long before they amassed greater sums of money than even kings and queens.

This is a very extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary evidence.

Thus what we have occurring is an ongoing battle, or ( at a deeper level ) dance, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. By your actions, or in actions, you will aid one of these forces. The forces of darkness hope you will choose to be silent. They hope to discourage you, or out right scare you into acquiescence. They make it fineable or even criminal to speak out against them.

Yes, that is why this guy is now behind bars and fined into the poor house… because the evil forces won’t let anyone speak out against them…

The events of this year clearly outline this dance between the forces of light and darkness

The Great Collapse is a force being set in motion by the international banking families. It is an attack they are launching on the masses. It is aimed at destroying us physically, mentally, and monetarily. What they call the Great Culling is at the foundation of the strategy. This is their incremental, but purposeful lowering of the world population by 80% – 90%, down to 500 million people. They believe that they can most efficiently control this number of people. Right now, they believe that our numbers are too high, and that eventually would get out of hand, and they would lose any control they might achieve.

Seriously, this is far too many extraordinary claims with no supporting evidence. The economy is getting better showing that the Great Collapse is not working. The banks lowered interest rates down to no gain for a while to help the economy recover, showing that the banks are willing to sacrifice temporary profit for long term stability… which hardly matches the evil doom inspired conspiracy banks as portrayed here. Unless the banks are so amazing that they hide their evil nature by helping and preventing exactly what this douche bag is claiming that they want. Don’t you see it? The very existence of opposing evidence is the evidence that the evidence should lead to the opposite of where the evidence actually leads.

They are carrying out attacks on us at many different levels. Biological attacks are being carried out through the use of vaccines, and the poisoning of our air, food, and water. Vaccines have had limited success, because they are voluntary, however the elite, like Bill Gates, are financing the development of vaccines that can be sprayed in the air, put inside mosquitoes, and inside of food. They will even be sold to people through the pharmaceutical industry as replacements for the costs of continually having to pop pills.

What was that about the “evil” and/or “bad” side using fear? Vaccines have saved billions of lives, to propose that they are being used to kill people is another one of those “evidence that opposes my conclusion is evidence for my conclusion” retarded, bullshit mess of nasty. The poisoning of the air is not from some massive global conspiracy, it’s from normal everyday things like eating, driving and wearing clothes. Bill Gates has donated millions of dollars to prevent the diseases that mosquitoes carry, again more opposite evidence.

Aerial spraying of aluminum, barium, corexit, and many other known toxins are being purposely sprayed on us. Genetically Modified Organisms ( GMO’s) are used in our food supply, often along with known carcinogens. The passage of the so called Food Safety Act will be used to tell us what we can and cannot eat, grow, and sell. It is part of a worldwide plan called Codex Alimentarius, which is part of Agenda 21, which is a UN plan to control the world. If the UN was truly a benevolent body of countries truly seeking to peacefully coexist, it might be one thing, but instead it was developed by a private group of international banking families, meant to centralize their power over the world, to push their agenda for their own interests.

What was that about the bad guys using fear… “[...]and the dark forces, which feed on fear[...]” So he is part of the dark forces trying to feed on fear, don’t trust him. The UN is very far being powerful let alone the one world power.

The amount and understanding of evidence goes up as the level of risk from the claim goes up. If it requires so much evidence just to put a good amount of your money down, imagine how much evidence it would take to believe someone about an eternal soul and eternal damnation. So I’m sorry, but as level of risk involved with being wrong about something increases, the amount and accuracy required of the evidence also increases. Pascal had his wager backwards.

If you’re going to risk your eternal soul, eternal suffering eternal magic man in the sky ass kissing… then you should require the as close to absolute proof as possible. Unfortunately the more you get into definitions for a creator, the farther you get from reasonable evidence.

Let’s say for some reason you’re playing poker and for some reason you put not only all the money you have and all the money from selling your assets on the table for this one hand, you also will end up owing a bookie your life or $10 million. You have no idea what is in your hand, and no idea what is in anyone elses hands. One of the people put all in, if you put all in you’re risking your life and everything you have, for the chance to at least double your money. Given that you have no evidence at all that you will win or even have a chance to win, do you go all in? Probably not. However if you had four kings the decision might be a little more difficult because the chances that someone can beat that hand is extremely low. There is evidence that shows that getting a getting four of a kind are extremely low. Let alone that even if someone else has four of a kind, they still won’t likely beat four kings. I think the decision would be difficult, but the odds of you losing a hand in a fair game with four kings is lower than the chances you’ll die in a car crash. You don’t base your evidence on that someone just said that the odds are extremely good, you base you evidence on what can be mathematically proven, and though you’re playing the odds, in the case of four kings, your odds are almost sure, as close as 99.9%. So: if you’re putting your own life on the line, you don’t trust anyone, you make sure you understand the risks completely and make sure the evidence is as accurate and sure as possible.

Let’s get serious now. If you had to put a good portion of your monthly income and/or your life’s savings at risk, would you still trust your friend without much question? With this kind of value at risk, trust isn’t near enough evidence to be considered reasonable. It doesn’t matter if the person you’re trusting isn’t lying, they could be wrong. Are you willing to risk all that money on the trust that not only your friend isn’t lying but that also he/she is correct? I doubt it. With this level of harm at risk, I would hope you would ask for reasonable evidence. You would need to know how the money would be spent, who is going to be in control, who you could talk to in case you have any questions, the experience of the people in charge… getting to the point: When the risk of a claim being wrong (or right) will cause significant harm, a good amount of evidence is required to support the claim.

Let’s say you’re looking for something that has a moderate value, you would probably require moderate evidence. Say you’re asking your nerd buddy whether you should install Linux or not. Now if your friend is lying is to you, this will cause some minor irritation so instead of no evidence, you should ask for at least some kind of evidence. So your friend goes on and on about how awesome Linux is and how some versions are easier for newbs and you can even play most Windows games easily in Linux… blah, blah, blah. You take him at his word because you trust him. I think that with this level of importance, trust is a perfectly decent level of evidence. Because: 1) if your friend is lying, it does little harm, maybe a day of wasted time and 2) your friend is usually right when it comes to computers. Anyway: trust is only a good enough form of evidence if the trust in the claim will likely only cause a little bit of harm.

We’ve all played monopoly, and the system the banks work on is similar. The game they play is basically moving money from one tycoon to another and its all about gaining property, whether intellectual or not. The difference is that the government and regular people are the only ones who actually pay. And big banks are the player in charge of the bank/imf/national bank and there’s a screen in front of them so noone knows if the banks are playing fair.

The burden of proof is essentially the responsibility of the party that claims something to be true to provide the evidence that led to that conclusion. It is also often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think we can give a quick judgment as to whether the evidence satisfies the requirement by just evaluating how much the claim is useful to us.

On the low value end the burden and evidence requirements are almost unnecessary. If some one comes up to you and tells you that they had a tuna sandwich for lunch, you wouldn’t require evidence of any kind. Why not? Because it’s not important or useful. Even if the person were lying, it doesn’t affect you at all. Maybe a tiny bit if just the mention of the sandwich gives you a little craving for one. The point is: if the claim has little to no use to you, you require little to no evidence.

If someone comes up to you and says I don’t believe in unicorns, it doesn’t matter at all to you because whether the person believes in a mythological creature or not doesn’t affect your life. It affects it even less of the person doesn’t believe. It requires no evidence at all to say that you don’t hold a claim. The thing is that there are those that will try to claim that the lack of belief in a certain god (the one they irrationally believe in), causes harm and therefore should be fixed. The claim that no belief in something causes harm is a positive claim that requires evidence, while just saying that you don’t believe somethings requires no evidence.

Of course in the end, I have no problems and don’t demand any evidence of those that keep their beliefs to themselves. If I go around telling people they should believe in any god, you’d be damned sure that I’m going to be bringing in evidence and logic to the conversation, just as I demand of those that go around telling me that I need to believe in a god.

I have been having discussion about how we as a free society should handle the thinly veiled threats and violence coming from Muslim extremists. I’ve heard people say we should respond with violence, that we should start an effort to remove them from the free world and in extreme nutters, to remove them from the world. Well fuck those intolerant assholes. Not just the intolerant Muslims, but the anti-Muslims as well.

The Muslim extremists want violence, they want threats, it’s the best way for them to recruit and rally members. The extremists are telling their followers that the outside world wants to destroy them, the very best way to ensure that people will keep listening to the idiot, fear mongers is to show them violence. Think of it from your perspective, would you follow someone saying “they’re making fun of us, let’s go kill them” or “they’re killing us, let’s defend ourselves?”

I will not stand by and just let these religious Muslim idiots silence free speech with fear, but I’m a long way from going out and attacking someone because they’re afraid I’m going to attack them. Take away the extremists tool of fear and their followers will eventually stop listening to them. But if you’re go and do exactly what these extremists say we will do… well then they will continue to listen to the the extremist fucks.

The best way to handle the threats of violence and acts of violence is stand tall and respond with non-violent, non-threatening, fearless resolve. Don’t stop practicing your free speech by never criticizing their beliefs, but don’t go around threatening and attacking them.

No one’s beliefs should be protected from criticism and/or satire. If some comedian starts telling people how ridiculous my “Belief” in gravity is, I have no problem with that. They can make fun of gravity till bovine meander back to their place of living and I won’t care a lick. Why then is it not ok to make fun of or criticize ones belief in god?

Maybe that’s not in the same line of reasoning, as drawing and mocking Mohamed is more of a rule than just the belief in something. So if someone comes up and tells me how silly it is to practice free speech or just to criticize it, I don’t care. I won’t force others to practice free speech, they can if they want to. Why then is it ok to limit my ability to make fun of something I see as an irrational belief? I make fun of people that think that the world is flat (yes, some of them are still around). I make fun of people that think that a space ship is hiding behind a comet and that they must kill themselves in order to hitch a ride (because they forgot their towels?).

Now an example switched to my point of view: When I was very young I had the belief that atom bombs were called mushroom bombs because they used mushrooms and that the use of the mushrooms is what caused the shape of the explosion. So when some jerk started making fun of me, it deeply offended and hurt me. But after that I realized that if any idea I had could not stand up to scrutiny and satire, then I had no right in believing it in the first place.

If someone gets offended by anything I say, draw or type then they have that right, what they don’t have a right to do is to prevent me from saying, drawing or typing it by means of intimidation, making it a law or killing me. The point is, no idea should beyond the limits of satire and criticism. There is no sacred cow in the realm of free speech.

Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog

Recorded: 2010-04-30

Aaron: Deadly Tornado Kills 10 in Miss.
Aaron: Good Samaritan Left for Dead on City Sidewalk
Aaron: Survey: 72% of Millennials ‘more spiritual than religious’
Aaron: Swastikas Smeared in Beans Found on Capitol Grounds
Aaron: Birthers Plan To Storm Washington
Aaron: SF Officials Ban City Worker Travel To Arizona
Aaron: Suntanned women to be arrested under Islamic dress code
Aaron: Arizona agency seeks federal help on immigration law
Nicole: AZ Residents Planning Counter Boycott
Nicole: Man Doesn’t Eat Or Drink
Aaron: “America is #1.”
Aaron: FAA To Airlines: No More…
Aaron: Men in Nazi Garb
Aaron: How Rude!
Aaron: Floating Prison…

Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog [ 53:28 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download