Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree, LS Meet

Change the world...

1) What would you do to change the world at large?

(Abolish poverty, nuke the vatican, prevent stupid people from breeding, put a big fence around the USA, stop global warming, etc)

2) What would you like me to write an webpage about?

  • 1
The big fence around the us is an interesting idea, but I think it should be a big glass greenhouse style fence, so they can cause as much global warming as they like, all it would affect is themselves...

I like that, it's got a poetic ring to it!

I wonder how long the US government would continue to deny that global warming was real, as they roasted and the rest of the world didn't...

The USA (in 1990) produced 36% of the worlds' greenhouse gasses, and has only 4% of the worlds' population. With the USA in it's own little greenhouse, the rest of the world would be somewhat healthier!

In comparison, the combined total of all EU countries has a a higher percent of population (6.3% of the world), but still produces less CO2 and greenhouse gases than the USA. It's a deplorable and confusing state where the worlds' superpower sets such an ignorant, dangerous and bad example.

But that's the USA... as they say in the Armed Forces, "The USA has all the gear and no idea!"

(Deleted comment)
Don't forget that the USA /citizens/ are very good with recycling househould waste... I think it's not that 'the people' don't care, but that they only have limited influence over the government, which, incidentally, doesn't care.

The USA came 33rd in the world in my "Environmental" category on

The UK is one of the worst recycers of household waste (The opposite of the USA: our citizens don't care, but our government does)

Anyway have a hug, come join us at Snowball HQ ( ) and help us MAKE the world better!

No 2)

German music festivals, and decent gigs happening near you...


That way I might be tempted to visit.

BTW Am going to two of the Dark Mystery nights in October. Can you and the missus be tempted to come along?

Oh and you'd probably also have Alan tempted to join you if you posted details of stuff happening near you, be it in Holland or Germany.

Very unlikely! We'll only be getting into Germany to settle down in late October, and all our house stuff will arrive at that point! I don't know if we'll be in a state to venture out... but, our plans aren't quite set yet so maybe.

On the website, the dates appear to stop in September... any idea when in October you're going?

If you look at the second link from the left

28th and 29th October.
I think the lineup is Schandmaul, Saltatio mortis, Cultus Ferox and Faun.

A few of the dates got cancelled, so you need to be aware of that as the Leipzig one looked very tempting and that got cancelled :-(

I would replace the social services system with a national minimum income tied to national gdp. This has the benefits of hassling people less and also puts the Paulines of the world out of a job.

Re: What Would Dave Do?

Who are the "Paulines of the world"?

If you wage is low you can apply for benefits the same as you can when unemployed, to take you up to the national minimum wage, so I think what you're proposing is already done.

I don't see how we could remove social services system though; that system includes child welfare watchdogs and all sorts that you can't just get rid of.

Would abolishing poverty mearly change what people concider to be poverty?
In the UK if you don't have a TV most would concider you to be in poverty.

The Vatican's a lovely building I'd just kick the pope out to a vicarage somewhere or maybe a monastry. Then I'd allow the church to continue using it as long as they were prepared to share.

I wouldn't prevent stupid people from being born. I brave new world audious huxly pointed out that if you don't have people of different levels of abolity everyone will want the top jobs and the people doing the bottom jobs wil be even more unhppy and dangerous to socioty.
Think of socioty like a prison. We are taught in Screw school that one method of stopping people escapeing is to reduce thier desier to by ensureing the prison does not make them any more unhappy than strictly nessesary. The same could be alpied to socioty.

As for a fence around the US I'd just like to devise a system by wich each country suffered the eclogical effects of it own polution and didn't get to share the effects with other countries.

"Would abolishing poverty mearly change what people concider to be poverty?
In the UK if you don't have a TV most would concider you to be in poverty."

Yes, obviously people can only think of "poverty" relative to their own culture. If you raise standards, the standards of what "poverty" is would also rise. Seems like common sense... there is no universal definition of what it means to be in "poverty" although the UN does publish documents on what the "minimum requirements" are to live life in the world - i.e., quantity of clean water needed per day, quantity of food, etc.

The question was ... "What would you do to change the world at large?"; is abolishing poverty your answer or did you have something else in mind? Make furry body modifications a real (practical) possibility!

Unfortunately many developing countries don't have the technology to utilize green industry until *after* going through a very dirty industrialisation phase. It wouldn't be right to enforce such a country-by-country rule, because what would happen is that modern industrial countries would be able to cope with putting green industry into practice, whereas poor countries wouldn't. It'd make the overall situation worse; poor countries would then suffer more! Rich countries need to help the poor ones develop their industry in a green way (the UN is doing lots of work in this area), and as such it's not entirely fair to make them suffer for their pollution *after* we got away with ours!

But I know what you mean... how about *developed* countries should suffer for their own pollution (in other words: The Kyoto Protocol)! That way, as developing countries mature, then will feel real pressure to go green otherwise they'll start suffering too...

What I'm saying with poverty is that you can't abolish it because it will always catch up to where you are. It is of course not a bad thing to aim to raise the minimum standard of life exsperienced by people

As for the furry body mods, Yes but only for women dateing me and carefuly sellected freinds.

Finaly, What makes you think that if all nations suffered the effects of thier own pollution britan would "Get away with ours" I'm honestly not that optimistic that we would even if there was nobody else to blame or a stuborn superpower refuseing to do thier part.

1) I like snowball_einen's idea. I think entitlement should be a given for human beings, and yes, that does include TV as well as enough income for housing, food and basic needs. Equal access and choice in health care should be guaranteed by the government. If sustenance were a given for every citizen, all of society would benefit by a reduction in crime and less likelihood of contracting diseases.

As far as stupid people, they would present something of a problem under this entitlement system as it would have to be altered to acknowledge their incompetence. I'm talking about the kind of people who have children and buy few or no groceries, but use their money for tattoos and such, each of which costs enough to buy groceries for a week. This happens here. Some kind of management assistance would be required for this kind of thing.

I think a big part of the cause of all of America's problems is the notion that human beings have no inherent worth and are not entitled to anything without performance and contribution to a system of deprivation, foolish values and foolish spending.

2) Maybe you can write a webpage about how many progressively-inclined people who speak about freedom and justice demand that others agree with their views. They speak of freedom, but they mean freedom to agree with what they say is politically correct. They make lots of noise and don't seem to me to be much better than the side they are opposing. They actually keep their opposers silent, so that both views are not disclosed and open to the interpretation of others.

TV is dubious, it harms more than it does good, people can choose to buy a TV if they want, but it is *far* from a necessity that should be factored into social welfare. Just like cigarrettes and alcohol... you can't go adding such unhealthy things to government welfare when they're harmful to the people you're trying to help.

Everyone in the developed world (apart from the USA) has choice in health care already! You are legally allowed to switch GPs, to go private if you want, if you *have* to the NHS will pay for private cover for certain things if the NHS should otherwise do them. This is true in nearly all developed countries.

Unfortunately though, these materialistic things are not the main cause of crime, most criminals do not stop committing crimes just because they have TVs and basic needs; social inhibitions need to be taught and leart, it is upbringing that most affects crime.

Some people do need "lifestyle gurus" in order to live life sensibly. Some people are naturally inferior, crap people and will never get better. If you give them money, they are as likely to cause a nuisance as they are without money. Such delinquents are a problem in modern society. Solutions have been tried of every kind; the problem persists in many Western countries: although more in the USA, UK, than in say good countries like Sweden, Switzerland, etc

America has a relatively good record with regards to human worth. The EU has the best record and by proxy the UN does, so I don't know where you're coming from when you say America's problem is that people don't have inhereht worth. Life has been granted much much less worth in previous centuries and across the world than it is in most developed countries now. Your comment on America seems skewed, and odd; the USA is at the moment travelling /backwards/ in terms of it's appreciation of human worth, but, it is still better than half the world.


Could you give an example of the type of "politically correct" things that you're talking about, and perhaps an example of a progressive someone who "demands" that others agree with their views?

I have little familiarity with countries outside of America, but am bothered that we have many people without access and choice in health care and many homeless people. Prior to the '80s, we had a fairly good social welfare system, and many children had stay-at-home moms thanks to that system. Many more people had access to health care, paid for by the government, in those days. In the '80s, the system was overhauled with the intention of getting everyone working, even those not fit to work, and leaving many children with no parents at home. Many of the former welfare mothers spent a good part of their pay on child care, and the government too was glad to subsidize child care so long as it kept mom in the workforce. I don't think that's a good thing, and think it declares that children are not worthy enough to have a full-time parent. Nowadays, most moms are not at home, and we've developed a very expensive (and inferior in my view) child care industry. There are many families with low-paying jobs and no access to health care.

There are some things that are not easy to speak out against, if one doesn't want to be verbally attacked or "corrected". To have an opinion outside of the "right" one is "offensive". In fact, I hesitate to give an example for that reason, but one example is the notion that everyday emotions such as sadness (which are part of the human condition) are an illness that needs to be treated. The disease depression is a relatively new invention, and one that serves the mental health industry very well. It is more acceptable to take an expensive and dangerous medication than to suggest that a person's mind is actually strong enough to handle normal emotions without outside assistance.

The USA does have a homeless problem, true. So does the UK, but the homeless here have more rights and are given more charity than in the USA. Obviously the homeless situation in wartorn parts of the world is massively worse than you can imagine; so the USAs troubles are pretty small in comparison to areas of the world actually experiencing that level of poverty.

I can't find any stats about levels of homelessness, I was going to put a chart here. Ah well!

OK, I see the type of problem you're talking about. The common sense solution is that people shouldn't have children unless they're in a position to look after them well. Unfortunately, people are shit and don't think reasonably much of the time.

Mental Health Drugs Industry:
There has been lots of modern academic criticism against the drugs industry in the West for the thing you mention; and criticism from human welfare watchdogs too. What you're talking about is not items that are "politically correct" but things that are "sacred cows". A sacred cow that is something that it is seen as wrong to question (it's like a taboo, but less personal). The depression drugs industry had, ten years ago, become a sacred cow, but over the last few years there has been lots of criticism made of it for the reasons you give. People who are genuinely medically depressed would get angry if you criticize the industry using poorly chosen words, but just out of compassion you have to phrase things carefully. But the criticism of the industry can still be made - and frequently is.

I recall reading such a criticism in The Guardian (a respectable intellctual newspaper, UK), and also in The Economist, both early this year.

I never really knew the right use of the term sacred cow until you explained it, although I've heard it used before. I'm going to take a look at those newspapers too, as I'm always glad to find good and new reading material.

Anonymous 7

Why in the world do most of you people want your governments to be almost in control of your entire lives????? And involved in them? That is what is GREAT about the United States! For the most part, they stay out of and do not regulate your life. Yes, there are a lot of people who commit crimes, do stupid things, etc., BUT at least they don't have their government controlling their lives. TRUE FREEDOM is being able to make choices, good or bad, for yourself and, of course, you take the consequences of those actions. Yes, the United States is capitalistic, but at least you get to choose whether you want to work hard and make money or sit around and be lazy and expect someone else to take care of you, which won't happen in most cases. So, be a hard worker and succeed or be lazy and unproductive and be poor. At least its your choice. As far as the United States and its environmental policies, we may be a little lax in that area, but the world is set for destruction and will end as we know it one day anyhow. So, why in the world are you trying to postpone the inevitable at the expense of creating jobs, etc.??? I say the government needs to stay out of your life as much as possible. People need to be responsible for their own lives. If you start letting your governments take over your lives, I believe you will be sorry at some point. Plus, this world and its people will NEVER be perfect, so, therefore, you cannot create a HEAVEN on this earth and make it a perfect environment. Only the one and true God will lead you to paradise/perfect environment, which is heaven, after He destroys this world at the set time. All you need to do is accept Jesus Christ as your Savior for the payment of your sin(s). Then you will be in that perfect environment, at the appointed time, forever and ever. :>

1. No-one I know of in developed world, apart from extremist idealists, wants a government in charge of peoples' lives. People naturally rebel against authoritarianism anyway, so it wouldn't work.

2. What "you people" are you talking about? Give some examples?

3. If you are going to make a point, at least give some examples hinting at what you're talking about. What governments, controlling whose lives? In what way? Are you talking economics? Politics, like the way the USA forces it's citizens into single-minded patriotic faux-democratic capitalism? Employment law, where the EU is quite heavy, or domestic law, where China *wants* to be heavy, but is largely incapable? Give examples man, you could be talking about *anything*!

4. The more you allow people to do nothing, the larger the problem you have of state welfare vampires. It is right to have a meritocracy where people are rewarded for hard work, socially and financially. But it is also right for the government to provide health care for those who can't afford it.

5. You think with a short-term mind about the environment; you wouldn't raise your kids to "eat McDonals! Who wants to be fit later in life, anyway?", you'd teach them to look after their bodies. The Earth is *our* body, everyone's, and the USA irresponsibly and stupidly continues to contaminate the planet at a rate massively out of proportion to it's economy and population.

6. You talk of Christianity, yet in Geneis we are COMMANDED not to "dominate" the world, but to be it's caretaker. We are TOLD in YOUR Bible to look after the Earth, to be it's shephard. The USA is setting the worst example, therefore, and I am shocked that you, a Christian, can stand by it in any way when it comes to the environment.

7. No-one thinks you can create a heaven on this Earth, especially no-one involved in politics or social engineering. Who are you talking of when you're saying "you" cannot create a Heaven on this Earth? Are you talking about the USAs idealism of capitalism, Japan's reliance on technology and family values, European value of intelligence, or Islamic proponency of stalwart defiance? Which of these are you saying is an attempt to create Heaven on Earth? Would you care to quote an organisation or person who is trying to do this?

In short, your text was next-to-meaningless due to it's lack of specificity; your claims were largely nothing but street-level gossip and stereotypes, and your attacks of whatever you were attacking were at best confusing, and at worst plain ignorant.

The New Testament contains parables where people were given coins to invest... I suggest you read them; consider the Earth our investment, and tell me what you think the God of YOUR bible thinks you should do with it?

Re: Anonymous 7

I guess to cut to the chase of what I was really trying to say and should have, is that yes, to a certain amount God put us "humans" in charge of the earth and we should try to take care of it well to some measure. I don't, personally, believe in purposely and carlessly destroying the earth. However, my God teaches me that I am to worship the "creator", not the "creation." So, humans come above animals, trees, cows, etc. Get the picture? My God (and yours too whether you believe in Him or not) gave us the earth and everyting He put on it for our pleasure and use. Yes, we should not blatanly "abuse" it, but it's not the most important thing in God's eye. As a Christ/God Follower and the follower of His Word (Bible), my biggest concern is for human souls (not the environment) and to bring God's Word to them and tell all people of the earth about God's Gift of eternal life and His plan for them and all people, etc. It is God's desire for everyone to be in Heaven with Him and my job and biggest concern is to tell everyone the way to heaven. That's God's biggest concern and that's mine. I know this is all lost on you and almost everyone who comes to your site, but I do pray for you all. Because you and I will die some day and, contrary to what you believe, you will spend eternity in hell or heaven. Also, God will destroy this earth at His appointed time. (That's why the earth is not what we should be most concerned about saving.) As a Christian, my biggest concern for people is where they are going to spend eternity. That is also God's biggest concern. We are only here for maybe 70-80 years. That's a nano second compared to eternity. So, do you see where I'm coming from now? As for other countries and their policies on poor people, environment, etc., I know some are better at it than others. I really don't care who is better at it because God puts leaders into authority and it is what it is. God has a plan and I don't question it even if I can't see what the outcome is ahead of time; however, I know it will be for His good and it will be perfect, right and just. As to other countries trying to control peoples' lives, the UN and EU are heading down that road and taking people along and they don't even realize it. They plan to control the world. Actually, I do believe that will happen and one man will arise to power who will control the whole world. I do believe that person will be from the EU. That person will be the anti-Christ. No, I'm not on drugs or delusional or in a "cult." All of of God's prophetic Word is setting on the world stage as of now. I will not be here for it, but you may if you continue in your disbelief. You can throw insults at me about not having all the "facts" on world economies, etc. I am a pretty well read person and keep track of world events, policies, etc. However, when I watch and read what's going on, I'm watching for something you are not. I'm watching for the unfolding of Biblical Prophecy and I'm sure of one thing and one thing only, and that is God's Word is true and unfolding before my eyes. That's why it's so urgent for me and all true Christ Followers to get out now and evangelize the world. You see, I have a true concerned heart for the "lost" and I'm more concerned about your soul and everyone who is lost. I just want to see you and everyone I meet in heaven. I love you all with the love of God. So, when you talk about the importance of saving trees, the ozone layer, saving gas, rain forests, etc., it just escapes me as being top on the list of things we should be worried about. Now, do you see where I'm coming from? I'm not saying you have to agree (I pray you do some day), but just understand where my biggest concern lies with you and all people on the earth, I care about your eternal destination more than anything! :>

Let's see...

1. Destroy the UN and the worthless pile of dictator-loving anti-semitic socialists within.

2. Nuke Mecca and Medina and any other holdout of 7th-century barbarians.

3. Launch large scale colonisation of the Solar System.

4. Tell Europe to wise up - socialism has never worked and never will

5. Stop using Oil completely and use Nuclear Power instead.

Straight from the hip!

1. The UN is my baby, and you 'aint getting anywhere near it. The UN has an excellent record on race rights and anti-discrimination, why do you call it anti-semitic? I guess it's because they're civilized enough to be appalled by the way Israel behaves, but this is not anti-semitism (which implies race prejudice), but politics plain and simple.

2. Right on. I'm going to get the Nato Stock Number for a nuke and demand a few, you get the launcher!

3. A winner; obviously you'll need people who are technically adept and fit, so we can leave all the losers behind.

4. Well, whatever it is you're talking about seems to be working; Europe hosts many of the best and most advanced countries in the world in terms of human rights, technology, etc. I'm thinking of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, the UK is pretty technologically advanced (and has a big Army)... although the USA and Japan dwarf us with their economies. Our governments are largely people-orientated (socialism), not money orientated (USA style!), so we tend to do better at human rights and civil powers, and worse at economy. I prefer it this way. Unless when you say "socialism" you've thrown me.

5. Definately. Although we might have to send stored nuclear waste off into the stars. It'll come back one day and strike the Earth, killing all the stupid people we've left behind! Oh the horror...

The UN is my baby, and you 'aint getting anywhere near it. The UN has an excellent record on race rights and anti-discrimination, why do you call it anti-semitic?

Firstly, the General Assembly has a history of passing blatantly anti-semitic resolutions ("zionism is racism anyone"), of pandering to terrorists (Arafat addressing the General Assembly with a holster), and the UN itself has been caught out on many occasions directly funding terrorists (e.g. and the recent scandal about UN funding badges claiming that Israel had to leave Jerusalem).

To paraphrase Abba Eban:

"If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

Secondly, the UN is transnational progressivism at its worst. John Bolton had it right when he said that no one would care if most of the UN disappeared.

Let's face it, it has been a complete and utter failure since 1953.

Re: Brilliant! From Anonymous 7

You are all trying to "force" people into a certain mold ... will not work. EVER

Re: Brilliant! From Anonymous 7

Who are? And, what mould?

You mean, like forcing people into capitalism? Where the non-skilled are powerless, the scum, hated? Or focing them into communism, where the conscientous work hard and get little reward or encouragement to continue? Or are you talking about forcing people into democracy where you have to vote, and understand politics, or be powerless?

All people are forced into various things or other... it's just that us democratic minded people pretend that we've not been forced. We have, our governments are just better at presenting themselves than dictatorships.

In short, you don't need to sign your posts "Anon. 7" anymore, because it seems consistently clear from the character of your random assertions that you're some kind of political mystic, who likes saying intelligent-sounding comments that don't actually apply to anything.

Say something that makes sense, that *applies* to the real world, please!

"'Nucular'. It's pronounced 'nucular'."

1) All I would ask for is a magical cluebat and the permission to whack people over the head with it. A lot of problems could be solved if people would only just stop being so daft.

2) Hats! You don't have one about hats yet!

  • 1

Log in