Trump won, liberals lost, suck it up.

It takes pride of place on the news - liberals and Muslims protesting against Trump. The LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) and artistic communities are outraged. It seems the whole of the film industry had their haemorrhoids prolapse and thrombose. Not surprisingly, this motley lot is joined by many politicians from many countries declaring their condemnation for what Trump is doing. At the same time, this sorry lot, the politicians included, are displaying their hypocrisy in the media of the world. Liberals are always loudly in favour of democracy, except if the vote goes against them.

Furthermore, this sorry lot is also displaying to the world that they are sore losers. They whine and complain and carry on like a hypochondriac told there's nothing wrong with her. This is really very bad style. When did conservatives go on like this after they had lost an election? I can't recall them ever taking to the streets and making such a sorry spectacle of themselves. Shame on you liberals. But come to think about it, this is just what can be expected of you, given you are such sore losers and hypocrites. My advice to you is to act with style and dignity - very hard for two-faced liberals. Suck it up. Prepare for the next election. Who knows, maybe...

And as for the Muslims, what did you expect? There are very few things as well established on this Earth as the link between Islam and terrorism. Don't try to convince us that Islam is a religion of peace - the evidence says differently. First convince your fellow Muslims of it and get them to act on this Islam is a religion of peace, which, given the present facts, only the most obtuse will believe. Maybe then it won't be dangerous having Muslims around.

Against Democracy

There are only two things wrong with democracy. They are:

• Those who vote
• Those they vote for

Those who vote

The average intelligence of the general population of every country is average. But don't let the word average fool you. It really means that on average, humanity's as thick as two short planks. When it comes to voting, the small percentage of intelligent people doesn't matter. Those who matter are the great unwashed. And this group has only a tenuous grip on reality. We all know the Greeks have been living beyond their means on borrowed money for years. When it finally caught up with them and they needed to curb their lifestyles and get their hands dirty and work, they demonstrated and had protest marches. They wanted to keep on living beyond their means on borrowed money forever and ever. How they saw that as possible, they didn't say.

When the French government recently wanted to introduce legislation to make French industry more competitive by giving greater power to employers, the French took to the streets. They demanded that their jobs stay highly paid, secure and with generous perks. They didn't say how they planned to be competitive with mostly Eastern countries where workers don't have it so well.

The whole democracy issue is best summarised by a quote attributed to Robert Heinlein; Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree. Benjamin Franklin said much the same; When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. And this is the crux of the matter, the great unwashed will want what they want irrespective of whether what they want is reasonable and realistic. And they will vote for those promising them what they want.

In Australia, young people from all over the world come on extended holidays. They don't have much money, so they stay in modest accommodation known as backpacker lodges. They themselves are referred to as backpackers. Many of them take up menial work to supplement their funds, mostly things like fruit picking in season. Australians don't want to do this kind of work. As much of this work is on a cash basis, the government doesn't get what they regard as their fair share of this money. Just now, on TV, a politician, maybe the relevant minister, talked about financing government. Back-packers featured prominently. The government considered introducing a flat tax on them, but reconsidered as they thought it would discourage backpackers coming to Australia and doing really essential work and spending some money here. This politician bemoaned the fact that Australians won't take up this work, in which case these workers would be on the books and could be taxed. In addition, these people would then not rely on Centrelink to keep them in the pink and in booze with enough left over for the horses, the poker machines (pokies), and the many kinds of sports betting available in Australia. This politician said the government is deliberating how they can change things so that Australians will take up these jobs.

Of course, laws could be changed to implement Paul's dictum : The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. But that will ensure that whichever party is in opposition will promise to undo these changes if they come into power. The opposition will then be elected at the next election as sure as politicians have very generous perks. It is, therefore, safe to say that Australians won't take up this lowly paid, hard work. Legalise compulsory higher wages for this work and the products generated won't be competitive in the world markets.

Working mothers of newborns in Australia can get paid parental leave amounting to AUD672.60 per week before tax for a maximum of 18 weeks. 18 Weeks amount to four months. Not only can new mothers get paid parental leave, there is also a Dad and Partner paid parental leave for the same amount, but only for two weeks. Needless to say, there is a clamour to make these perks even more generous.

And that's not all, Domestic Violence Leave is also much in play in Australia. In fact, the perpetrators may be entitled to paid domestic violence leave . This will surely make Australia more competitive in the world's markets and ensure jobs into the future.

In Australia, like in much of the West, manufacturing is on the ropes. The export of manufacturing jobs to Eastern countries is going strong, however. It's widely accepted that the car manufacturing industry will go. All the remaining three big manufacturers will close in either 2016 or 2017. In fact, the Ford factory closed on Friday the 7th of October 2016. The story is very similar to the British Motor Industry. Jaguar is owned by the Indian Car Manufacturer, Tata, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited is owned by BMW, Austin is gone, Morris is gone, and the list goes on and on. Recently, a contract for new railway carriages for the NSW railways went to South Korea, despite the fact that there is a concern that manufactures rolling stock in Newcastle, NSW. The relevant government said that the South Korean bid was 25% lower and that there are no quality concerns. In fact, as regards to quality... Thank the unions, thank democracy. For a while, the workers had it very good. But they were, as the great unwashed always is, unable to see what was real and sustainable and what was only a socialist dream leading to a rude awakening. As there was so little brain to wash, brainwashing them was an easy job. Pie in the sky seemed so real.

The only qualification needed to vote is to have reached the voting age. As if age brings intelligence.

When all is said and done, a true democracy where the great masses get their wishes is nothing but mob rule.

Those getting the votes

Before an aspirant politician can become a fully fledged politician, he or she must get enough votes to be elected. That means he or she must be able to convince enough of the great unwashed to vote for him. That means, first of all, he must maneuver himself into a position to become a candidate for the party with the best chance of winning his constituency. Of course, he may stand as an independent, but that greatly diminishes his chances of getting elected. All that is needed depends on appearances. The ability to get elected has nothing to do with the ability to manage a country or part thereof. A minister of a portfolio needs no knowledge of his portfolio. A hairdresser is often better qualified for her job than a minister of a portfolio for his portfolio. The people attracted to politics are by nature snake oil salesmen and women - all they need to do is to charm and smooth talk enough people to support them when they need that support. They must know how to lead the fickle great unwashed by its collective dirty snout. The ones who can see through them don't matter. There are too few of those.

Democracy is not to be found in any field needing knowledge. How would you feel if the surgeon going to operate on you were elected by the great unwashed from among any group of candidates who thought they'd like the pay of a surgeon? Say the pilot of the plane in which you're going to fly were also elected. And the engineers who designed and supervised the building of the huge bridge that's supposed to carry hundreds of thousands of cars a day had been elected. How come it's fine that those at the head of a country need no knowledge? All they need is enough of the great unwashed to vote for them. Does this make sense?

Being so dependent on the fickle masses makes a politician vulnerable. Anybody who can deliver on anything that can sway the great unwashed will have much influence with a politician. Enter the lobbyists who control too few votes to make a difference at election time but have enough money which a cunning politician can use to sway votes his way.

A few months ago, the NSW state government banned dog racing when it was discovered that there was much animal cruelty involved in it. Of course, there was the usual outcry by those involved in this shady (gambling) industry. Just today (11 October 2016), TV news reported that the NSW government was going to reverse this ban. I immediately wondered what the gambling bosses did to engineer the reversing of this ban. Of course, we can expect no in depth reporting on what happened behind the scenes. There will be the usual claptrap providing a reason - stepped up supervision, promises to eradicate cruelty from the industry, etc. But what will be offered won't be the real reason. The nature of elected government officials is such that by far the majority of people in whichever country expect them to behave dishonestly. It is no surprise therefore that people are sceptical in a situation such as this.

By far the majority of elected officials desperately want to keep their jobs. They want to remain where the pickings are rich and the pasture is lush. To succeed in this, they must convince the voting cattle to give them enough votes come election time. And for the voting cattle, being who they are, it's all about appearances. And the politicians, being who they are, appearances is the one thing about which they are very good. Reality takes a back seat.

Politicians will do whatever is needed to stay in the pound seats - collude with whoever can turn the odds their way, promise the voting cattle whatever is needed to make them vote for the party or politician concerned, even if it will bankrupt the country or kill off industry. Ask the Greeks and the English.

What else?

Most people will now ask, what is better than democracy? There is something, a country with a clear constitution and with laws flowing from that constitution. The biggest part of this constitution will be the same for all countries as people are people. There will be parts addressing the particular circumstances of the individual countries. This constitution should address everything, like the best way the particular country can be economically viable, given its strenghts and weaknesses. The constitution should embody what is best for the country and the people, not what the hoi polloi wants.

The above will never happen, though. It will prevent predators, like gambling bosses, booze barons, drug pushers, confidence tricksters and whore masters preying on the all too prevalent simple minded. And the simple minded will always be there in great numbers and those eager to prey on them, too. So, don't hold your breath. This is a world of predators and prey, with the blessing of the government of whichever country you are in.

Scientists and Logic

It's to be expected that your average person should make logical mistakes in his arguments. It's even to be expected that those with training in the arts, humanities, philosophy, theology and other non-scientific disciplines should make mistakes in logic. But I'm disappointed to see people with scientific training make mistakes in logic. And they do. Much more often than I would like to see. It's like seeing a man parking badly - they're letting the side down.

Still, it seems they are just like everybody else; if something is in line with what they believe, they demand little or no evidence before accepting it. But if it is in any way contrary to what they believe nothing but absolute mathematically certain evidence will do. And in most cases not even that.

Stephen Hawking said: "on the face of it, life does seem to be too unlikely to be just a coincidence." Then he goes on, trying to find ways to show that what he just said is not true, after all. He invokes parallel universes to get past the astronomical odds against 'just by chance.' There is absolutely no evidence supporting parallel universes. The astronomical odds are a certainty. Stephen Hawking should know one cannot invoke speculation as evidence to change a factual reality. One can also not invoke what amounts to magic - here we are, so it must have happened. Is Stephen Hawking so committed to atheism that he abandons logic to defend it? What a disappointment.

I'm reading a book called Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout by Patrick Moore. Patrick Moore has a PhD in environmental science. While attending a conference in Nairobi, he had a Damascus Road experience. He saw that Greenpeace was a movement more in line with ideals and convictions than reality. In fact, he went over to the other side to such an extent that he even doubts that man-made green-house gases are in any way responsible for the documented increase in global temperatures. He does not doubt the increase in green-house gases and the global heating up, just the connection between the two. He uses the analogy of the correlation between increased ice-cream consumption and an increase in shark attacks on humans. He does mention that there is no known direct connection between ice-cream consumption and shark attacks, which is of course true. There is no evidence that either humans having eaten ice-cream or ice-cream itself attracts sharks. However, Patrick Moore should know this is not an apt analogy to use to illustrate the connection between an increase of hot house gases and an increased global temperature - it is well known that hot house gases prevent heat from being lost. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that the increase in hot house gases is at least to some extent responsible for the increased global temperature. There may be other candidates also responsible for this, like sun spots. But in the absence of other candidates as clearly related to a temperature increase as hot house gases, it is justified to declare hot house gases the number one contender for the lion's share of the responsibility for the increased global temperature. This is not rocket science. I cannot see why Patrick Moore and others can't see this.

Patrick Moore is also heavily into atheism and evolution. Nevertheless, he says he bases his realities on science. In his own words: "The real strength of science is that it is based on two things: observable facts that can be repeated and logic." Then he goes on to say, not on the same page, of course, that whales come from hippopotamus-like animals that swam down rivers, ended up in the oceans and became whales. In the light of the total absence of any evidence for this, this qualifies as complete nonsense. Where are the "observable facts that can be repeated" that is his requirement for anything to be established as a fact? Or is such nonsense acceptable to him because it supports evolution? One should be consistent.

As for evolution, the starting point of evolution is the development of life purely by chance. If this cannot happen, evolution does not even get out of the starting blocks. The Internet is full of discussions about this. Everybody agrees that the chance of life coming about by random chance is less than one out of a figure bigger than the number of all the atoms in the Universe. Evolutionists have a few ways they try to get past that, among those life seeded from outer space (but how did life get there?) or the claim that the process wasn't really random. Exactly what it was, they don't say. The only way one can defeat such overwhelming odds is a brute force attack - try all combinations. But a brute force attack is not a random process. One should try one combination only once. Even if that is possible through random means, the numbers still are too large. And it isn't. So, purely mathematically speaking, the probability of life coming to be by random means runs up against insurmountable odds. So, mathematically speaking it is impossible that life can come about by itself by random means. This is a fact. There are no "observable facts that can be repeated" to show how life can come about by itself. To be consistent, anyone who claims to go only by science and logic should admit that evolution is a mathematical impossibility. As life developing by itself by random processes is a mathematical impossibility, it is a mathematical necessity that there should be something or someone behind the development of life. Again, this is not rocket science.

It is disappointing that people with scientific training make easily avoidable, logical mistakes. What is even more disappointing is that they so often talk absolute nonsense. This, unfortunately, is not as rare as it should be. Let me stress that no amount of speculation can prevent anything from being nonsense.

Barack Obama Speaks out Against Democracy

Yesterday, on PBS Newshour broadcast here in Australia, Barack Obama had much to say against Crimea going with Russia. My point is that as a liberal Barack Obama is strongly in favour of democracy - it put him in a cushy job and all liberals have to be in favour of democracy. Barack Obama knows that the Crimeans voted overwhelmingly in favour of going with Russia and he never disputed that. Even before the voting took place it was widely expected that this was the way the vote was going to go. So, from a democratic viewpoint, the Crimea going with Russia is the wish of the people.

Nearly 60% of Crimeans are Russian. Only 25% are Ukranian. 77% of Crimeans say Russian is their native language and only 10% say Ukranian is their native language. The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954 when it was added to the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, also with strong ties to Russia. The Ukraine went independent only in 1991. So, both the Crimean people and the recent history of the Crimea show strong ties to Russia. Nobody should have been surprised when the Crimea changed hands again. As this happened with the overwhelming support of its people, the liberals should have applauded. But no, this champion of democracy, Barack Obama, spits fire and threatens and looks generally unhappy about it. How is this possible? After all, this is an expression of democracy and Barack is such a big supporter of democracy. Well, the thing is, like all liberals, Barack Obama is a hypocrite.

It works like this, all liberals are supporters of 'freedom of opinion.' You can have any viewpoint or opinion as long as your viewpoint or opinion does not fly in the face of the manifests of the GCPC (Global Council for Political Correctness), the MFM (Militant Feminist Movement), or GALRO (Gay and Lesbian Rights Organisation.) You can have any opinion on legalised gay marriage, as long as it's for, you can have any opinion on capital punishment, as long as it's against. Most likely you are starting to see things clearly now.

Let's further explore the hypocrisy of the liberals. They were as a man for self rule of African countries. Now that Africa is a total mess with many millions dead as a result of African self government, these same liberals are deadly quiet. Once in a while one of them will quietly condemn an African despot (Mugabe was popular for this a while back) which they had helped to bring to power.

This is what I'm on about, the utter hypocrisy of liberals. And nobody says a thing about that. I'm neutral about this Crimean thing, it will work itself out. In reality it will most likely be better for Crimeans in the short run to go with Russia rather than a bankrupt Ukraine. Russia will be generous for a while to show them they voted the right way. I hope Russia will accuse all these hypocrites of being hypocrites. There's really nothing they can say about it in this instance. They people have voted and these liberals have expressed their opinions against the will of the people. And them such staunch democrats.

Packt Publishing's 2,000th Title

Packt Publishing publishes technical books. What makes things great is that one can buy pdf copies and download them immediately. As there is no shipping or paper involved one would expect to make a decent saving on these ebooks. That's just what you get. My first book from them was GNUCash 2.4 small business accounting. GNUCash is a freely downloadable accounting package which comes standard with most Linux installations. Since then both my wife and I have been using GNUCash to do our tax returns. It's just so much easier. This is a link to the Packt Publishing Special Offers as a 2,000th title celebration. Give it a go. There's just so much to choose from.

The case against the trinity

Proponents of any theory tend to accept even weak evidence as vindication for their theory and dismiss even the strongest of evidence against their theory.

People in general also are more impressed by evidence confirming a theory (positive evidence) as opposed to evidence against a theory. This is a very well known phenomenon.

Nearly all people accept things which are part of their environment, customs and heritage uncritically. People are also caught up in trends and fashions and tend to mindlessly follow the herd, even though the herd may be palpably wrong. There are a great many examples of this. Communism lead to widespread poverty and living in fear of the authorities, yet the majority of its victims were adherents of communism.

When someone is dressed in the garments of an expert, his word is accepted as the gospel truth by the majority of people. From about 2001 to 2007 England was in the grip of an MRSA scare which was a 100% scam. Undercover journalists took swabs from window sills, stairwells and many other places in public hospitals. They got positive results for MRSA from just one "laboratory" - the garden shed, unaccredited laboratory of Dr Chris Malyszewicz PhD, and they ran with it. The word spread that this was the place to go for positive results and soon all specimens were submitted to this "laboratory." The newshounds got what they wanted - positive results. Thousands of reports on this MRSA scam were published in the UK in those years. The PhD held by Chris Malyszewicz was from a non-accredited correspondence course in the USA. He had no qualifications whatsoever in microbiology. He had never published anything in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Some people noticed this early on, but not the newspapers. He was soon Britain's foremost MRSA expert in the newspapers, as is shown by this article in The Guardian. When his specimens were examined by other real laboratories they found MRSA only in single specimens, and MRSA shown by DNA typing to not occur in the UK, but only in Australia from where Chris Malyszewicz also got work - yes, he was world famous by then. The vast majority of the specimens showed no sign of MRSA at all. Some showed bacilli which could even with a 100x magnification of a cheap, child's microscope be distinguished from a staphylococcus. When the newspapers could eventually not hide this anymore - they did ignore all reports of it for as long as they could - they cried foul and held themselves out as the innocent victims of this fiend. The evidence was there from before the first article was published. The trinitarian dogma relies on many such experts and many such gullible spreaders of the word.

As the trinitarian dogma is under the spotlight here, one has to ask, what exactly does this dogma claim? Let's look at just a few of this dogma's claims.

• The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all three fully god
• These three are equal
• Despite the fact that there are three of them and each is fully god, they add up to only one god

This is not all that the trinitarian dogma claims, but these three claims are essential to it. If only one of them can be shown to be false, the whole thing falls.

A unique theory

The trinitarian dogma is unique, as far as I know, in that only in stating its claims, before one has even started to examine the evidence for and against it, it contains a serious irrationality. It claims that 1 god + 1 god + 1 god = 1 god and that 1/3 = 1. Note that they don't claim that Jesus god + Father God + Holy Spirit god = family god, like father Smith + mother Smith + Johnny Smith = family Smith. Or something else like 4 + 4 + 4 = 1 dozen. No, they claim that the entity type right throughout the equation remains the same - god. One doesn't even have to go beyond primary school arithmetic to know that this is nonsense.

Right from the start of this dogma this has been a problem for trintirians. As there is no rational way of getting past this, they invoke magic. They quote Isaiah 55:8,9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says Jehovah. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. That does not say that God endorses pure nonsense. To claim that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and 1/3 = 1 is pure nonsense. Ask yourself, what cannot be made acceptable by invoking magic to get past its absurdities? If one has to invoke magic, one is dealing with hocus-pocus. That's what 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and 1/3 = 1 are.

The above is enough to do away with the trinitarian dogma as a position that makes any sense. Anything more is just burying it deeper.

The evidence

What makes evidence weak or strong? Let's look at strong evidence.

• It is unambiguous, clear and straight to the point
• It is clearly relevant to the position it supports or contradicts

There is not one piece of evidence used in support of the trinity that passes those two tests. You are welcome to send on any you think passes those tests. We'll look at a few of the most commonly used passages and show how they fail the test.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. This is how it is in most English Bibles. Point one, as it's translated it doesn't make any sense unless "the Word" and "God" are one and the same entity. Look at this: in the beginning was A and A was with B and A was B. The only way that is possible is if A and B are two names for one and the same entity. That is one way some see it; Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit just three expressions of one being. That's called modalism and very few trinitarians subscribe to that. But that's the only way it can make sense. And what's more, it doesn't even come straight out and say "Jesus is god."

Point two, as it's translated is not the way it appears in the Greek of John 1:1. Here's a transliteration: In a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word. Greek has the definite article, "the," but not the indefinite article "a." To get past it the "a" is assumed whenever "the" is not used. In the translated versions God is a proper noun - a name. In the Greek the word is "theos" and it is a common noun, like the words fish, human, apple and more. Theos can also mean a human of high position, an idol or even the one True God. Having so many meanings it's not a very useful word to determine exact meaning. Preceding theos with the "the" makes it one specific god, the Father. To get away from the fact that the Greek seemed to ascribe godlike qualities to Jesus - in fact, that's how some translations render it - the Colwell rule was invented. Not even all trinitarians say it can consistently be applied. John didn't use it as it didn't exist in his time. There is disagreement over how John 1:1 should be translated.

Taken together, the fact that John 1:1 doesn't make sense as translated, that the Greek seems to say something different, that there is disagreement over how it should be translated and that it doesn't come straight out and say Jesus is god makes it impossible to see John 1:1 as strong evidence in support of the trinity.

[ACV] John 10:30 I and the Father are one. Come on, that's an idiomatic expression. It does not even start to say that Jesus is god, unless you're a modalist. It's not even evidence supporting the trinitarian dogma.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. There is so much wrong with this verse as strong evidence, I'd better put it in a list.

• It does not come straight out and say that Jesus is god
• It's supposed to map to Exodus 3:14
  • Exodus 3:14 was written in Hebrew
  • John was written in Greek
  • Jesus spoke in Aramaic
  • To say that the translations could only have been to those words to make the mapping 100% sure, is ridiculous
  • The translation of Exodus 3:14 is by no means clear
• The exact Greek word translated here as "I am" is used many times elsewhere in John and the New Testament as well, but only here translated as I am. "I have been" would make more sense. Nowhere else is it seen as a claim to deity.

Acts 5:4 ...Thou have not lied to men, but to God. Lie to my emissary, and you lie to me. That's a valid understanding of the text. It makes sense. It does not unambiguously say the Holy Spirit is God, as it can be legitimately understood in other ways without adding or subtracting anything or changing it in any way. That's not strong evidence. In any case, if the Holy Spirit were God one would have expected something as important as that to have been mentioned more than once and very clearly, at that.

Please note that one can show up the weaknesses of the so-called pro-trinity evidence without changing them in any way. One does not have to add unspoken conditions or leave out or add anything.

The evidence against

Speaking to the Father, Jesus says: John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they should know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou sent. Now that's clear. If there's only one "true God" and that "true God" is the Father, there can't be any others. Jesus didn't qualify this statement. Trinitarians try to. They say it was just when Jesus was here on Earth that the Father was the "only true God." But what about the Holy Spirit, then? That's not what Jesus said. This is very strong evidence against the trinity.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. The difference between the quality of this evidence against the trinity and that usually cited as evidence for the trinity, is vast. This is strong evidence.

John 14:28 Ye heard that I said to you, I go, and I come to you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced because I said I go to the Father, because my Father is greater than I. This speaks directly to the much vaunted equality of the members of the trinity. Where's this equality now? Yes, I know, blah, blah, blah. Jesus didn't introduce any conditions for this statement, but the trinitarians do.

Note that this is by far not all evidence in the Bible making rubbish out of the trinitarian dogma. To examine all evidence held as pro-trinity evidence, and that against it, will take a book, not a blog post.

Prophecy

Here I'm going to be a prophet and prophesy that this post won't change the mind of one staunch trinitarian. Isn't it amazing? They believe in the trinity despite the overwhelming strength of the evidence against it. That doesn't say much for the intelligence, or is it intellectual honesty?, of Christians.

Making money out of suckers

They were always there, those of low intelligence. And I'm not talking only of those labelled as metally retarded; no, I'm talking of the majority of people - the workers, the salt of the Earth. In the middle ages they were serfs and were nearly slaves of the property owner on whose property they eked out an existence. In many countries, like Russia, this extended well past the middle ages. In this disempowered state they were fair game to anyone in the right position. They were shamelessly exploited for their labour and given just enough to stay alive to work again tomorrow.

But things change. In some cases it took revolutions, led by con men and idealists, and in other cases the masters slowly developed a conscience and things changed. Then came democracy and each of these children of serfs had a vote. Unfortunately intelligence didn't come with the vote. As Robert Heinlein said, "when the monkeys find out they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree." And find out, they did. They were stupid, not mentally retarded.

With democracy came a new kind of con man: the democratically elected politician. All they had to do was convince enough people to vote for them. Abraham Lincoln said, "there are some people who can be fooled all of the time." That's all a politician asks for. The "all people can be fooled some of the time" is a bonus.

Given the fact that these people of low intelligence make up the majority, it's no wonder laws changed to favour them - the politicians want to stay on the gravy train. These people, the ones who don't know the difference between "their" and "there" and "your" and "you're" and "its" and "it's" and use apostrophes to pluralise words, are now the politically correct elite. There is no way one can herd them together and put them to work for a pittance. But that doesn't mean some people don't want to take advantage of them and make money out of them. After all, they're still stupid. One just has to come up with the right formula.

Being stupid, these people can be suckered into wanting what is really of no good use and harmful to them. This can be sold to them at a huge profit. So, how does one trick a sucker? Why, every con man and politician knows: appearances. Dress it up, talk it up and tell them it's desirable. Why are politicians' speeches so flowery and full of fine sounding, empty rhetoric? They know their audience.

So these prospective con men employed statisticians to sort the milking cattle into groups to which different strategies will appeal. And, boy, did they come up with the right answers. Things harmful to these suckers, their families and society are so popular with them they will revolt if it's taken away. Think of drugs, smoking, booze, prostitution, and all the forms of gambling. Many of these are dressed up as the essence of having a good time, and it works. Some cigarettes were sold as the brand of the man's man - the Gunston man knows where he's going. Yeah, straight to the cancer ward. Some menthol falvoured brands were for "ladies." Some with expensive, imported tobacco were for people of refined taste. The same happens with booze. The ultimate con trick with booze is the wine connoisseur. Go online and search for double and triple blind wine tasting. You will see that all this sniff, sniff, taste, twirl, the far away look in the eyes like a dog busy evacuating its bowels, and then the wise pronunciation about the origin of this wine, its character, its merits, are all such a crock of... This masterpiece of deception fooled even many people who don't belong to this stupid group.

So, now you have these people clamouring for what's bad for them and the other group who proclaims itself as benefactors of these morons, selling it to them at a huge profit and the politicians pocketing the cash from these "entepreneurs" and washing their hands and asking "am I my brother's keeper?"

Now I ask you, seeing these morons are asking for it, shouldn't one get on the band wagon and milk these suckers for all one is worth while the going is good?