Review: Roxana Shirazi’s The Last Living Slut: Born in Iran, Bred Backstage

[ed. If anyone screams misogyny at this review I am going to scream and pull out half my beard, just read the bloody book; it’s tedious to anyone with an adult attention span. Also if anyone screams hypocritical prudery, I’ll tear out the rest of my beard and fling it at them. I’m not a prude, I just have standards. roftl…]

(a reasonable proxy for a baby Roxana)

(this is not Roxana, but it is a reasonable proxy for a baby Roxana)

“The Last Living Slut: Born in Iran, Bred Backstage” is an autobiography, perhaps ghost-written (by Neil Straus a.k.a. Style one suspects) of an Iranian born rock groupie who in a deliberate rebellion against the patriarchal misogyny she perceived in her upbringing decided to become a Motley Crue and Guns and Roses cum receptacle, thus joining a legion of bleached blond young American neo-jawariya [*harem slave-girls, see note], from trailer parks and suburbs all across America.

Reading it, I thought to myself:
I bleed for this?”

And indeed my heart wept tears of blood, in utter boredom, as I struggled to force myself to read Roxana Shirazi multimedia personal anthem of slut autonomy (multimedia, being of text, not so sexy photos of the author in slut drag, and several noxious fumes of donkey punched, scat spread, fluid bespeckled glory, wafting up from the book. One could virtually smell the sweat and feet.)

Slut autonomy – empowerment through sexual promiscuity. I am always a little suspicious of people who have something to prove through their sexuality, especially a social or political ideology, beyond a simple, and natural, “this feels really good, and I feel compelled to do it, so hence I do it.” Aught beyond this becomes somewhat contrived.

Since the author self identifies as a slut, as her personal badge of honor, we do not insult her by calling so, and thus let us continue.

The author is a groupie, sort of like Kat Stacks, though perhaps with less taste and less honesty. Kat Stacks and others like her admit that they are essentially tricking. Though Shirazi, through her book, certainly stands to make far more money than Stacks, and one can argue that Shirazi is certainly more attractive than Stacks (though without makeup this may be debatable)

Groupies are the courtesans and concubines of our age, not quite kept women, but rather shared women, among a wealthy and – somewhat – powerful though dissolute strata of wealthy and dominant Alpha males. Remember that in history nothing really changes except the names, and the neat toys we play with. Groupie drama is fairly equivalent to concubine drama in every age that we have record of [*see my note below]

I often find that people who base a good deal of their personal identity on their sexuality are intensely boring.
Such people, with a few exceptions, are often not truly very sexy, beyond a superficial show of sexuality. There are also exceptions, I’ve met a few very interesting complex and nuanced people whose primary pride and identification in life was being a slut, but I doubt the author would be one of them. I have no doubt Shirazi would protest over-much on this point, but I’ll let the reader decided from reading her book. I personally found nothing sexy about it.

The author’s greatest pride and achievement lies in emulating a groupie lifestyle mostly aspired to, in America, by girls coming from the lowest rungs of the social ladder. I mean, Biker girls typically emerge from lower social strata, but rock groupies aren’t exactly that high up on the rung. Being a shared woman amongst Alpha male rock stars is a more socially acceptable achievement than being a shared woman amongst Alpha male bikers, or street criminals, but here Baudrillard ‘s Simulacrum comes into play since Rock Stars are faux biker and outlaw rebels, and biker outlaw rebels are faux pirates and brigands, and hence their groupies are ultimately faux camp followers.

I’m sure Mongol camp wenches in Genghis Khan’s camps could out fuck Roxana Shirazi and her peers, but need we consider this much further?

This book was an immense disappointment, and consisted of page after page of somewhat poorly edited vignettes of the author’s personal debauchery fueled by a glamorized Rock & Roll lifestyle, and presented as a bombastic middle finger raised in defiant anthem against the conservative, and found by her highly stifling, moral and gender values of her native Iran.

About as puerile as flinging a bloody tampon at the Ayatollah in defiance. Wow, “you go girl…”

Hell hath no fury like a libertine who is hell bent on proving that she is a libertine. Beneath the blood, excreta, semen, broken hearts, donkey punched violent coitus, S & M, multiple swords in a single sheath, one simply has to roll one’s eyes and wonder

“Do you actually get off on this or is it all just some sort of bizarre compulsion?”

The book is as slickly presented and packaged as, and somehow manages to be even more vapid than, Neil Straus’s “The Game”- I allude and suspect that he ghost wrote it anyway. Personally I found his Jenna Jameson biography to be more interesting reading.

I would be lying if I said there were not a few incidents of amusement, and perhaps of mildly titillating value, but over-all there isn’t much here folks.  Again, the book was a let-down

[* nb, the literary educated might notice my snarky usage of the term jawariya, and perhaps complain that my comparing Roxana to a harem slave girl is inappropriate, because her sexuality is consensual and freely chosen and hence empowering.

It bears noting that jariya girls in the middle east were typically free to choose lovers of their choice, this becomes very apparent when reading the literature of the period in depth. Jariyas were not necessarily forced to serve as their master’s concubines, rather they could and would switch master by request, deny their favors to masters they disliked, and typically seemed to act with the drama of their modern hip-hop equivalent and actually suffered few social restrictions, other than being technically slaves.

Slave classes in that era were fairly well equivalent to the modern working class, in terms of autonomy and legal rights, they could and did often own property, leave endowments, inherit, maintain their own businesses, and apart from the legal status of being legally owned really would appear free to most modern observers. There are exceptions in history, but it bears mentioning that in the medieval middle east some slaves were wealthier, and indeed more powerful, than free citizens. Unlike in the West, where typically slaves did not end up ruling nations, or forming the elite managerial class of such states (see Mamluke Egypt and the Ottoman empire, where the Janissaries formed an elite administrative strata)

Qiyan girls were able to acquire great prestige and wealth in much the same way that modern high class prostitutes are able to. Comparing Roxana Shirazi to a Jariya would no doubt insult most Jawariya, in the sense that comparing an alley cat dragged from underneath a rutting tomcat boinking and caterwauling in an alleyway, to a well maintained house cat, could well irk the house cat;
“You compare her to me? Just… look at her?!?”

Among groupies too, there is a hierarchy.
Women have a fine and refined sense of relative comparisons between themselves and fury awaits the man insensitive to their multiple status markers…

I refer the diligent reader to al-Jahiz’s Kitab al Qiyan – the Book of Singing Girls. Reading it one notices that the differences between today and yesterday are far fewer than one would imagine…]

Observation – Agave Nectar is bad for you, like high fructose corn syrup, and syphilis

Observations and thoughts: on sugar, Agave Syrup, high fructose corn syrup, and obesity. Presented with my usual sardonic pluck, taste tested and approved.

Through most of my childhood I had a mild weight problem. Even into adulthood I carried a small, slight, paunch even when other parts of me were lean. This was annoying. Why, Allah, why I asked?

Power cleans, kettlebell swings, stair climbs and runs, I developed lean muscle and, strangely, abdominal definition on top of visceral belly fat. Quite surreal, to flex one’s abs harder than wood but still have a pot belly, however slight. After making some fundamental changes in my diet, including intermittent fasting, this belly fat is mostly gone, though it makes occasional reappearances commensurate with my consumption of ghee and sugar.

Recently I’ve come to realize some of the likely reasons for this, and much of it has to do with difficult to metabolize placements of adipose tissue (“that’s fat cells y’all”) developed from childhood on up. Diets and exercise were not able to metabolize these deposits of stored fat, and their origins lay in to excessive consumption of certain things like sugar, and to a slight degree products containing high fructose corn syrup. Now such products were rare in my youth, most sweet goods were simply sugar based, High Fructose Corn Syrup didn’t start popping up in things until I was in the 8th grade, oddly enough when my slight childhood chubbiness passed into “dude you have boy-boobs” territory.

My youthful penchant for eating cake icing out of the can, consuming Little Debbie’s by the box like they were tic-taks, and walking less than I should, while drinking too much soda pop, may have had to do something with this.

The tendency of my siblings to run around like terrors throughout Avondale, armed with sticks and rocks, and harassing other kids kept us reasonably slim. I offer no apologies for this gang like tendency, a bunch of nerdy doctor kids living on the fringes of the ghetto sort of need safety in numbers. Alone anyone could, and did, take us. Together with sticks running around like savages we found some security… and exercise.

I blew up a bit when my sister and I moved back to DC, into a nice neighborhood, away from most of our siblings. There, our only walks were to the Metro station. I did need to out run thugs on Bladensburg Rd, when cutting over to the Rhode Isl. Metro Station. But those were short runs, and I really wasn’t jumped that often. So this meant less exercise, and hence I became a chubbier kid.

7-11 Doughnuts and Fritters didn’t help, of course. But what really sealed the deal was soda. Yes, soda pop.

Uncle’s fridge was chock full of it, all of the rare brands they didn’t have in Ohio, like Squirt Soda. And who could resist Squirt?

And somehow after 9 months of steady soda drinking I found myself a very unhappy and very chubby young teenager. Not obese by any means, but possessed with fat that no jogging during soccer practice seemed to budge.

Being a chubby kid growing up in the 80’s, looking back on it and on old photos of myself I was actually almost normal by today’s standards. And this recently shocked me. As much of a fat ass bookish little nerd boy that I thought I was, I would have fit right into most middle schools today. At least here in the midwest. What I thought of as ugly, aberrant, fat when looking back at t was actually almost trimmer than some of the normal kids that I see today, especially in middle class areas of town.

I think that two things prevented me from the sort of full fledged childhood obesity that seems almost a norm nowadays. One, the fact that as Much Atari or Nintendo that I played between the 6th and 9th grades (before I outgrew video games, they just felt boring and childish after that) I got some exercise walking to the metro station, or out running mean kids who wanted to beat me up.

Two – the fact that most of my favorite sin foods back then just had regular sugar in them, sucrose, and not high fructose corn syrup.

Ok, so many of you will roll your eyes “not some sort of high fructose conspiracy theory again’ – bear with me a bit, before jumping to conclusions.

Let’s look at something else, Agave nectar. Most of the women I know are natural health food store types. NPR, Herbal Tea, Yoga classes, and of course Alternative sweeteners. Place white sugar in front of them and they turn their noses, place brown Sugar in the Raw in front of them and somehow it’s acceptable. Sucrose is sucrose baby, trust me on this one.

One spunky young thing recently told me, in bated breath, about Agave syrup. She even baked me cookies with the stuff. Since it’s bad form to reject baked goods from pretty and excited young women who simply want to please you in so many ways I, of course, accepted the offer. I am a gentleman, after all.

However something did not sit right with me. Agave syrup? What the hell are people doing using a cactus for sweetener, I thought to myself. So, intrepid, I decided to poke into a few books and articles and unravel the source of the intuition that nagged at me.

What I found shocked me. and perhaps it may shock you.

Agave nectar is unhealthy for you, like the clap or Chlamydia or other unpleasant things. However pleasant the consumption is the result is most baleful.

Agave nectar is given to us as a “health food” but it’s not.

Regular table sugar, refined white sucrose, is “better” for you by any metric than agave nectar. Look up how Agave is processed, it’s actually more processed than table sugar. THAT should tell you something. The organic stuff is just as bad. Just eat a bunch of honey or something, if you must.

Agave Nectar and High Fructose Corn Syrup suck.

Indeed, I tell you truthfully that in my more paranoid moments, which are few and far between, I maintain a healthy suspicion that this degree of sheer suckiness is actually by design.

Permit me to explain- this stuff seems almost designed to make us unhealthy. So it would be wise of you to try to avoid eating it. What follows isn’t biochemistry 101, and I admit taking some liberties with a fast and loose explanation, but I encourage you to do some research and look at multiple sides of the issue.

Most of us have the common sense not to believe the industry adverts on High Fructose Corn syrup – and indeed that stuff is really worse for you than refined sugar. But few know that agave nectar, as sold in health food stores, is as bad as high fructose corn syrup. And both are worse than sugar.

Lest pedants hit me over the head – “Worse” is a subjective appraisal on my part. “They suck” is also subjective, but can be substantiated.

The reasons why refined sugar, while not being the best thing in the world to consume (it’s better than Meth, of course) beats out high fructose corn syrup or agave nectar lies in how our bodies metabolize each.

It has nothing to do with the calories – calorie counting leads us to wrong impressions.
Calorie counting, as most people commonly understand, is a scam.

It does have to do with how Sucrose (white sugar) is metabolized and how Fructose is metabolized.

With how both are broken down into glucose, with the mechanisms by which fructose is converted into triglycerides and adipose tissue (yummy fat!)

Sucrose, table sugar, is broken down by your body into glucose, which can be used in the Krebs cycle for energy, and l-fructose, which can be further broken down into glucose, but some of it is converted into triglycerides and eventually adipose tissue. Your fat cells becomes stuffed with the stuff. Now, the type of fructose that you will consume in fruit is more easily broken down into glucose, so less of it is converted into triglycerides and stored as fat – anyway your body needs these things at some level. The problem is in excess.

The type of fructose found in Agave syrup and high fructose corn syrup is mostly just converted into fat by your body. I’ll skip the specific pathways and mechanisms, you can feel free to look that up on your own.

Basically if you eat a pound of white sugar and a pound of high fructose corn syrup and a pound of pure refined fructose (the stuff is tasty, I used to buy it at Clifton natural foods) your body will store MORE of the fructose as fat, and less of the table sugar as fat, and use more of the table sugar as energy in the form of glucose (research the Krebs cycle, or go back to your sophomore biochem course notes) and store less of the table sugar as fat.

Again, that’s a fast and loose explanation.

Fructose consumption suppress leptin secretion and insulin, when this happens your body experiences hunger pangs, because even though you are stuffing your face with enough calories to light a light bulb, your body thinks it isn’t eating – again fast and loose explanation.

Leptin suppresses our appetite. Without it we pretty much will stuff our faces because we will feel hungry. Hence we will get fatter, this isn’t biochemistry 101. I could explain how the stuff is converted into adipose tissue, how triglyceride levels increase, and explain how the Krebs cycle works, and so on, but it’s complex and you can Google it up or hit your old college textbooks.

The general point is that consuming large quantities of sugar isn’t good for you, but consuming large quantities of some types of sugar can be worse for you in subtle ways, including by increasing your appetite you end up consuming a larger quantity of food, and your body ends up storing more of it as fat, and all sorts of other nasty problems with blood pressure and so on and so forth.

Basically high fructose sugar sucks and makes us fatter, and as we become more obese we face other health problems, while the people selling us this crap to consume are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just use regular sugar in moderation. Or honey. Or maple syrup. Granted the stuff is expensive as sin.

OB disclosure: I have invested interests in sugar industry stakeholders – on a small level anyway.

I have no fiduciary interests in the honey or maple syrup industry, and I still recommend both of them over sugar anyway, so like just use honey or something.

High fructose sugar sucks, makes us obese and unhealthy, and only benefits Cargill and ADM stakeholders, it’s bad, avoid it like you’d avoid the plague, or worse syphilis, avoid it like you’d avoid fornicating in alleyways with sketchy people for free, met in dive bars after 2 AM.

Some risks are, obviously, not worth the imagined payoff – which like so many things sold to us in life, is often a massive disappointment. So like…

Just don’t do it. I mean, why consume something that tastes like sugar but destroys your body faster than sugar? Is this wisdom? Is this intellect ? No, far from it.


Redux – comments. Climate change and the quote “ searching for a common enemy to unite us…”

[ed. This is a provisional post, needing further editing and development. There are errors in grammar and fact – but the general effect should be gained, I’ll get around to whittling this down later..]

Per my earlier posting a couple of quotes, from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four [Amazon link] and the Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome [Amazon link], here are further comments on a couple of provocative ideas.

I will discuss these ideas logically and soberly, I will not refer to wild conspiracy theories, just simple facts as they are known, and obvious logical implications from these facts.

First: I agree in spirit with the need for greater environmental stewardship and sustainability – our civilization wastes an incredible amount of energy and materials. This will catch up with us. The idea of sustainability is pushed forward largely by bodies and individuals responsible for the grossly unsustainable mold of our society, but even the devil utters a truth now and then.. when it’s in his interests, in furthering a larger scam..

Second: Agreeing with the need for greater environmental stewardship, I see the entire climate change discourse, as a discourse, is a hoax. It is one largely believed in, by the mass of both sides – those believing in anthropogenic climate change and those rejecting it. But it is a hoax, notice my wording. This hoax remains a hoax even if, especially if, the facts spoken of, regarding increases in average global temperature due to human activities, are true.

And I’m increasingly convinced that there is something significant to it.

A good deal of the evidence supports the general idea of Global Warming at first glance, and one can make inferences from this data to support the idea that the drivers of Global Warming are anthropogenic – human caused. There are immense problems with the data, increasing evidence that much of the data has been all but deliberately fudged, in some cases falsified, or otherwise skewed by certain biases in the collection methods. And there are immense problems with the interpretation of such problematic data.

But even with the all but fraudulent abuses of the data I still think that Global Warming can be demonstrated in the data – and therein lies a deeper issue, one outside of this little blog post.

Even with this, however, the whole matter is still a hoax. Both Global Warming advocates, and Global Warming Skeptics, are to some degree victims of a hoax. A provocative and, to some, silly claim, but lets jump to something else for a moment.

Conspiracy theories – an amusing thing is that in all Western societies, only Americans display a constant allergy to making political speculations that verge away from the standard media discourse in suggesting willful collusion by multiple people, outside of the law and in secret, to commit large scale crimes. The legal definition of conspiracy is dragged out in small scale conspiratorial crimes, a couple of mobsters shaking down shopkeepers, a few Rabbis acting out some ghoulish X-files like plot. And other fiends

Everywhere in Europe, either on the Right or the Left, it’s a given that what’s discussed in the media is likely incomplete and purposefully fraudulent, of course the left blames the right for fraud, and vice versa, but the plain fact of fraud isn’t disputed. Corruption and the use of power to skew the terms of a discourse are a given – the only thing debated are the ultimate beneficiaries and their motivations. To get around this silly allergy here, I’m stating from the start that none of this is conspiracy theory fare, where I speculate it’s on the basis of logical deductions, or inductions, from known facts.

The quote previously mentioned.

From Page 75, of ‘The First Global Revolution.’ Chapter ‘The Vacuum’
The common enemy of humanity is Man.

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Now, many implications of this quote should be obvious to anyone who passed the 11th grade. That an implication exists does not mean, necessarily, that a writer or speaker intended the implication. But it does remain latent within the text. So we have some obvious implications.

And we have some less obvious implications, ones more subtle.

The authors explicitly state that theirs was a specific idea, within their circle of influence, an international set of stakeholders – various policy makers, business executives and investors, private persons of influence, essentially constituting what’s often called the global super-elite.

This idea of theirs was this – articulating a discourse in which the collective enemy of humanity is humanity itself. An enemy in a conflict used to harmonize and unify our human efforts and activities towards specific ends. That in order to unite humanity, or at least – one imagines – the leadership of humanity, it is necessary to present to humanity a project that is a conflict, and the enemy to oppose in that conflict is humanity itself.

The assumptions are that there is a need to unify humanity, that the only way to unify humanity is to give it an external enemy, and that the best enemy to give it is itself. This is, I think, a somewhat cannibalistic idea. There is the idea that the world, however defined, faces immense threats based on human action.

This can be debated, but I’m inclined to support it. Human activities often demonstrably impact ecosystems in a negative way, alter the balance of life, and often are wantonly destructive beyond any possible pay off.

I do not dispute this in itself. The Club of Rome believes that material over-consumption and growth produce certain phenomena, such as water or food shortages, that is famines, they also mention Global Warming. I think that it is closer to the truth that the genesis of these problems lie less with humanity itself, and more with specific segments of humanity, essentially a managerial class, to which the authors of this report actually belong.

Frankly none of you out there, readers and commentariat, nor myself, are capable of marshalling the resources to dam an entire river and build a hydroelectric project. Our individual impacts on the environment are small. In totality, as an aggregate mass, yes our collective impacts matter greatly.

However do we hold primarily responsible a crew of sailors on an ill fated voyage, or the Captain and command staff? Responsibility is firstly directed at the top of the chain of command, not firstly at the base of schmucks largely carrying out Command’s commands.

In other words “blame yourself schmucks, point your finger at me and I’ll poke your eye out with it.”

Now it is, I admit, far more complex than this. The broad mass of humanity, when human nature is allowed its course, will, and do, consume in excess of its actual true needs. Some over consumption is no vice, after all humanity has never sought just mere survival, but rather some degree

The problem is gross excess and stupidity.

There is a more elitist and egotistical way of seeing things, and a less elitist and egotistical way of seeing things.

Both have some basis in truth, and are really just a matter of seeing the same things through different lenses.

First the snarky elitist view:
Walk through a shopping mall or on a busy street, and the conclusion that we live in some semblance to idiocracy cannot be avoided. When looked at narrowly, at first glance, there are a lot of folks alive who really seem to be little other than extras on the set. And bumbling, annoying, loud, uncouth, coarse, and frankly sheep like extras at that.

Now the less elitist and more sympathetic view:

Is it not possible that such matters are not accidental? That to some degree certain things may be by design?
That a populace is deliberately kept somewhat in the dark and given open access to the most base amusements and entertainments as distractions.

Isn’t it the case that, given the amount of string pulling that goes on today, it’s a miracle anyone keeps some degree of reflectiveness?

A more sympathetic, and less elitist view could see that, by in large, most people just pursue the ideals their culture and society gives them. A society’s leaders espouse certain ideals as molds, the broad mass subscribes to such molds. Such are taught to us as truths from an early age and reinforced constantly.

[I refer you to Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt ‘deliberate dumbing down of america’ or any of John Taylor Gatto’s writings. Muslim readers, in particular, may want to examine Hamza Yusuf Hanson’s talks on education and home schooling. He and Gatto did a nice joint symposium available from Zaytuna.]

I think that, in large, most people just want to survive, stay out of trouble, and follow their natural inclinations without interfering with others.

That, really, most people just want to get by and cause no trouble to others. Humans crave comforts and so will pursue comforts given to them. Most people are not given a broader context into which the small particular facts of our lives can be placed. Lacking such a matrix it is difficult to see where and how our actions affect the totality of society or the world.

Furthermore certain ideals of behavior and aspiration are given enormous emotive weight , from childhood on up. Romanticized, glamorized, when they intersect with our emotional makeup, especially in areas like sexuality or food consumption, our reasoning takes a back seat and our emotions take a front seat.

None of this is rocket science and is easily observable, go with your best friends to a mall, then to a night club, and then to a bikini beach, and watch the changes in their, and your, expressed personality. Pay attention to your own hopes, your own cravings, your own desires, and your behavior, and then watch the behavior of your mates.

So, all of that meandering and waffling crap out of the way, let’s jump forward.
Thesis: no matter what the observed facts are, in the Climate Change debate, the whole debate and its terms are a fraud, or more to the point, a hoax.

And now, my comments – this is simple folks, distance yourself from emotions to see the matter clearly:

It matters not whether or not there has been an overall increase in measured average global temperatures – as caused by human actions – the anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis.

And it matters not whether or not there has been – as some of the Climate Change skeptics, so-called “Global Warming Deniers” assert – an overall decline in average global temperatures, e.g. Global cooling.

It is the discourse itself, on Climate Change, on both the Left and Right, which is stilted in such a way as to be the perfect hoax.

Read that again with care, I said the discourse. A discourse is independent of the facts discoursed. The hoax lies in the discourse itself, there could also be a hoax in the factual situation as well, but let’s focus on one thing at a time.

It matters not whether either phenomenon exists, in the past or present, or has quickened, slowed down, or ceased. The rhetorical and propagandist use of the theme is alone what concerns us.

As my friend Abu Abdullah likes to point out, there is one tell tale sign of a perfect hoax – not only non falsifiability, but non verifiability. If data verifying or denying a thesis is kept closed, selectively released, if private discussions are made public regarding proposals to alter such data, “fudging” for any reason whatsoever, this shows that the discourse is only secondarily about science, and primarily about political or ideological agendas, and hence enters into the realm of emotions and rhetoric.

The anthropogenic Global Warming thesis could be factually correct based on the data recovered and yet the whole discourse still simply be a fraud.

This is counter-intuitive, most people are accustomed to thinking of a fraud in either or categories, true or false. Things are not this simple, which no doubt facilitates fraud greatly.

I will explore this theme in more depth shortly, for now just mull over that possibility.

The conclusions you are able to draw from the data, and the actual significance of the data in itself, may not match what the discourse is bearing. You can draw significant conclusions from meaningless or nonsense data, or data only relevant in a narrow domain.

The significance of conclusions drawn from a data acquired from a limited number of temperature readers and collection stations can be questioned. Heck, it’s actually all but meaningless. This is the scam, such conclusions are discussed outside of their proper domain without the full context of the situation being mentioned.

Here is a blindingly simple fact – the earth has a given landmass – around 510.000 million sq km – and each square km, each square meter, each square inch even, is subject to random temperature fluctuations between a few fractions of a degree or more even, due to a bewildering variety of reasons.

Temperature collecting stations are placed in certain specific areas, some rural, some urban, at varying distances from each other. Their output only has significance within a certain range – short of all sorts of monkey business involving certain types of statistical normalization, because I can assure you that the number of temperature readers, and where they are placed, comes nowhere near to covering enough area of the earth to give statistically meaningful data when applied to the earth at large. Huge temperature variations from an average norm exist everywhere. In fact the fluctuations experienced even in a small area, take 1 square KM, are significant enough to belie real trends occurring on a macro scale.

Mongolia is on the verge of utter poverty and economic collapse due to “the white death” an unusually horrible winter. Scotland, England, a good deal of the US east coast have all recently seen bizarre cold spells, though not as horrible as Mongolia.

And right now some areas are in veritable heat waves, yesterday many areas in California has temperate weather, in the 60’s, while more northern areas in the middle of Ohio has baking heat.

The models used to extract meaning from a statistically meaningless blizzard of numbers collected from a paucity of locations and hence entirely non-representative of the world at large, can only give us just so much information that’s useful.

The truth that everyone is afraid to admit is this – we have no bloody idea, we are effectively blind, honest scientists have admitted, and will admit, this when not faced with social opprobrium.

This is the hoax – we could be facing environmental catastrophe next year, and we have no way of knowing this, and we could simply be in a normal stable period of average temperature variation, and we have no way of knowing this, because as many thousands of temperature data collection stations as there are out there, they only give us a peephole, a small peephole, in what’s going on.

They are worse than misleading. Again everyone with a reasonable degree of scientific training and an IQ over 110 knows this, if pressed against the wall, they simply don’t like it and find it distasteful. Because we have an innate need for certitude, and we have none here.

That is the hoax. Consider yourself warned. You are the subject of a very bad and distasteful joke, you can either exercise some personal responsibility, learn more, and god forbid think for yourself, or you can choose not to. Your life, not mine.


Reviews – Let’s read about Sex – some books on Sexual History and Anthropology

Fascinating reads, our sexuality is an extremely intimate thread in human history, in fact sex is the foundation of most human social institutions, the family itself is a unit whose main purpose is ensuring and perpetuating specific sexual arrangements.

Of all worldly pleasures and urges, sexual desire motivates in a half hidden, half seen, way that colors and affects most of our activities, our yearnings, our quests.

Knowing about the history of sexual arrangements in society helps us better understand ourselves, how we got here, and where we came from. The benefits are too obvious to bother mentioning.

Here are three reads I’m finding valuable and interesting. You can order them from Amazon or simply check them out in your library

1. Pricy, but a very good read, Libertine Enlightenment: Sex, Liberty and License in the Eighteenth-Century. is a book chock full of information on a little considered memetic aspect of Enlightenment era europe – the sexual ideas and construction of the Rake and the Libertine. It’s an academic work, but a stimulating one.. at times.

Kindle Version

Rakes do make for interesting reading, sans descriptions of venereal disease. Being a rake is an interesting experience, but the returns are far more modest, mediocre, and damaging than some would admit. Included among the risks is a certain insipid boredom with things that once were fresh, wonderful, and amazing.. and a certain disillusion. That and non-sociable diseases.
There are better occupations for men.

2. Also pricy, but a classic and indispensible, though quite rare now and out of print: Abdelwahab Bouhdiba’s Sexuality in Islam. – it’s simply one of the best books exploring the historical and theological issue of Sexuality in Islam.

Bouhdiba’s view is highly idiosyncratic and debatable, but he gives an interesting read and displays a fidelity to both the actual textual sources of Islam and an understanding of the social practices. His greatest strengths seem to be the sexual history of the Western lands of Islamdom, North Africa, Spain, Sicily and so on.

3. Finally Sexual Encounters in the Middle East: The British, the French And the Arabs This is an interesting source book with some analysis – and deals with colonialism to some degree, and the ways in which questions of sexuality actually affected the history of the Middle East.

The book also discusses issues like clothing and gender differences, with europeans and native Arabs, also of interest are the ways in which Westerners projected certain attitudes or desires on their encounters with Middle Eastern social institutions.

Sufism in Chains – an anonymous warning on Globalists

What cancer is there like globalism?

Please read the piece below, and consider it’s words with care. The author wishes to remain anonymous, but I can vouch for his integrity. He has had considerable opportunity to observe the developments spoken of herein.

What follows is a critical call, made at the eleventh hour. It would be wise to consider these points well. There is a covert pincer movement trying to co-opt the folk, the fuqara and travelers on the path, while also co-opting more exoteric, traditionalist and political Islamist organizations.

The situation grows more critical by the day, much of the violence and confusion we see in the world today is simply the action of the forces some have termed the counter-tradition or the counter-initiation. In fact, what is happening is far more insidious than just a simple attempt by certain globalists to pacify and make a ‘safe’ version of sufism. Both sides are played against the other while a co-opting effort takes place at the same time. To what ends, the reader can use his or her intellect.

I cannot and will not speak for the author, but am posting this piece for wider distribution. The message needs to be heard.


Dear Friends:

Asalaamu alaikum. I have sent this “report” to every Sufi group I could locate in Britain, Australia and North America. As you continue to read, you will understand why I have chosen to remain anonymous.

If tasawwuf in the west is going to retain its independence, it will have to sever ties with the national governments and globalist organizations that are presently exercising control over it, groups whose influence is deeper and more widespread than many suspect. The goal of these forces is to groom Sufism as an alternative to “fundamentalist” Wahhabi/Salafi Islam, an alternative that will hopefully be more passive to control by the West and/or the Globalists. Certain Sufis may naively think that there is nothing wrong with playing this role; after all, haven’t they been oppressed by these fundamentalist/Islamicists? And aren’t they now collecting powerful allies at last? Success! It is unfortunately the case, however, that certain Islamicist groups are also being supported by the West and the Globalists; their support and funding of Sufism is more-of-less open (except for their CIA contacts and things of that nature), their support for Islamicist groups clandestine. It is common knowledge, however, that the CIA all but founded the Taliban, that the bin Laden family had/has cordial relations with the Bush family—ex-president Bush also being past head of the CIA—and that the major “ally” of the U.S. in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia, is also the stronghold of the Wahhabis. Those western military forces presently fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban may know—or their leaders may know—that they can’t “win”. But they also know that they can create chaos and accelerate the dissolution of traditional dar al-Islam; perhaps that is their real goal.

Why would the powers that be support both sides? Easy: the powers that be always attempt to control both sides so they can “play both sides against the middle”, the middle in this case being traditional Sufism and traditional Islam. The West and the Globalists are dedicated to busting dar al-Islam, both by military force and by cultural/spiritual infiltration. They want to destroy Islam as a religion because it is one of the main obstacles to their plans for a One World Government. And they have realized that the best way to do this is to separate batin and zahir and set them at war. The more violent the Islamicist terrorists become, the more vulnerable the Sufis become to co-optation and control by those forces who oppose the Islamicists on one level, attempt to control them on another level, and are actually behind some of them on a third. The co-optation of tasawwuf, the spiritual heart of Islam, by these forces leaves the remaining zahiri Islam just that much more vulnerable to radicalization; if hearts are veiled from true remembrance of God, all that people can see any more is al-dunya, the world of politics and its “imperatives”.

The following “items” are in no way an exhaustive report on the co-optation of Sufism, just a guide to what is clearly visible on the internet, to a mountain of evidence that demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt just how far the powers that be have gone in controlling tasawwuf and using it for their own ends.

But who exactly are these “powers that be”? The best book I or my colleagues have found to answer this question is The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman, late of British Intelligence ( The Committee, which has been in operation for the past 150 years, is the closest thing that yet exists to a global “shadow-government”, based in the English-speaking world but exercising its influence on a much wider scale. Dr. Coleman lists its members; some you have likely heard of, many you have not. I have no independent way of verifying Dr. Coleman’s assertions, which seem at least to be well researched—but when I ran down the list of “organizations directly controlled by the Committee of 300” (italicized and underlined below) and searched them on the internet, over 1 in 4 of them proved to be involved in some way with Sufism! And that’s just the information that’s publicly available!

The matter is put succinctly on the website of The Council for Foreign Relations—which, though it appears to disagree with the policy of the western powers to groom Sufism as the spearhead of anti-Islamicist “moderate” Islam, treats this policy as common knowledge. Here is the summary of the article in question as it appears on the website:

State-Sponsored Sufism

Author: Ali Eteraz

June 2009

Why are U.S. think tanks pushing for state-sponsored Islam in Pakistan?

Once certain ideas go mainstream, it often takes a pretty big flop to disprove them. The United States was supposed to be hailed as the liberator of Iraq, just as it was going to be easy to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. Well now, according to commentators from the BBC to the Economist to the Boston Globe, Sufism, being defined as Islam’s moderate or mystical side, is apparently just the thing we need to deal with violent Muslim extremists. Sufis are the best allies to the West, these authors say; support them, and countries as diverse as Pakistan and Somalia could turn around.

The Sufi theory has a lot of variations, but at its core, it’s pretty simple: Violent Muslim extremism, rather than having material and political bases, is caused by certain belligerent readings of Islam usually associated with Salafism, a movement that attempts to resurrect the Islam of the prophet Mohammed’s time, and Wahhabism, a similarly conservative branch. If Muslims can be indoctrinated with another, softer, interpretation of Islam, then the militants, insurgents, and guerrilla fighters will melt away.

Continue reading