Tuesday, June 16, 2015


Even a modern nation that supposedly formally established itself based on Mosaic Law (Israel) only aspires to adhere to it to some degree.  Even the Ancient Israelites themselves, according to the Bible, were only able to abide by the Law as a collectively for relatively short periods of time.  So even though the United States was founded by what appears to be hardcore Christians (many of whom would be classified as extremists/terrorists by today’s definitions), I would venture to say that no one is realistically expecting America to abide by Mosaic Law but at least make a contentious effort to live Biblically to some degree.  After all every great political leader in the United States has and continues to be professed Christians, even the warmonger Former President Bushes and even the current Islamic sympathizer President Barack Obama.  In other words even though we are not looking for perfection we are at least expecting the powers that be to strive towards what has been defined by the dominant/foundational religion as perfection and not rather espouse and legislate ideals that go to the contrary.

As such I am writing this article from a disposition that America is intentionally trying to establish a society / world order that is fundamentally against Mosaic Law.  I am not saying that such is actually true, but as with all things time will ultimately tell the ultimately goal/affects of some of the practices that have been recently introduced to us as acceptable and even marketable.


I know that someone like President Obama would say that one of the ways Christianity is manifest in American society is by how all different types of people (i.e. of different and even conflicting religions) can live together peacefully, and indeed I will attest to the fact that if you have some type of belief that is perhaps unacceptable in your homeland, America is the most popular place to go to avoid persecution.  However Biblical Christianity did not espouse religious tolerance.  In fact Paul, the true father of Christianity, was one of the most religiously-intolerant person in the entire New Testament who taught the early Christians that they should avoid, as much as possible, contact with people of other contrasting faiths.

Mosaic Law was also multicultural in that the Hebrews were legislated to accept visitors peacefully, but in terms of accepting outside religions it was perhaps one of the most intolerant in history.  In other words yes outsiders were allowed to live amongst the Hebrews but did so under the predisposition that they would observe Mosaic Law during that time.  However, whereas during the early days of America everyone had to be Christian (i.e. African slaves were forced converted to Christianity), I think in the long run establishing such an ideal in the United States would have been impossible due to factors such as despite the fact that evidently they were heavily inspired by ancient Biblical tales the Western Europeans never went as far as to profess themselves Hebrews, and trying to exclusively enforce a religion in a country that is not ancestrally yours and where you can’t (or don’t want to) control the border is of course going to let contrary religions in.

That being said, the reason I mentioned multiculturalism and religious tolerance isn’t to argue that America is practicing such in direct contrast to Mosaic Law.  Rather it is to point out that when such is practiced, whether intentionally or unintentionally. you are rather paving the way for their to be a unified religion, which by implication would be no religion.  Thus in America you have a situation where you can be a Christian, Muslim, Luciferian, New Ager or any religion you want - so long as your religion doesn't bother anyone else.  You can wear it on your clothes or maybe get a tattoo, but you aren’t expected to try to force it on anyone who may believe contrary, not even your own children.  However at the end of the day most people still believe in a higher power, and a large populace having no religion at all is unrealistic, so when you combine all religions into one what you basically have is humanism, which translates into secular humanism when the god everyone is serving is money, which is the main reason, not religious tolerance or multiculturalism, that the United States has such a high rate of immigration.


Of course the most popular anti-Mosaic American law is legalization of homosexuality.  In fact it’s the way America treats homosexuality that inspired me to write this article in the first place.

Whereas homosexuality (men sleeping with other men specifically) was punishable by death under Mosaic Law, ironically ideals like being tolerant of homosexuals and even outside religions can also be traced back to the Bible, specifically Jesus Christ.  For instance we all know the story of Jesus saving the woman who was caught sleeping with a man who wasn’t her husband from death.  In other words it was Jesus who established the ideal that even though the Law empowers an individual to exact judgment in certain situations, that individual should rather practice forgiveness so that when said individual stands before God he can also receive forgiveness.  Again there is a significant gap between not judging a person and tolerating him, but such teachings at least laid the foundation that even if you’re someone who believes in Mosaic Law you don’t have to go around stoning people.

As such in the modern, post-Christ (A.D.) world we’re expected to live with all men peacefully regardless of their lifestyle, so long as, I would presume, they don’t go around hurting other people.  Thus America passing laws making it illegal to harm homosexuals is logical, and I would even say the right thing to do.  However the powers that be have taken it to a whole ‘nother level which now has me questioning what is it that they ultimately want to accomplish?

In other words it’s one thing when you live in a society where homosexuality is legal, but this takes on a whole new dimension when the government is actively encouraging people to become homosexuals and transsexuals are able to change their sex on their birth certificates.  In other words let’s break this down into two basic questions - (1) why would you actively encourage people, including children, to become homosexuals?  And (2) what on Earth is the rationale behind empowering someone to legally change their sex from birth?  It’s one thing to tolerate homosexuality but another to actually promote it and make is seem normal.  You would think rather as a Christian-based nation America would be doing more to minimize homosexuality, whether it’s legal or not.


Americans now are living in their third or fourth generation of mainstream, legal pornography.  Yes, an argument can be made that porn has been around since time immemorial, and I was stunned but not overly surprised when I found out that even the first motion picture ever marketed like back in the 1800s was of a woman stripping, but we’re dealing with something different here.  After all what we and our children are now being fed is no longer “photos of naked women out on a country field.”

In other words each generation of  pornography is looking for something new to add to the game since popular pornography is just as much based on shock value as eroticism, and after all at the end of the day there’s only so many logical, safe ways a person can have sex.  Thus in hindsight it’s not surprising that pornography has progressed from nudism to intercourse to oral sex to lesbianism to anal sex to homosexuality to incest to now people sticking their tongues in other people’s butts to I fear to even conceptualize what will come after this, the fear factor due to the established fact that people imitate what they see in porno films. 

Popular pornography has fukedup modern society in so many ways that trying to compile them all would take a new article and I would say at least a few more years of observation, and the most disturbing thing about it is that none of the country’s leaders (except for some of the religious ones) seem to have picked up on it or if they have don’t dare mentioning it, probably in fear of turning a large part of the populace off.  What I will say in conclusion though is that if the powers that be in America really wanted to solve the problem of deteriorating families the first thing they would do is curb porn, and the fact that they aren’t doing so implies that either they are ignorant of its influences, the situation is too out of control and/or they don’t want families to stay intact.


There are some statutes in Mosaic Law that would be impossible for most people to keep in the modern world.  For instance do you know there’s a law that prohibited the Hebrews from getting a haircut or shaving their faces?  The purpose of this law was to set them apart from other people, to make them more identifiable as “holy” before God.  However if you’ve noticed even the present-day leaders of Israel have clean shaven faces, and the only religious groups I know who strive to keep this ideal are Rastafarians, some sects of Muslim Arabs and those Jews like the ones I used to see in NYC, but I’m sure there are others out there.

One of the reason Israeli leaders prefer to have their faces shaven is because the leader of the world, America (Rome), possesses such an ideology.  In other words the leaders of America aren’t men you see with beards or even mustaches.  In fact if you look at popular American movies generally the good guy has a clean-shaven face and the bad guy or lesser characters some facial hair.  I already delved into this subject previously in this blog and don’t care to do so much again but will conclude that, like homosexuality, it’s one thing to tolerate a man shaving all of the hair off of his face and another thing to actually encourage such behavior.


These days I would say that at least a third of the American movies I come across has the main character(s) with tattoos.  I mean it isn’t like there is (or least I’ve never heard of) a tattoo industry that is lobbying Hollywood or the government for more exposure.  So why are these markings, which sometimes lead to future regret or even health issues, being made to appear cool in America? 

It would seem that this current phenomenon began in the general society where tattooing seems to have gained popularity around the late 1990s not necessarily due to a push by Hollywood but just the masses emulating extremely popular individuals (i.e. Allen Iverson and Tupac Shakur).  Many people attribute tattooing to some form of individual or societal decadence, and whereas I won't make the same argument I will say that some of them are really grotesque but again still perceived as a way to appear cool and/or different.  Perhaps the perceived connection between tattoos and corruption has something to do with the fact that tattoos are outlawed under Mosaic Law (or vice versa).  That being said now that even the US President has one, even if it’s not Biblical tattooing definitely won’t be losing popularity anytime soon.


Despite its strong Christian foundation, I believe that America is transitioning from a country that generally doesn’t care about the Bible to one that is now by and large actively going against the Bible.  So now if such is true the big question is why would they do such a thing?

Monday, June 08, 2015


Who the hell casted this dude in a movie about an entrepreneurial chef?
Every once in awhile I'm treated to an American movie.  What makes the best of these experiences successful is that the movie will totally catch me by surprise in a positive way, like when I never even heard of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters until actually seeing it.  One thing I have come to understand about big-budget American films, and expectedly so, is that they are intentionally laced with what can be interpreted as particular ideas, and every once in awhile a production will disturb me so much that I can actually write an entire article about it, such as the case in point, Jon Favreau’s the Chef.

The Chef’s most overt subliminal message is pro-Cuban immigration, with such an idea being pushed across a major American motion picture being logical with all of the U.S.nicing up to Cuba as of late.  However there were other themes, as in images that were repeatedly  present throughout the movie, and now I will interpret them the best that I know how with my limited understanding and conspiracies.


I recently came across an article about how much even a single really-popular movie can influence generations, and increasingly American movies seem to feature scenes where the hero(es) smoke marijuana, and just like the abovementioned pro-Cuban immigration, this idea also seems to be favored by and large by the US Government.  That being said having someone as beautiful and popular as Scarlett Johansson smoking a spliff on the big screen is definitely going to desensitive some poeple to marijuana usage. 

 Despite the fact that many people would probably cringe eating from a chef with arm-length tattoos, the Chef still made this part of the central character.
At first I wanted to make a case of how tattoos, whose popularity are at an all-time high, are against Mosaic Law but while researching realized that there are so many things we do are against the Law that I probably shouldn't go there.  However I would like to bring up the point that in the fundamental sense tattoos are a mark, and what is it that the powers that be (PTB) want people to be marked for?  Some theorize that this is socialization to desensitive peope to the idea of receiving some type of permanent ID stamp (i.e. Mark of the Beast), but I postulate that people are being marked for termination, somewhat similar to Nazi Germany.  Please don't ask me to expound more than that as I really don't understand this concept myself.

There are some symbols that we're so used to seeing throughout our lives that we don't even think much of them or bother to find out what they mean, and the image that perhaps falls into this category more than any other is the five-pointed star/pentagram.  For instance without doing any actual research I would estimate that at least a third of the world's national flags feature at least one star, and logically this is more than just a coincidence.

The star symbol was featured throughout the Chef, including being tattooed on the lead character's arm as well as on the front and back of the shoulders of Scarlett Johansson.

The main way the Chef 'disturbed' me is in its treatment of food.  For instance I know some people have a thing for undercooked food, and boy was there a whole lot of undercooking going on in the Chef, especially of the one thing that's more dangerous to not cook well than anything else - meat.
The only theory I can come up with for this consistent portrayal is that the PTB wants the masses to get used to the idea of base/unappealing meats in anticipation of future food or heating (fire) shortages.
Is niggas so hungry that now even insects are becoming a delicacy?


Being that I never heard of a "Cubano" sandwich before watching the Chef, I googled it to get more depictions of this genre of food, and sure enough the color of the meat tends to be a little pinkish, which I guess is the color of pork (I'm not a pork eater myself).  However, despite that fact that pictures you find of sandwiches on the net tend to be more glorified than what we eat on a day-to-day basis, you can Google it yourself and see that the meat in a Cubano, even after the bread is pressed and toasted, is still very much visible.  In contrast, during certain parts of the Chef it appeared like they were serving niggas deadass bread sandwiches or as they're more euphemistically called here in Ghana "meat pies".  This of course keeps inline with the notion that the film is pushing the idea of food scarcity.

When you watch this scene at regular speed it looks like the homey is enjoying his bread-and-undercooked-meat sandwich, but watching it frame by frame tells a different story.
Of course what food scarcity (as well as probably eating undercooked meat) ultimately lead to is death, and of course the best way to symbolize death is with the image of a dead human being, i.e. skulls and skeletons.

Robert Downey Jr. wearing a goat head / Baphomet necklace.
Whether due to age, education or both, these days it's hard for me to watch a major motion picture without noticing what can be interpreted as subliminal messages, and true to that theme Jon Favreau's the Chef seems to be full of such.

Monday, April 27, 2015


Around some 20 years while a student at Hofstra University I attended a guest lecture by a prominent albeit little-known figure from the U.S. Government.  I can’t remember the exact topic of his presentation, but it bordered around global U.S. military interventionism.  At the time I was deep into study of anthropology and learning directly from the Whiteman himself how his own people (specifically Western Europeans) have f*cked the world over, and I was cocky and thought I had the whole game figured out.  So when the time came for questions to be posed to the speaker I, the only Black and possibly youngest person in the audience, boldly raised my hand and asked this man in the know, “Why is it that the United States is always intervening in other country’s affairs?”, upon which he looked at me with that ‘he’s-brave-but-dumb’ look and somewhat forcefully yet somewhat sarcastically responded, “Because they ask us to.”

Also while at Hofstra I had a Nigerian friend who perhaps went on to become that most successful professional out of all my former associates.  Once I paid him a visit while he was attending Georgetown, and we got into one of our many discussions about the state of the world and American Society, and when such conversations turn into debates there aren’t many brethren who can stand against me once I start whipping out the statistics and facts.  So at the end of day, rather than perpetuate what appeared to be a never-ending deliberation, he concluded it all by simply telling me that I needed to open my mind and that the way I perceived the state of the world was “too black and white.”

About a month ago I came across an article on Cracked.com, which is currently my favorite leisure-reading website, about the genesis of all that beef currently going on in the Ukraine, and regardless of how the popular media tends to present the situation, it didn’t began as a Russia versus NATO turf war but more as in protesters against their own government - like brother against brother.  Eventually “all at once the protest became a revolution,” and Russia came to the aid of the Ukrainian Government against its own people which eventually led to intervention by the United States and NATO, and whereas this article also has a strong tone of propaganda it is still a different version than presented by other sites such as another I frequent, Infowars, which on the surface seems to have presented it as a classic case of America sticking her nose into somebody else’s business and all hell breaking loose as a result.

Just yesterday I came across an article, which prompted me to write this post, that highlighted how the U.S. Military is training soldiers in Chad to fight Boko Haram.  On the surface of course Boko Haram are bad guys, but I would venture to say that like other such conflicts there’s probably a lot going on underneath the surface that a person wouldn’t know unless they have a better understanding of Nigerian history than what the mainstream media has to offer.  That being said they’re still going around killing countless innocent people, and I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I was glad to hear that America is helping the Chadian soldiers fight them, almost to the point of - dare I say it - being proud to be an American.


In a perfect world if a weaker nation is being terrorized by a more powerful nation and an even more-powerful nation is willing to sacrifice its own sons in order to defend the weaker nation, that would be one of the greatest acts of heroism and altruism in human history. However in an imperfect world, i.e. the one that you and I live in, every time you witness such a scenario you instead have to consider what the even more-powerful nation stands to gain from defending the weaker nation and know that at the end of the day just as the more-powerful nation is administering justice eventually all nations are judged. 

Friday, March 13, 2015


Last Updated 25 April 2015

I'm always nervously looking out to identify countries the United States have beef with in anticipation of the prophecies of Revelation 17 and 18 being fulfilled in which 10 kings (nations) destroy Babylon.  Of course there may never be a consensus on who the prophesied Babylon of Revelations actually is, but for the sake of argument I think we can generally conclude that in terms of being a physical place that the modern-day Babylon would be the United States.

For those of you who are interested in this topic but immediately get turned off by anything referencing the Bible or religion in general I implore you to read on, especially if you live in the United States, since as we all know there are real things going on in the world that we need to keep an eye on, and although my conclusion that 10 nations will ultimately teamup to fight America may be based on prophesy this article for the most part is not Biblically based.  Moreover the nations put on this list have not to date formed such an "alliance", and I actually got the title from an article I came across recently.

I split the nations on this list up into three tiers, Red, Orange and Yellow, based on the current severity of their fluctuating beef with the United States, and as such I will update the list regularly based on news received from the international front.


Allies: China, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba
Enemies: United States, NATO

Of course the red list has to began with America's longtime rival, Russia.  In recent years things seemed to be more or less cool between the two superest of powers until recent drama like Syria and more importantly the Ukraine.  Contrary to popular belief Russia's nuclear arsenal is actually superior to the United States', and the idea of these two actually going at it is the one thing on Earth I like to think about the least,  Moreover the funny thing about it these days is that Russia is being portrayed more as the peacemaker and good guy.

Enemies: United States, South Korea

With the "tension" in the Ukraine you don't hear much about NK these days unless it's, as usual, threatening the United States and South Korea, which the international audience seems to have gotten used to.  Logically in a war North Korea wouldn't stand a chance alone against America, which makes its constant threats against the US and defiance of UN statutes even more notable.


Actually I didn't know where to put Iraq on this list for a number of reasons.  First off unlike Russia and North Korea they don't seem to have any missiles capable of hitting the homeland United States, and secondly isn't there supposed to be like a pro-US government in power in Iraq?  When the Unites States invaded Iraq at the turn of the century they were successful in changing the power structure, but unfortunately Iraq has been in a perpetual state of civil unrest since, and in retrospect it now seems like things were more stable when the country was under the dictatorship of the assassinated Saddam Hussein.  Moreover being that this nation seems to be the stronghold of the Islamic State it's safe to say that they don't have much love for America, meaning that the people in Iraq probably attribute much of the ongoing violence to Western intervention in some way, shape or form.

Allies: Russia, Iran

Somewhat like North Korea, due to its weaker military might it's hard to imagine Venezuela actually getting into it with the US.  When former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a very outspoken critic of the United States' foreign policy, died, the general implication seemed to be relations between the two nations would get better.  However as of right now the two countries are experiencing "the worst bilateral diplomatic dispute since socialist President Nicolas Maduro took office in 2013".



I don't know much about Yemen other than despite being a small and relatively powerless country it is also a regular victim of US air (drone) strikes, which tend to have large numbers of civilians casualties, and of course such actions can make anyone into your enemy.


Afghanistan is a nation that has been at "war" with the United States for over 10 years now but of course has nowhere near the military might of America.  As such all of the fighting to date has been on Afghani soil.

Allies: Russia, Australia
Enemies: Japan

As if China being an ally to Russia wasn't enough, direct tensions have recently flared up against the Asian nation and America due to the South China Sea territorial dispute.  Even though China's expansion into these waters apparently doesn't pose any direct threat to the United States, as the Sea is nowhere near to the continental U.S., America still has a number of strong allies in the region who feel threatened by China, including Japan (despite current protests suggesting the opposite, at least as a sentiment amongst the masses) and the Philippines (as pictured below). 

Even though this beef is more prevalent in the news these days than even the Ukraine, just like the idea of the United States getting into it with Russia I think most of us don't want to see a war with China.

Allies: Russia, Iran
Enemies: United States, United Kingdom

Syria is a country that has been dealing with deadly civil unrest for years, a situation that prompted America and her allies to consider intervention, which the still-standing Syrian government has vehemently refused and the global community disagreed with.  However the apparent rise of the Islamic State in Syria has given the United States the rationale to start bombing targets in Syria, and I'm confident if Syria were a stronger nation it would have considered bombing homeland America in retaliation.  As of right now since parts of Syria are under the control of different parties it's probably not likely that anti-American sentiment is a prevailing thought among all of them, and even if so again they don't have the military prowess to highhandedly defeat the United States.


Even though Latin America is relatively right at America's doorstep, more attention is always given to American military activities in the Middle East, probably because such intervention in Latin American, according to history, has been more clandestine.  However this has not caused the leaders of Latin America countries to forget the past, and as such you have countries like Venezuela and Ecuador that occasionally accuse the United States of meddling in their affairs in the worst way. 


Allies: United States
Enemies: Iran

Being that the United States gives more foreign aid to Israel than any other nation it's not at war with, it may seem strange to see them on such a list, but in the game of international politics and prophecy you never really know.  In recent years, whereas I wouldn't necessarily call it a pro-Palestinian stance, America definitely seems to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which of course has Israel pissed off.  Now it seems like the United States is on the verge of striking some type of "nuclear deal", a decision so controversial and annoying to Israel that it has caused the greatest public derision in US foreign policy that I ever remember seeing.


One of the few countries that really seems to have developed a better relationship with the United States under the Obama Administration has been neighboring Cuba, which sits only 40 miles off the coast of Florida.  Like North Korea, though small and seemingly and powerless against the United States, Cuba has a long history of not giving afuk and perhaps more alarmingly communism, which has allowed it to deal with countries like Russia in the past.  Though on the surface in recent dealings it seems like the United States has become more sympathetic to Cuba perhaps one of the main underlying goal of this diplomacy is to make sure that small yet brave and strategically placed nation doesn't form a better relationship with the likes of Russia or Venezuela.

Allies: United States
Enemies: China, Russia?

The governments of Japan and the United States are allies, but that doesn't necessarily mean this sentiment is shared amongst the Japanese people.  Japan isn't the type of nation where an American has to fear being kidnapped or anything of the such, but that doesn't mean for instance that they want US military bases there. However more importantly Japan has been "the sole country to face nuclear attack" which was at the hands of the United States, and though this happened some 70 years ago considering that hundreds of thousands Japanese died from these bombs it's not something you think they would forgotten, even after all of this time.  As such, even though Japan says things like "unveiling Tokyo's biggest-ever naval ship in peacetime" during the 68th anniversary of the bombings in 2013 "was coincidental", some of course may conclude otherwise.


I'm not political insider nor a formal student of international politics; like most of you I just read the news and try to put things together, and when you bring Biblical prophecy into the mix of international relations things really look grim, especially for I would say the United States.

Saturday, February 21, 2015


Man is life depressing, when you have to resort to books and false prophets (people who want you to pay them to make you feel good about yourself) to boost your self-esteem and outlook on life, but unfortunately this is something many of us must do in order to achieve a mentally-healthy day, and I find myself tempted to once again download texts like Napoleon Hill’s Success Through a Positive Mental Attitude despite the fact that although a good read and actually inspirational on the whole I know in the long run isn’t going to do jackshit.

Of course like most human beings the causes of my depression are numerous.  For starters I have a job that offers absolutely no advancements where I have to scrap for crumbs from the table.  Then there’s the fact that I spend practically every day alone, but as often is the case in the world of depression that’s a double-edged sword, because at the same time I really can’t stand being around most people I know for an extended period of time, and even if I did get the job of my dreams it’d probably reduce me into a salary-enslaved drone - you know, being able to credit and afford anything you want but never actually being free enough to really enjoy it.

I know that indeed depression is for the most part mental, but I also know that it can often be alleviated through physical pleasures.  So for instance eating is something many people may find relief in, although later they may have to deal with the depressing affects of overeating like poor health and spending too much on food.  Sometimes people tell me I should marry and have a family, and whereas having loved ones around is definitely a picker-upper it’s not something that I feel one should do hastily, lest I find myself in the depressing situation of having dependants that I can’t adequately cater for.  I would love to actually make a living off of my passions, i.e. writing, but this blog and a couple of other websites I have up get practically no hits, and of course when I think about that it depresses the sh*t out of me.

I think some people would classify what I’m going through as midlife crisis, and I don’t know how accurate that is.  I do know that back in the day whereas I wasn’t what you would call carefree I definitely had more optimism for my future than I do now.  In reality the failures I’ve experienced between now and then are more of a depressant than aging (like really, what’s the alternative to aging?), but again what you classify as a failure is a tricky game because you never know how your story is going to end and where your “failures” will lead you.

In America there’s a proverb that goes ‘money can’t buy you happiness,’ but you’d be hardpressed to convince someone in Ghana of the same.  Here the general impression is that if only a nigga has enough dough he’d be straight, and whereas I don’t totally agree I will say I’m leaning more towards this understanding than I had when I arrived.  But of course when you live in a country where such is the mentality while simultaneously having an economy where it’s virtually impossible to make a decent living, well that’s depressing.


It’s bug like while writing this article I went to Yahoo Search to find out what word is the opposite of depression, and it sent back an article that states “the opposite of depression is not happiness… it is resilience.”  So based on this understanding I guess it’s true that depression isn’t necessarily being in a situation that you don’t like but is rather being in a situation you don’t like that you don’t think will ever change.

Sunday, February 15, 2015


I came across an article recently on Infowars of how people (or in this case one person in particular) in the United States have been  getting in trouble for rainwater harvesting.  Upon further research I've indeed been able to verify that water harvesting is illegal in a few parts of the States.  Just based on speculation I thought the reason would be an attempt by the government to protect citizens from using and potentially getting harmed by water that is likely filled with all types of contaminants (i.e. acid rain), but the rationale seems to be even "weirder" than that as such laws seem to be based on something called "water rights" (dafluk?).  In other less-developed parts of the world however water harvesting is an essential practice, as in if you don't do it you won't have water to bathe, wash clothes, flush the toilet, etc. and in some cases even to drink.

Of course when you're dealing with the overly-developed world even if you do decide to harvest water the options tend to be relatively complicated and expensive, like making a mountain out of a molehill.  But fret not; I'll show you the basics on collecting rainwater.  After all you never know when you'll be faced with a drought, blackout or other crisis when you can longer rely on govvie to provide your basic water needs.


1 - Buckets, water "gallons" or something to collect the water in (and funnels).
2 - A roof with good water runoff.
3 - Decent enough health to be able to withstand carrying heavy sh*t outside in the rain.
3 - A good rainfall.


Buckets are good for collecting water but not necessarily for storing because often they don't have lids and aren't very huge.  So in other words if you plan on using the water immediately buckets are ideal.  What makes buckets essential is that they're portable, meaning they can be moved around to places that have the best water flow, and then the water transported to a larger, more permanent container.

More permanent containers can consist of items such as "jerricans" or really anything that can hold water (like that plastic garbage can).  Though often referred to in Ghana as "water gallons" the most popular option, jerricans, are larger than gallons; I would guesstimate they can hold about four gallons.  Their original function is to hold cooking oil, but afterwards they're washed down and resold hollow, usually for the purpose of harvesting water and sometimes to transport gasoline.  We also had a bigger plastic container out this piece some time ago, but after using it for some time to run water in directly and then lifting and carrying it the poor thing crumpled under the pressure and attrition.  We also have a big metal container which unfortunately seems to be dealing with some rust issues, as in when harvesting water metal can sometimes be more high-maintenance than plastic.

It's also ideal to have some type of funnel attached to the jerricans in order to widen the area where water can be collected (as shown in the video below), as heavy rain is often accompanied by heavy wind, meaning that the falling water stream tends to move around, and trying to aim the mouth of a container to collect rain while it's actually raining is the most dangerous part of water harvesting.


I really don't know roofing terminology and what you call those little indentations that make rain fall from the roof in steady streams, but by watching the video above you'll see what I'm talking about.  Of course dust and other contaminants settle on roofs when it's not raining, so you don't need to harvest water immediately upon rainfall because it'll be dirty.  That's why when you have a stationary water collector there has to be filter present, unless you want a shitload of sediment at the bottom of your container.  Otherwise you have to use portable water containers that can be put directly in the path of the descending rainwater once it has already washed the roof off.


At normal temperature water is estimated to weigh about 8 pounds per gallon, so if the average jerrican does hold 4 gallons than that means they weigh about 24 pounds.  And forget about big blue there; when filled with water it can't be lifted with one hand unless your Arnold Schwarzenegger out this piece.  So in other words you may find yourself moving around weighty containers in heavy rainfall, with the water beating right down on you because you're positioning containers in and out of the direct stream of the channeled water, so on top of rushing you're also dealing with visibility issues, getting wet and cold and the ground being slippery.  If you suffer from asthma, a weak immune system or anything that makes you susceptible to cold than of course it's advisable to wear a rainjacket when harvesting... oh yeah, and footwear with good traction.  Don't go out there trying to be macho, slip and suffer from a potentially fatal head injury.


When living in areas that lack water due to inconsistent or no piped water flow, when you're really suffering from water shortage you may tend to get excited over any little rain that falls and quickly whip out the buckets to collect what you can, but as aforementioned rushing to harvest water leads to an untidy collection (even if it rained heavily the day before).  Unfortunately though sometimes it only rains enough to wash off the roof but not to allow you to collect anything afterwards, which is like a real kick in the pants when you're obsessing over where to get water for for your next bath or toilet flush.  If however you're desperate enough to collect the initial rains then of course you can give it time for the sediment to settle before use, which ideally makes about 80% of it usable for bathing and maybe washing clothes but not of course recommended for cooking.


Of course one day I'll purchase a bigger container like a PolyTank, but if using it to collect rainwater I'll be burdened with filtering and/or cleaning the bottom of it after every collection since such usually stay open in anticipation of any unforeseen rainfall.  It'll be bad business if hardcore metros like New York City were to face a prolonged problem with water supply since to my recollection apartment buildings don't have any water runoff that can be collected.

Saturday, January 10, 2015


Whereas foreign-based terrorism seems to always be at the forefront of the concerns of American politicians, the fact is that domestic terrorism, as in random, mass killings, has been the bigger issue in America in recent years.  Now this phenomena has evolved into something that, though maybe not as deadly in terms of instant death tolls, is at least equally if not more frightening - family members murdering their own, something that, according to news agencies like Yahoo, seems to be happening on a daily basis these days.  Indeed according to legend the first murder to have ever occurred was brother against brother, and hearing that one family member has murdered another may not be particularly new, but when you hear of mothers killing their own adult sons and sisters their own older brother than indeed there should be a cause for concern.  Whereas we all would like a nice, clearcut solution like 'America is Babylon, and that's why family members are murdering each other,' the fact is that there still exists contributing factors, and here are some that I've identified:


When you're a member of a family that's in its third, fourth (or maybe even longer) generation of domestic violence you can expect the violence to get progressively worse.  Why?  Because the abuse has now become so common that it is seen as normal, meaning that more torturous forms of abuse must be devised when the 'normal' punishments don't suffice.  So for instance you may hear tales of parents holding their children upside down and beating them to death whereas historically beating them will they were upright has proven to be sufficient punishment.


I've read in the past that there's an Illuminati conspiracy to destroy the family structure in America, but shifts in family structure we've seen over the last 100 years are also a result of economic revolutions (i.e. postmodernism) and other factors like legalized pornography.  Over the last century we've seen nuclear-family structures evolve from monogamy to serial monogamy (step-families) to single parenthood to same-sex marriage to what I predict would eventually be children living without parents (as in the case in large part of the sisters who killed their brother).  For instance, even though it does sometimes happen, I wouldn't bet on a man to love his stepson as much as he would his biological son (and perhaps vice versa), especially when the participants have aged without each other.


Anytime you have a discussion about violence in America or perhaps anywhere on the globe the media has to be mentioned.  All of that being said in American media especially, there are innumerable acts of violence, and in the society in general, from the police all the way down to the citizenry, violence is seen as perhaps the most expedient solution to interpersonal problems.

4 - GUNS

I'm not a fan of disarming the citizenry, especially when the police or anybody else legally has guns, but the fact is that having guns around, especially hand guns which are specifically made for shooting human beings, exponentially increases the chances of them being used.  Yes, some murderers will resort to other weapons if guns aren't available, but I believe that the ease of use of guns turns many people who may not have the heart to get up close and stab somebody into killers, and there's also the consistent flow of action movies where the hero gives the inexperienced novice advice on just how easy being a gun killer is, like in Wesley Snipes' the Detonator (2006) when he responds to the question "what's it like to kill" with the simple answer "you aim the gun, then pull the trigger."


Whereas tales of murderous domestic violence may become increasingly shocking and frequent in America, you shouldn't really expect anything practical (such as minimizing violence in the media) to be done about it since unless personally affected by such an incidence people really don't give afuk.