I ain’t got nothin’.

But that is not to appear as nothing.

For as ostentatiously verbose my eloquence may appear perceivable be, the subject matter with which pertain’s relevance is nay paramount yet moot.

That is to say, eloquence, the art of public speaking, is not reliant on concrete subject matter, logically or emotionally formulated opinions and arguments, or thought provoking statement, it is instead reliant on the way in which said or any subject matter is delivered, accentuated in this TEDx Talk, by Will Stephen, in which we; think about what that guy said, look at the numbers,  4, 4, 24, and etc.

Now, out of context, those statements are non-sequitious, and nonsensical, but when delivered with gusto and confidence, and accompanied by equally non-sequitious charts, these statements become not only self evident, but relatable. For beyond subject matter, all TEDx speeches, nay, all TED speeches, nay all speeches in all of life are in their very nature, formulaic, and much in the same way speeches are formulaic, so is life.

That final statement is too non-sequitious, and is a subject matter which will not be revisited for the remainder of this blog post, however, it served its purpose, it was thought provoking, made one question their own existence, and if pertinent to the discussed topic, would act as an excellent segway to new topics. However, it is not pertinent, it simply is, its nature left to the inquisitive human to derive meaning from the innately meaningless.

For in the wikipedia article artfully entitled Art Oratoire, or Public Speaking, details not how to craft sound logical arguments or develop witty thorough analysis, but instead how to speak properly, how to make ones audience hear and believe them properly, how one should give speeches.

We as a people, since the dawn of humanity, have never been ones to praise scientific insight or well crafted argument. For virtually all of human history, even now, we have insulted the communities based upon the foundation of logically well thought out analysis in favor of the boisterous and verbally aggressive. The Church in the 1600’s had not evidence or sound reasoning in comparison to the countless evidence and logical theory presented by the scientific community, what they had was force, but not just physical, verbal voice and stature, a magnificent grandiose presence, loud and commanding, overpowering the single disrespected intellectual.

We do not respect the intellectual for the prowess with which he maintains in his brain, we respect the Church for their presence, their manner of speaking, simply put, their volume. In this same way we mindlessly respect those speakers at TED conferences, regardless of the subject matter of the matter they discuss, the meaningful or meaningless nature of their words is all negligible, for it is their stature, a TED attendee, and their methodology of speaking which Will Stephen so eloquently undermines and satirizes.

If one is to dissent against such unorthodox thought, contemplate on such, in school, what are we most consistently shown and required to analyze? Free-form speeches and thorough scientific journals and papers, or eloquent word combinations delivered to us through the TED foundation.

It matters not the subject, if all TED Talks were based in faith with little evidence except their faith, they would still most likely be preferred to scientific, logical papers, as simply stating factoids and then reaffirming why they are factoids with countless number of evidence and reasoning is nowhere near as rhetorically appealing as the verbose verbiage of eloquent nonsense (“And all the men of the city shall stone him with stones. . .” – Rhetorical masterpiece if there ever was one).

In this way, this AP Language course with which we participate in does not encourage logical reasoning but instead eloquent verbiage to accompany any reasoning, be it fallible or not, as evidenced by the subject of many of our concerning matters being in their very own nature fallible.

That is why there is truth to the statement that if the sound were to be muted, it would be comparable to a normal TED Talk. It is a TED Talk. After all, if A = B and B = C, then A = C.

Pythagorean Theorem.

Is there a God?

“Traversing an unimportant corner of the internet you may find, if you are lucky, a subsidiary of a search engine.  This subsidiary should hold rightfully no place in your memory among the trillions of subsidiaries you’ve passed along the way, however this one happened to be the birthplace of a video I had the enormous pleasure of watching, its name, was The Giant from Sirius.” – Altered quotation from Lord Bung’s The Giant from Sirius.

Very recently in the recommended feed of a video – on said subsidiary of a search engine – aptly titled Announcement For a Teaser For an Announcement of Teaser Trailer For a Trailer of Erik Dri I came across a video simply titled The Giant from Sirius. Looking mostly harmless, and with an exceptionally low view count, especially for the quality perceivable from the thumbnail, I decided to divulge from Commentiquete’s video, just for a moment, as to experience for myself, The Giant from Sirius

To attempt to trivialize the plot in a concise manner would be an affront to it’s nature and an insult to it’s deeper meaning, and as such will instead encourage that you watch the video yourself. It’s elegance and capability to provoke thought paramount, I rival there is something for all to derive from it. (Let it be noted however, the subject matter which comprises said video is a take on a much older short story by philosopher and lady’s man Voltaire.)

While many philosophical and scientific theories are pressed and discussed at length, oft in nuanced subtleties, predominately it trifles with the subject matter of knowing, or perhaps, the lack thereof (let it be known however, and contrary to popular and commonplace writing theory and formatting doctrine, that this is wholly my opinion, completely and plausibly fallible in potentially all aspects, as is the way of all things in life).

In all attempt to avoid spoilers of the artistic beauty that is this work, I shall simply say as such; in one of the closing scenes when the predominant character of the work is asked a deeply philosophical and theoretical statement, juxtaposed with said character’s already shown all-encompassing knowledge and intellectual philosophical prowess, he states simply and objectively: “I don’t know.”

We as humans often look to powerful figures as beacons of all-encompassing knowledge, we describe them as infallible, we rally behind them wildly, we adopt their mannerisms, we perceive them as more than they are, that being, beings. 

No human, no feasible being within the realm of scientific plausibility, could hypothetically know all. All knowing is impossible by its very nature. This mindset most all adopt where in which one looks to their idol as infallible is unhealthy and retrogressive in nature, by doing so we reject the potential that there is more to know, yet so many choose to inhabit as such, so many choose to not know. To accept to that one does not and will not know all, to accept that we as humans, we as beings inhabiting a fourteen billion year old universe, will most likely never know anywhere close to such, is to open one’s self up to knowing more, to discussion, to further understanding, to acceptance.

Every church, every established religion, every ideology preaches that they are infallible, and has such since the dawn of their creation, be it out of fear or ignorance, they adopt the doctrine which inhibits them from further understanding. The Christian and Catholic Church since their beginning has preached that they know all of their is to know, their existence is all knowing and their god is omnipresent and ever proven, despite numerous historical lashes out which have made them change their religious doctrine, they have always accepted within themselves that they are always right. 

Perhaps this is why so many followers of their ideology choose to exact hatred and bigotry against those of differing creed or thought, since they are all knowing they feel exact in knowing they are wrong, and if they cannot accept their perception of right they do not deserve to be. In their preaching of all knowing-ness and in their followers’ devout and unrelenting acceptance of such, they destroy their potential for furtherment, and for further accepting and understanding of the universe.

With these ideologies origins rooted in a fear of the unknown, perhaps their unrelenting adherence to their doctrine is brooded from their fear of accepting that they will never know all as they wish to, of the universe and what composes it, of the philosophical moral grounds of right and wrong, of anything, really. 

Life in its own perpetual existence is a muddled grey area in which we implant our own potentially flawed ideas. It is only when we accept the potential that we do not know, that we do not know if these ideas are right or wrong, that we may further these ideas, help them evolve, and in our acceptance of unknowing – ness, reach a state of knowing – ness.

Simply, I don’t know.

“The more I read, the more I acquire, the more certain I am that I know nothing.” – Voltaire

Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton. . .

If he got a problem he can Alexander Handle It. . .

Is a quote from youtube celebrity Jacksfilms’ most recent video entitled Alexander Hamilton, in which he ironically mocks societal perceptions of history and misinterpretations of historical medium through song, while also poking fun at one’s desire to fit into any given subject matter, even if they know little to nothing of it. That’s all it is, a humorous, musical bit which one would have to stretch to immeasurable lengths to misconstrue as the falsification of American history.

But what if one doesn’t have to go to great lengths to misconstrue history, to falsify actual events and tragedies to further one’s Neo-Nazi agenda? That’s exactly what Oscar Turner did, and has been doing.

In this particular video, Oscar Turner states that we (the white populous, apparently) are not sorry for the atrocities we have committed and perpetuated throughout history, such as slavery, crusades, and imperialism, for. . . reasons? He further continues his white supremacist ramblings stating direct lies, such as that the holocaust was a hoax and that white genocide is occurring at a more frequent rate than ever (despite it’s existence having been determined to be nothing more than a conspiracy).

This is not the first video of it’s kind, nor the first article or pseudo-documentary, nor any medium of communication for that matter, nor will it be the last. The Neo-Nazi movements stem from an ignorance and a lack of sympathy and an unwillingness to accept difference, but their ignorance is not what draws more to their movement, nor what keeps it alive it is instead the falsification of history, and perpetuation of lies and ignorance that they bestow upon uneducated individuals who simply don’t know any better.

It is easiest to lie to those who don’t know any better, a truth oft recognized by those who lie most.

The falsification of history provides fuel to their cause, it provides them with substance, regardless of the fallible nature of the evidence they provide. It doesn’t matter whether or not what they say is truth, or lie, or something in between, because those whom they lie to don’t no whether something is a truth or a lie or something in between, because they believe whatever those speaking down to them are saying.

Oscar Turner speaks words which anyone viewing from the outside looking in would see as blatantly wrong, using evidence and references to history which have been stretched so far from the truth that some are outright dismissals of the truth. However, to one ignorant, and scared, and uneducated, he says exactly the kinds of things they want to hear, and they’re backed up with evidence, and since they don’t know the fallible nature of the evidence, they take it as the cold hard truth. Their perpetuation of ignorance would be baseless and dissolve from within if it didn’t have substance, and they derive substance from lies about history.

In the 1930’s, Adolf Hitler blatantly lied to a group of afraid, angry ignorant Germans about their recent past and events that had occurred and why they had occurred, and as a result committed one of the most horrific crimes against humanity the world has ever seen, and all the while had the backing of his entire home country.

If it is so easy to rally those equally terrified of the real world as one is that they are willing to believe any lie or falsification of history, things as absurd as the concept the holocaust was a hoax, that the Earth is flat, that the we never went to the Moon, then what’s to stop them from lying about literally anything, and in turn, having any group of people believe and act upon that something.

Luckily enough, as time goes on, and education and understanding becomes more widespread, the ideas portrayed when history is falsified are taken as just that, false, and movements and rallies behind ignorance lose substance and in turn support, and maybe one day in the future, far from now, another video in the vein of No Apologies will be uploaded, but it won’t have 30,000 views and thousands of comments supporting it. It’ll have fifteen, ten of those criticizing how absolutely ludicrous what the author spouts is.

Captain Action

He’s here to save the day.

Or more appropriately, she’s here to save the day. This article by BBC conveys the story of how actress Shailene Woodley found herself in cuffs after peacefully protesting with a group of Native Americans about the planned Dakota Pipeline (which would bypass Native American territory and transport oil with high chance of spillage or leakage into the water supply). Disregarding the irony of that is her arrest when compared to American ideals , and the context of the scenario, when boiled down to it’s simplest terms, this story is about one thing.

Shailene Woodley, and the hero that she is. Ignoring who she is or what she was protesting for, Shailene Woodley is the ideal kind of person. She saw something wrong that she opposed, and she took action. She didn’t complain about it on Twitter, she didn’t discuss it in a blog, she took action, and when someone opposed her action, she didn’t get violent or spew vitriol, or say that the system is rigged, she continued to calmly and peacefully take action, and having the courage to stand up for what you believe in, even if others disagree with it, is pretty heroic.

Anyone can write a blog about how artists aren’t valued or paid enough by society, or about how censorship is just modern day fascism, but it takes true courage to actually do something about it, to take action.

We as a people live in a society where everything is digital. Stores, communication, education, why even romance are all digital nowadays. Whether the digital nature of our society is a benefit or a drawback to our progress as a people is a wholly different topic to be discussed, however, with all of life gone digital, so has movements.

Tweeting about how black lives matter from the comfort and safety of your own home, is very different from having the courage to actually speak out in society, or not stand for the national anthem, or declare that your brand is vehemently in support of the movement and what they stand for. Doing that in the face of institutionalized societal racism which will most definitely oppose you for doing it, is even more courageous.

But even more powerful than the self developed courage and pride that is associated and instilled upon you once one acts out on a matter they believe is the honest truth, that through words, nothing changes, but through action, we progress.

The proof of this concept is evident all throughout history. In the late 1700’s, the American people (or colonists at the time) were as whole outraged with the king and the taxes he was encroaching upon them, but they didn’t just sit around and gossip with each other about how much the king sucks, they rose up as a people, and were willing to be courageous and to stand and work together, even in the face of virtually unbeatable odds. They took action for what they believed in, even though it went against all norms and standards of the time. They did what they thought was right and they took action.

This isn’t to say that taking action automatically makes you a hero or doing what you believe in automatically courageous, because going up on stage and saying women are objects, even if that is one’s beliefs, is most definitely not a heroic thing, and killing innocent people, even though it is taking action for a cause is near the most cowardly thing one can do, but having beliefs, and standing for them in the face of societal reject (as long as you aren’t at the same time being an objectively horrendous person), is.

So next time there’s something you believe in, something you care about, something that truly genuinely matters to you, don’t just talk or write about it, do something about it, stand up for what you believe in; take action. After all, you’ve only got so many before your turn ends.


Remember when George Orwell reminded us all that Big Brother is Watching? Y’know, that whole thing about Thought Police, loosely based on Soviet Union and Nazi political ideology and social manipulation?

It’s a little like that, not really, but a little (all police states start small).

Censorship is the suppression of free thought, to put it simply, but more specifically the suppression of free thought that differs from what is expected by a person (or persons) in power. So for instance, if I were to subtly slide the word [Expletive] into the next sentence, I could have my blog deleted, highers up could get involved, all sorts of big unnecessary mess could occur, just because I used a word someone long ago decreed was not appropriate.

Censorship is however not just a governmental thing that required people to put documents that contradict their rule into mail slots for their prompt burning, it’s also something that happens with News Organizations (however the discussion of censorship within the media is a wholly different topic for another time), within schools, and even with Social Media, or more specifically in this case, Facebook.

What happened was, on Facebook, Norway’s Prime Minister posted the iconic photo of Kim Phuc and several other Vietnamese children fleeing from a Napalm strike in Trang Bang, Vietnam in 1972 during the Vietnam war. The image is widely considered to be an incredibly powerful photograph which adequately displays the horrors of war and is often used to remember the horrific tragedy which through soldiers and civilians alike suffered, which was no doubt the intent of Erna Solberg, however the graphic nature and nudity of Kim Phuc violated Facebook’s terms of service, and as such the photo which displayed the reality that is war was deleted.

The issue here lies not with Facebook’s terms of service (as Child Pornography and Real violence are objectively horrendous and should not be allowed as to attempt to stop their perpetuation), but with the fact that Facebook attempted to squelch something that shouldn’t be censored or forgotten, something horrendous that we as a people took part in, something we must acknowledge so that we dare not repeat such tragedies again.

This is however, a much grander issue than Facebook censoring a singular photo, the issue is that those in power have the power to try to erase the atrocities of history (be it yesterday or 45 years ago), and more often than not, they do, effectively skewing the people perspectives to push their agenda, a lot like Big Brother does.

When was the last time you watched or read a news piece where Syrian refugees weren’t boiled down to a statistic or “cute” analogy? When was the last time you watched or read one where they were portrayed as real genuine people suffering from horrendous tragedy, beaten and bloodied, fearing for their lives worrying if they’ll make it to another day? Or when you saw the actual travesty American soldiers went through fighting in foreign territories, or how their violence adversely affected the normal people, not terrorists, or extremists or rebels, but normal civilians living in a country which based on ideals may be different, but is still composed of human beings, people, just like you and me.

No, you probably haven’t because unless you go looking for that, news organizations know that if you saw the horrors of war, you wouldn’t be as willing to support war. This is exactly what happened during the Vietnam war, they showed the gratuitous nature of war and the public became so vehemently opposed to it that the government had essentially no support.

So while censorship is telling people what they can and can’t wear and that they can’t use words like [Expletive], it’s also the redacting of information that could be harmful to their interests of whoever is doing the censoring in the first place, but whatever they’re censoring, the one common consistent theme is that they’re hiding information, they’re sheltering you so you’re easier to manipulate.

And that’s fucking outrageous.

The Problem With Bloggers

The idea of making money for doing what is essentially homework is no doubt an intriguing idea, and for once, it’s not much of a scam. This probably sounds like a great opportunity that if easy and within personal capability, you’d all take advantage of, but, let me provide you a counterargument. You see, the problem with bloggers is that, with the way the internet works, a daily blogger who puts minimal effort into the content they create will generally earn more revenue than an artist who puts weeks into one piece of content, which in turn discourages creativity (which is bad).

Most all internet revenue for content like blogs, art, stories or animations comes from ad revenue, every time you visit or watch a page the ads that appear on that page give money to the creator of the page (while the article above does mention other ways to make income, such as selling products [however a lot of selling products is just advertising preexisting products], it can be assumed most revenue comes from advertising on the internet). Relatively simple, seems like something that would favor well done content that gets lots of views over spammed content with few views, but in reality the contrary is the case.

If money is made per every view of an advertisement, the most visited websites would the make most money, obviously, which would in theory reward people who create time consuming popular content, but the way google sorts content on the internet is heavily based upon not only website traffic, but on time spent on a website, which is where this whole thing gets really messy.

Lets boil this down into the simplest most understandable scenario (Saying, for every minute spent on a website the website owner makes a dollar): An average blogger with a decent consistent following of maybe 100 people can post fourteen blogs every two weeks. Meanwhile, an animator with a large following of maybe 1,000 people can make one two minute animation every two weeks

While the animator might be working harder and more people might initially see the work, due to the nature of his work, the animation will only be at the top of search algorithms for a day, it will quickly fall into obscurity because, A, it doesn’t get consistent traffic due to the nature of his content, and B, the fact that it is short form means that even if people watch it all the way through it won’t be categorized as something that maintains attention in googles search engines. This all comes together to mean, that for all the work the animator put in, they make about $2,000 from their base audience, and maybe $100 from new traffic (as for reasons stated prior they don’t get much new traffic).

At the same time, the blogger releases fourteen new articles every two weeks, which each take roughly three minutes to read. Now from his consistent base audience alone, this blogger would make $4,200 (I know right)! This doesn’t even factor in the fact that due to their consistent daily website traffic they’d be staying at the top of search results which would generate who knows how much more money from new traffic.

That doesn’t seem right, does it?

Now am I saying that blogging is a talentless art, or that people shouldn’t pursue their creative aspirations because they aren’t as profitable? No, of course not. Like any other art form, blogging takes talent, and writing work that keeps people coming back is definitely difficult, and just because something doesn’t seem initially as profitable as something else doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to maintain financial stability.

No, all I’m saying is, is that there is a problem with the system when people who work hard and do something creative and different and new aren’t reaping the benefits of their hard work.