1. category
  2. Transhuman News

Page 2,555«..1020..2,5542,5552,5562,557..2,5602,570..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

Criticism of libertarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: February 7, 2015 at 12:41 am

Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, and pragmatic concerns. Critics have claimed the political philosophy does not satisfy collectivist values, and that private property does not create an egalitarian distribution. It has also been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its policy of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Furthermore libertarianism has been criticized due to the lack of any actual such societies today.

Some critics, including John Rawls in Justice as Fairness, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that violate the rights of some individuals as they are beneficial for society overall. This concept is related to philosophical collectivism as opposed to individualism.[1]

Libertarian philosophers such as Michael Huemer have raised criticisms targeted at the social contract theory.[2]

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare," philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse "the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state." Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires." He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor "not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs."

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental ethical principle "ought implies can" from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that "in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death" and that "by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs." Having argued that "ought implies can" establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, "The Conflict Resolution Principle," to argue that it is reasonable to make it an ethical requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.[3]

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

[W]e can press on from [the observation that libertarianism is egalitarian] to ask why, if [...] the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should not also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism. [...] The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's "right to do wrong."[4]

Robert Hale has argued that the concept of coercion in libertarian theory is applied inconsistently, insofar as it is applied to government actions but is not applied to the coercive acts of property owners to preserve their own property rights.[5]

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life.[6]

Critics of laissez-faire capitalism, the economic system favored by some libertarians, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and that humans involved in markets do not always act rationally.[citation needed]

View original post here:
Criticism of libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Criticism of libertarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-libertarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: at 12:41 am

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and the unequal appropriation of natural resources,[1] leading to strong support of private property rights and free-market capitalism. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, which maintains that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.[note 1]

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the foundation of most present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[3][4][5] It is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what constitutes aggression depends on what rights a person has.[6] Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threat of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. Specifically, any unsolicited action that physically affects another individual's property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's will and interfere with his right to self-ownership and self-determination.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or the defense of others.[7] Many supporters argue that the NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercive taxation, and military drafts.

There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons, and the executive and legislative branches.[8][9][10] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed] Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[11]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[12][13] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient, that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can't desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[14]

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. These two groups are therefore not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[15]

While there is debate on whether left, right, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme," right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property.[16] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner."[17] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned, and therefore, private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[18]

Right-libertarians (also referred to as propertarians) hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[19] They generally support the free market, and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[20]

Libertarianism in the United States developed in the 1950s as many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians.[21]H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians.[22] They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[23]

In the 1950s, Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, expressed in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works, which influenced many libertarians.[24] However, she rejected the label libertarian and harshly denounced the libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right."[25] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups; this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party, and Hospers himself became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[citation needed]

Here is the original post:
Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Right-libertarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rand Pauls gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview

Posted: at 12:41 am

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, the Republican senator from Kentucky insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that, in 2009, he had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing an e-mail in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq war to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

His domestic libertarianism provides no philosophical foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare or Medicaid or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

His father, Ron Paul, is gleefully specific in his charge that American aggression creates the blowback of terrorism. The son qualifies the argument without repudiating it. Some anger is blowback, he now says. In 2009, he called his fathers theory a message that can be presented and be something that Republicans can agree to. A recommended reading list posted (briefly) last year on Pauls Senate Web site included Chalmers Johnsons Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Ron Pauls A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

Read the original post:
Rand Pauls gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Rand Pauls gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview

Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

Posted: at 12:41 am

By The Washington Post5 p.m.Feb. 5, 2015

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, Paul insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that Paul, in 2009, had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing emails in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

Pauls domestic libertarianism provides no philosophic foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare, or Medicaid, or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

See more here:
Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

Wonkblog: The politically toxic relationship between Oregons governor and his fiance

Posted: at 12:41 am

In a scathing editorial this week, The Oregonian called on Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber -- a Democrat whom the paper has supported for decades -- to step down following revelations that he may have allowed his fiance, Cylvia Hayes, to use her position for private gain and professional advancement.

"To recite every reported instance in which Hayes, ostensibly under Kitzhaber's watchful eye, has used public resources, including public employee time and her 'first lady' title, in pursuit of professional gain would require far more space than we have here," the editors wrote. "Suffice it to say there's a pattern, and the person who bears the responsibility for allowing it to form and persist is Kitzhaber, who should know better. After all, as he pointed out during Friday's press conference, he's been serving in public office on and off since the 1970s."

That press conference was in response to reporting by the paper revealing that Hayes had been paid as a consultant for advocacy organizations while she was working as an unpaid adviser on energy policy to Kitzhaber's office, and that the two men who arranged these gigs for her subsequently got jobs in the administration.

Hayes has left her policy role in the administration, and the governor has said that his office took steps to separate Hayes's work as a paid consultant and her public duties. He has said he has no intention of resigning and intends to do the job Oregon's citizens elected him to do.

"For a newspaper editorial board to call for a governor's resignation is rare," notes The Washington Post's Hunter Schwarz.

Welcome to Wonkbook. To subscribe by e-mail, clickhere. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. Follow Wonkblog onTwitterandFacebook.

What's in Wonkbook:1) The immigration stalemate 2) Opinions, including Gerson and Strassel on vaccines and the G.O.P. primary 3) Conservatives object to climate science in the classroom, and more

Number of the day: $57 trillion. That's the increase in global public and private debt since the financial crisis, according to a new report from McKinsey. Neil Irwin in The New York Times.

1. Topstory:Congress at impasse on immigration

It's unclear whether and how lawmakers will extend funding for border security past this month. "With just two legislative weeks to go before the Homeland Security Department shuts down, Republicans still don't have a plan. For the third time, Democrats blocked a funding bill that would keep the department running on Thursday, and they show no signs of letting up. If Democrats remain unwilling to accept anything less than a clean DHS billwith no provisions blocking President Obama's executive actions on immigrationRepublicans will be forced to pick from an arsenal of limited options. And of those that remain, none look good for the GOP. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a plan, he isn't sharing it with his members, much less the public. Sen. John Thune, McConnell's number three, said Thursday that his party's strategy had 'yet to be determined' and called it 'a work in progress,' while Sen. Jeff Flake said simply: 'We don't know yet.' " Sarah Mimms and Lauren Fox in National Journal.

Go here to see the original:
Wonkblog: The politically toxic relationship between Oregons governor and his fiance

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Wonkblog: The politically toxic relationship between Oregons governor and his fiance

Immortal Jellyfish Provides Clues for Regenerative …

Posted: at 12:41 am

Immortal Jellyfish Provides Clues for Regenerative Medicine

If asking nicely doesn't work, maybe science can reveal the secrets of the immortal jellyfish!

The search for the fountain of youth has been ongoing ever since man decided that dying wasnt all that appealing. And now, it appears that this elusive holy grail has been found, albeit by a species that is not ours! So who is the lucky winner of the everlasting life sweepstakes? None other than the humble and dime-sized jellyfish known as Turritopsis nutricula. This creature has accomplished what no other biological being on our planet has ever been known to do: reverse its aging to become young again after reaching full maturity! As early as 1992, scientists had observed this phenomenon in Turritopsis and research into its secrets was ongoing. However, a recent spike in the numbers and geographic distribution of this species has once again brought it to the attention of the greater scientific community because of the many important breakthroughs we have witnessed in stem cell research in the past decade. As regenerative medicine continues to grow into the future of medicine, its clear that this tiny jellyfish may hold the answers to not only addressing the many aging-related ailments we face, but also our own mortality!

In the picture below, you can see the typical lifecycle of a jellyfish. It starts out as a larva that eventually sinks to the bottom of the ocean and attaches to a sturdy substrate and continues development into a polyp that resembles a sea plant. The polyp then matures to become a free-floating medusa, what we commonly recognize as jellyfish resembling an upside down saucer with tentacles. Not much excitement so far, but Turritopsis has put an interesting twist to this process. It undergoes development much like what Ive described above and what many of its relatives go through. However, during times of stress like a shortage of food, Turritopsis responds by beginning to reverse the process before eventually becoming a polyp again. From this point then, it can again develop into a sexually mature medusa when conditions become more favorable. Theoretically, it can repeat this process indefinitely as its cells undergo a process called transdifferentiation, a rare biological process whereby any non-stem cell can become a different cell entirely. It is still unclear whether only specific cells can only become other specific cells or if any cell in Turritopsis has the potential to become any other cell.

The typical lifecycle of a jellyfish. Exciting, isn't it?

Ok, what Turritopsis does is admittedly cool, but why would we care? As you know, here at the Hub, one of our favorite topics are stem cells and all the promise they hold for regenerating tissue and treating a vast array of ailments. And while stem cells are one avenue to reach the goal of regenerating damaged or diseased tissues, transdifferentiation is another option that can get us to that goal.

Allow me to digress here and clarify the difference between these two systems (also see the below figure). Stem cells are cells that can differentiate into any type of cell. They can be isolated from a natural state i.e. embryonic stem cells (ESCs), or created by taking already differentiated cells and coaxing them to undifferentiate into stem cells, becoming induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These stem cells can then differentiate into another type of cell. On the other hand, transdifferentiation doesnt require the middle step of becoming a stem cell. Any differentiated cell can become any other differentiated cell, given of course that it receives the correct signals.

If transdifferentiation can be harnessed in the lab, we may be able to avoid using stem cells altogether.

Much of the advances in stem cell technology have come from having an understanding of how stem cells naturally develop into different cell types. Thus, natures methods are teaching us how to manipulate stem cells and turn them into the desired cell type. And when it comes to transdifferentiation, the hope is that we will eventually be able to learn how creatures like Turritopsis skip the stem cell step and go directly from one cell type to another. As such, a recent breakthrough in using transdifferentiation for therapeutic purposes was reached in the laboratory of Dr. Deepak Srivastava of the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease at the University of California, San Francisco. In a recent article in the journal Cell, Dr. Srivastavas group describes their success in getting architectural cells in the heart called fibroblasts to differentiate into cardiomyocyte-like cells. In case youre rusty on your cardiac anatomy, cardiomyocytes are the cells in the heart that contract and result in it's rhythmic beating. And as Dr. Srivastava explains in the video below, it is the loss of these cells and the development of scar tissue that is debilitating to those fortunate enough to survive a heart attack. So by just switching on three genes in the fibroblasts, the researchers were able to coax them to transdifferentiate into cardiomyocyte-like cells that looked and behaved like cardiomyocytes. Taking it one step further, they implanted these cells into the hearts of mice and found that they behaved just as one would expect them to. In a previous post, we had described similar results, but in that work, the researchers had to first produce stem cells from skin cells before producing the cardiomyocytes. Clearly, Dr. Srivastava's group has taken this to another level.

So while we still have some hurdles to overcome before this type of treatment is available for use in humans, it is indeed on its way. The amazing work being done in laboratories such as Dr. Srivastavas are inching us closer to the day when perhaps well be able to not only treat various ailments, but also to turn back the hands of time and reverse our aging like Turritopsis has been able to do. A recent press release by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) hints at some potentially new technologies they are developing to take advantage of transdifferentiation. While most of their work thus far has focused on stem cell-based treatments, its encouraging to see companies like ACT put time and money into exploring transdifferentiation-based treatments as well. Sure everyone is working to get to the same goal, but there may be more than one way to get there!

Go here to see the original:
Immortal Jellyfish Provides Clues for Regenerative ...

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on Immortal Jellyfish Provides Clues for Regenerative …

IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE LYRICS – Reverse Pimpology

Posted: at 12:41 am

[Immortal Technique] Hypocrites, hookers, sex offenders Y'all niggaz wanna be pimps and players? This ain't 1997 nigga

I'd rather be rich and unhappy than broke and miserable Cause the game don't give a FUCK if you lyrical And that's pitiful, so my position is pivotal You can hate me all you like but you worship the principle I inspire revolution, the government's not invincible Vietnam to Venezuela, trick knowledge, they pimpin you All up in the hood like McDonald's and liquor Selling AIDS medicine, when we know you got the cure nigga (woo!) You leery of conspiracy theory but hear me Throw a business perspective, it makes more sense clearly Cause moreover, that's what we go to war over And numbers don't lie unless we do Bush and Gore over Free markets make money disingenuously But I invest in agriculture, biochemistry Smart nigga from the hood, pussy, what type of crime is that? But exec's are like, "You from Harlem? Where your diamonds at?" Stupid

[Mojo] Can't dodge the game If you lookin for the money or the fame (oh-ohh) The players and the rules ain't changed (oh no) But see we tryin to leave a name So we're turnin out

[Immortal Technique] Yeah, this is how pimps get pimped and players get played Rich people get robbed and, broke niggaz paid New York, London, Chicago, Philly and L.A. Miami, D.C., B-more and out in the Bay

[Mojo] We're tearin it out of the frame See we deserve to stake that claim If we didn't it's a cryin shame What we're concerned about is how to turn it out

[Immortal Technique] Show me a pretty girl, with the world stuck to her And I bet you there's a brother that's tired of fuckin her Lots of niggaz girls is someone else's one night stand I probably made some bitches nervous listenin with they man (ha ha) And if that offends somebody, I'm sorry, fuck you! What you think, revolutionaries don't like to fuck too? You just gotta beware of dangerous coochie Cover ya head like a kufi, some rappers think that they live in a movie Until they get herpes or clap from a groupie And I don't need to shout you out, nigga you know who you be Look, most people are only players cause they got played And have not, let go of that, shit since the 7th grade Yeah you got your heart broke, life sucks, doesn't it? But you shouldn't fuck up someone else's life because of it Someone did your mother like that, that's why you fatherless Before jail or racist cops, that's what the problem is

[Mojo] Recognize the game See who's the one to place that blame We gettin trapped in a cycle of pain With a generation headed down the drain Time we turn it out

[Immortal Technique] This is how pimps get pimped and players get played Beautiful women get, cheated on and gangstas sprayed Jersey, Detroit, Denver, Phoenix, Atlanta Texas, Vegas, Seattle and fuckin Louisiana

[Mojo] Regardless of money you payin Just spendin, hold a watch and a chain But can't offer your children a thang What the hell is goin on in your brain? We gon' turn it out

[Immortal Technique] Yeah, I'm not a crack rapper, I'm not a backpacker (ha ha ha) I'm not a wack rapper, moonlighting as a bad actor I treat labels like the projects, cause I'm a hater (what!) Go to the Sony building and piss in the elevator Cater to hustlers, crooks and cheap smugglers Bootleg my own album, to reach customers (yeah) Every city, state and country, the hood love me Even Aborigines, in Australia bump me They say underground fans are all the color of talcum But who the fuck you think buy 50 and Jay albums? Who the fuck you think made Snoop and Dre platinum? Call up any major record label and ask 'em But there's some, devils in disguise in hip-hop that belong at Republican fundraisers with Kid Rock (bitch!) I hope one of my fans has one of your kids shot And blames it on Acid, Prozac and Slipknot You a pussy actin hard like a bitch cop I'll drop you to the floor like a reverse wristlock Eat your food and shit on you, like a highway pit stop And make, revolutionaries out of kids that used to flip rocks The government, pimped 9/11 to go to Iraq And history, repeats itself right on track (how?) First as a tragedy, and then the comedy begins (why?) Cause it's funny, motherfuckers don't see it come around again

See the original post here:
IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE LYRICS - Reverse Pimpology

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE LYRICS – Reverse Pimpology

Immortal (Highlander) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: at 12:41 am

Immortals are a group of fictional characters seen in the movies and series of the Highlander franchise. Since they are immune to disease and stop aging after becoming Immortal, they can live forever and they only die when they are beheaded.

The Immortals were first introduced in Highlander in 1986. They were created by script writer Gregory Widen who, according to Bill Panzer, producer of the Highlander franchise, "was a student at film school, and he wrote this as his writing class project. (...) He was apparently travelling through Scotland on his summer vacation and he was standing in front of a suit of armor, and he wondered, 'What would it be like if that guy was alive today?' And that's where everything fell into place the idea that there are Immortals and they were in conflict with each other, leading secret lives that the rest of us are unaware of."[1]

In the Highlander universe, the origin of the Immortals is unknown. Panzer states, "We don't know where they come from. Maybe they come from the Source."[2] It is not known yet what the Source actually is. An attempt to explain the origin of the Immortals was made in the theatrical version of Highlander II: The Quickening (1991), which revealed that Immortals are aliens from the planet Zeist. Yet this was edited out of the director's cut of the film made in 1995, Highlander II: The Renegade Version, in which the Immortals are from Earth, but from a distant past. Neither of the two versions is mentioned in either later movies or the television series.

In either version of Highlander II, Immortals themselves do not know where they come from or for what purpose they exist. In Highlander, the Immortal mentor Ramrez, when asked by newly Immortal Connor MacLeod about their origins, answers, "Why does the sun come up? Or are the stars just pinholes in the curtain of night? Who knows?" In Highlander: Endgame, protagonist Connor MacLeod says, "We are the seeds of legend, but our true origins are unknown. We simply are." In the television series episode "Mountain Men", protagonist Duncan MacLeod expresses the same ignorance when he tells Caleb Cole, a fellow Immortal, "Whatever gods made you and me... made us different," and his next line, deleted from the episode, has him say, "They're just having a little fun."[3]

Wherever they come from, the Highlander franchise assumes that there have always been Immortals on Earth, well before the beginning of civilization. In Highlander, Ramrez's narrative starts, "From the dawn of time we came; moving silently down through the centuries, living many secret lives..." and in Highlander: Endgame, Connor's narrative says, "In the days before memory, there were the Immortals. We were with you then, and we are with you now."

The Immortals do not live as a united people on a territory of their own, but are scattered around the world and across history. The only bond between them are oral traditions called the Rules transmitted from teacher to student.[4] The creator of the Rules is unknown. The Rules are never enumerated, like a body of laws, but they are quoted according to the circumstances. They are taught to newborn Immortals by Immortal mentors called First Teachers (see below). The main Rules are:

Creative Consultant David Abramowitz says, "When you do a show like this [Highlander: The Series], what you do is you make up a lot of it as you go along. The fans used to ask, 'Do you know all the rules from the beginning?' and it's just like in life: You don't know any of the rules. You make them up as you go along and you try your best to be consistent and so that no one turns around, and says, 'Wait a minute, you're cheating!' Because that's one thing we didn't want to do. We didn't want to ever cheat."[5]

The Rules dictate that all Immortals are to fight and behead each other until only one of them remains. As Ramrez reminds Connor MacLeod, "If your head comes away from your neck, it's over."[4] This concept of Immortals beheading each other to be the "last man standing" is referred to as "the Game" and is summarized in the signature Highlander motto, "In the End, there can be only one."[4] As a result, Immortals who live long enough develop strong fighting skills, usually transmitted from teacher to student, as Ramrez did with Connor in Highlander.[4] Most Immortals can fight with several kinds of weapons (axe,[6]sickle,[7]machete,[8]mace,[9] etc.), but the most common is the sword. Consequently, Immortals are usually very fond of their weapons, and almost always have them handy. The script of the Highlander: The Series pilot episode "The Gathering" says about Duncan MacLeod: "Seemingly out of nowhere MacLeod lifts a beautiful Samurai sword. We can see that it is as familiar to him as a .38 Police Special would be to a cop."[10] When he gives a similar sword to Immortal Felicia Martins, Duncan tells her, "Take good care of it. Make it a part of you. It may be the only friend you have." She later breaks the sword in a fight with Duncan, showing neglect of the sword and henceforth demonstrating the student-teacher relationship throughout the series.[11]

The Rules also dictate that when one challenges another to combat, the two Immortals are supposed to duel one-on-one. For example, in "The Gathering", Slan Quince challenges Duncan MacLeod then gets challenged by Connor MacLeod at the same time. He protests to them both: "Not two on one!", Connor MacLeod answers, "Thanks, Slan. I know the rules. You and me. Now!"[12] This does not always happen and battles may be unfair, cheating is usually a sign of an evil Immortal. Examples of cheating include the group of Immortals who served under Immortal Jacob Kell in Highlander: Endgame, Slan Quince's modified sword which fires a dagger from its hilt,[12] and Zachary Blaine keeping a gun to slow down his adversaries.[13] If the Rules are interpreted strictly, once two Immortals begin dueling, no outside interference is permitted, even to save a friend or innocent. For example, Duncan warns Richie that if he engages the vengeful Annie Devlin or the relentless Mako in a duel, Duncan will not permit himself to intervene.[14][15] However there is also a way around the one-on-one rule that even good Immortals have been known to invoke. The Quickening that the winning Immortal receives at the end of a fight is extremely draining, and leaves the recipient unable to protect themselves, allowing another Immortal an easy kill. Therefore some Immortals will travel in pairs or groups to discourage challenges, or will attack an opponent in pairs; while one fights, the other will await the outcome to take revenge if necessary.

The Immortals play the Game in accordance with their personalities. Some, like Slan Quince, go head hunting full-time;[16] some others, like Methos, only fight when they are challenged, to defend their head (which seems to be rather common with extremely old Immortals). Immortals are free to play the Game or not and some chose to "retire" for various reasons. Duncan MacLeod temporarily retires in 1872 because he is tired of death after his wife and adopted son are murdered.[12] Some Immortals, like the pacifist Darius and the epicurean John Durgan, even attempt to retire from the game completely.[17][18]Darius, who was a great general in Late Antiquity, retires permanently because he turned his back on war.[17] Some retired Immortals chose to get on with their life without carrying a sword, like Grace Chandel,[8] but they are in particular danger of losing their heads. A safe option for Immortals who wish to retire from the Game is to live on Holy Ground. However, this leaves them vulnerable to the Hunters.

Read this article:
Immortal (Highlander) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on Immortal (Highlander) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There Was Once a Woman Who Had Immortal Cells

Posted: at 12:41 am

Today I found out there was once a woman who had immortal cells. These immortal cells have multiplied to the point that if you were to weigh all of them that live today, theyd weigh about 50 million metric tons, which is about as much as 100 Empire State Buildings.

So who was this woman and why are scientists keeping about 50 million metric tons of her cells supplied with fresh nutrients so they can live on? The woman was Henrietta Lacks and her immortal cells have been essential in curing polio; gene mapping; learning how cells work; developing drugs to treat cancer, herpes, leukemia, influenza, hemophilia, Parkinsons disease, AIDS The list goes on and on and on. If it deals with the human body and has been studied by scientists, odds are, they needed and used Henriettas immortal cells somewhere along the way. Her cells were even sent up to space on an unmanned satellite to determine whether or not human tissue could survive in zero gravity.

Go to just about any cell culture lab in the world and youll find billions of Henriettas cells stored there. Whats unique about her cells is that, not only do they never die, in contrast to normal human cells which will die after a few replications, but her cells can also live and replicate just fine outside of the human body, which is also unique among humans. Give her cells the nutrients they need to survive and they will live and replicate along forever, apparently (almost 60 years and counting since the first culture was taken). They can even be frozen for literally decades and later thawed and they will go right on replicating.

Before her cells were discovered and widely cultured, it was nearly impossible for scientists to reliably experiment on cells and get meaningful results. Cell cultures that scientists would try to study would weaken and die very quickly outside the human body. Her cells gave scientists, for the first time, a standard that they could use to test things on. Even better, her cells can survive being shipped in the mail just fine, so scientists across the globe can all use the same standard from which to test against.

Henrietta Lacks herself was an impoverished black woman who died on October 4th, 1951 of cervical cancer at the age of just 31 years old. It was during getting her cancer treated that a doctor at Johns Hopkins took a sample of her tumor without her knowledge or consent and sent it over to a colleague of his, Dr. George Gey; Dr. Gey had been trying for 20 years, unsuccessfully, to grow human tissues from cultures. A lab assistant there, Mary Kubicek, discovered that Henriettas cells, unlike normal human cells, could live and replicate outside the body.

Henrietta died of uremic poisoning, in the segregated hospital ward for blacks, about eight months after being diagnosed with cervical cancer; never knowing that her cells would become one of the most vital tools in modern medicine and would spawn a multi-billion dollar industry where her replicated cells would be bought and sold by the billions.

She was survived by her husband and five children, the surviving members of which still to this day live in poverty (one who is homeless on the streets of Baltimore) and were long ignorant of the importance of Henriettas cells to modern medicine.

If you liked this article, you might also enjoy:

Bonus Facts:

Expand for References

More:
There Was Once a Woman Who Had Immortal Cells

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on There Was Once a Woman Who Had Immortal Cells

Scarlett Johansson – ‘Lucy" – Illuminati Transhumanist …

Posted: at 12:41 am

Scarlett Johansson 'Lucy" Film Illuminati Transhumanist Propaganda *SUBSCRIBE* for more great videos! Mark Dice is a media analyst, author, and political activist who, in an entertaining and educational way, gets people to question our celebrity obsessed culture and the role the mainstream media and elite secret societies play in shaping our lives.

Mark's YouTube channel has received tens of millions of views and his viral videos have been mentioned on ABC's The View, the Fox News Channel, CNN, the Drudge Report, TMZ, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, and other media outlets around the world.

He has been featured on various television shows including the History Channel's Decoded and America's Book of Secrets, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Secret Societies of Hollywood on E! Channel, America Declassified on the Travel Channel, and is a frequent guest on Coast to Coast AM, The Alex Jones Show, and more.

Mark Dice is the author of several popular books on secret societies and conspiracies, including The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction, Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True, The New World Order, Facts & Fiction, The Resistance Manifesto, and Illuminati in the Music Industry, which are all available in paperback on Amazon.com or e-book on Kindle, iBooks, Nook or Google Play. While much of Mark's work confirms the existence and continued operation of the Illuminati today, he is also dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories and hoaxes and separating the facts from the fiction; hence the "Facts & Fiction" subtitle for several of his books. He has a bachelor's degree in communication from California State University.

He enjoys causing trouble for the New World Order, exposing corrupt scumbag politicians, and pointing out Big Brother's prying eyes. The term "fighting the New World Order" is used by Mark to describe some of his activities, and refers to his and others' resistance and opposition (The Resistance) to the overall system of political corruption, illegal wars, elite secret societies, mainstream media, Big Brother and privacy issues; as well as various economic and social issues. This Resistance involves self-improvement, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and spiritual growth.

Be sure to subscribe to Mark's YouTube channel, and look him up on Facebook, and Twitter. http://www.YouTube.com/MarkDice http://www.Facebook.com/MarkDice http://www.Twitter.com/MarkDice http://www.MarkDice.com

See the original post here:
Scarlett Johansson - 'Lucy" - Illuminati Transhumanist ...

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off on Scarlett Johansson – ‘Lucy" – Illuminati Transhumanist …

Page 2,555«..1020..2,5542,5552,5562,557..2,5602,570..»

  1. category
  2. Transhuman News