Asking: Which One’s Tougher, The Russian Mob Or Al Qaeda?
July 28, 2011
Here’s a brain teaser for you: who’s tougher, the Russian mob or Al Qaeda? Not an easy one, eh? On the face of it, you’d be sort of inclined to go for the fanatics from Al Qaeda, keeping in mind their dedication to suicide bombings and other crazy things. But if you think long and hard, you’d find yourself opting for the Russian mob. These hoods have a lot of money to spend, they’ve got more guns and more influence in the corridors of power than prettyt much anyone else and, most importantly, they’ve got the former KGB people working for them. So, on balance they’re much tougher and more dangerous than the Al Qaeda boys, even though they don’t blow themselves up. Which is a shame by the way.
And here’s another question: who kill more people, the arms producers or the pharmaceutical companies? Now, I bet you’re saying that the arms producers are worse that drug makers, as they make things specifically for the killing trade whereas the pharmaceuticals are sort of making medicines that help folks to stay alive. But you’d be wrong, because if you take into account that the pharmaceuticals wage a constant never ending war against the whole planet, on a massive scale, you’d be coming to the conclusion that the arms producers are pussycats compared to them.
Want to dip your grey matter into a bit of history? OK, here goes: who’s a bigger murderous shit, Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin? On the face of it, Adolf comes top of the nasty bastards list and wins hands down. But if you consider that under Stalin around 100 million people were killed, or died in labour camps, it sort makes the Soviet tyrant look much worse that Hitler. Especially as Hitler would have never dared to start WW2 in earnest, if he hadn’t had a secret pact with Stalin. Although if you dig deeper, you’ll probably end up with giving the top notch to Chinese communist dictator, Mao Dsedung, who, as some documents reveal, has managed to preside over the deaths of something like 120 million people. Which even for China with its massive population is not an easy thing to do.
Do we continue, yes? OK, here is another one: what’s better, capitalism or communism? Now most of you, I suspect, will rush to say capitalism, with its free market and democracy and all that sort of rubbish. But let me ask you this: what did the free market and democracy give to the majority of ordinary people? Exactly, pretty much nothing. It’s the big boys who prosper under capitalism and get all the benefits, even when things go badly wrong, like the current economic crisis have shown. Socialism is much the same in this respect, with the majority of people, just like under capitalism, not really prospering that much. So the answer in this case is: both capitalism and socialism suck, if you’re not among the chosen few.
Here’s a quick one: what’s better, to be rich and healthy or poor and sickly? It’s a trick question actually and if you’ve chosen to answer that you prefer to be poor and sickly, then you must have a screw loose and you might just as well drop this whole thing.
But on we go: what’s better, pop or classical music? On the face of it, you’d probably go for pop, as it’s easier to hum and sing along to. Not to mention that when you get drunk or stoned, pop is just the right sort of thing to enjoy. But if you give it a bit of thought, you’d find that actually classical music is not just better, but it makes you feel better and doesn’t encourage you to drink and get stoned. It even puts people off crime and makes tomatoes and other fruit and vegetables grow quicker when it’s played to them. So classical music is way, way above pop. The same way modern art is no match for classical art, especially as practically anyone can do modern art while very few people can produce anything even close to classical art. In sense it’s like comparing junk food with the home-made one that take a lot of effort.
And there’s more: is it better to be vain or just plain stupid? Well, most of you out there would probably say that vain is better than stupid. But you’d be wrong, because vanity is the ultimate in stupidity. Not to mention that vanity really causes you a lot of hassle and jealousy and suffering and other things whereas when you’re plain stupid you often don’t even know it and live a happy life.
And here’s another one: is it better to be Tony Blair or anybody else? You might say that it’s better to be Blair, as he’s loaded and earns like a quarter of a million every time he opens his trap and says something. But again, if you think about it, the downside is that you’ll have to worry a lot about your security and lie all the time, pretending to be religious when you’re actually not. And all that makes your life hell and it sort of makes sense to be anybody else rather than Blair.
Is it better to be common but attractive or intelligent but not very handsome? Aha, that’s a tough one. Most people would probably choose the common/beautiful look, but if you think about it, looks tend to wane quickly while intelligence stays on forever and if you’re clever you can always bluff your way into anyone’s bed if you into sex a lot. So intelligence beats good looks all the time.
And here’s a last one: is it better to be Richard Dawkins, the atheist, or his image in the mirror? Considering what Dick’s image has to go through every time he gets himself in front of the mirror, to worship himself, we should conclude that it’s better to be none of the two.
– End –