Saturday Morning Irony: 15 Funny, Prescient, Thought Provoking Images

Just a roundup of various images I’ve saved over the last couple of days from various channels that struck me one way or the other. Before that, a couple of plugs for worthy endeavors.

First, my buddy Robb Wolf has a new page up on Facebook you can “Like,” Read and even contribute your own stuff too: Controversial Truth: Truth, Freedom and Prosperity should never be Controversial topics. Facebook community for discussing topics related to The Controversial Truth podcast with David Duley and Robb Wolf commingled with other liberty loving topics . As you may have guessed, it’s an entirely political page from a libertarianish perspective, geared to all us PaleoLibGeeks. I love the Page’s image.

69623 119019681603515 1748415251 n

Next up, Nick T has a new blog. I don’t often promote new efforts because I want to see some real dedication to the task first and blogging is hard work. Also, most new stuff I see out there now is a clear attempt at monetization right off the bat and sorry, dirty-rotten-greedy-free-marketeer that I am, I still find it off-putting from a paleo perspective. I’m making an exception for Nick for a few reasons: he has knowledge of biology, english, writes well and Free the Animal inspired his blog. Building a Better Zoo. Here’s an excerpt from his kick-off post, What’s in a Name.

Then came the notion of a Paleolithic principle, which I define as the idea that, if we are to maintain our well being, we must consider greatly the environment in which we evolved before creating a new one. So like a good number of people who find themselves contemplating this notion, I delved into all the literature that I could find on the subject. The more I read the more excited I got. “These ideas could lead to a real change in the social paradigm,” I thought. It was a new lens through which we could view everything from religion to environmental issues, to food and agriculture, to sex and marriage, and even our political and monetary systems. While there are a few good books on the science most commentary on the attempts to apply this idea to modern day was and still is taking place on the Internet in the form of blogs.

Check it out and be a reader and commenter if you like what you see. Now onto the images.

tumblr mgsig9n0s41qckp4qo1 500
tumblr mg1ap5LGL41r21k4vo1 500
tumblr mbwj2dmVfk1qgnx3ko1 500
tumblr mgseagG0SN1qjic3ro1 500
66448 379452505483681 218109451 n 1
tumblr mgudsnvDgJ1rgystdo1 500 1
734902 119223018249848 1884863796 n 1
tumblr mfyyqmmmzA1qgb9e0o1 500
tumblr mgsixgaSlM1qzx7k8o1 500
tumblr mgr2ks5vIL1rsvww6o1 400
tumblr mgsab04OMa1rn79zto1 500
tumblr mgqvgoJM7z1rn79zto1 500
1246 10152413263755367 1892962747 n
150679 394599443963827 335310446 n

With respect to that last one, I don’t see that the implicit percentages have changed much over the ensuing decades.

Update: Bonus image.

crazy straws
Crazy Straws Drama

Alright, now I’m done. 🙂

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Sean on January 19, 2013 at 11:31

    I know it’s ad hom and doesn’t affect his atheist argument, but Roddenberry had his own religion called Statism. In Star Trek we’ve got a galaxy-wide military hierarchy, money has been abolished, and despite the Prime Directive, Kirk is fucking with every society he comes across, because he’s Top Men. Not that it didn’t make for some great television.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 11:43


      Yea, in retrospect 20/20 that’s totally true. However, at the time, watching the reruns at 4pm EVERY afternoon after school for years I think it probably influenced my thinking in ways more profound than anything. Most fundamentally, it removed limitations—that’s an off the cuff notion, I really haven’t analyzed it.

      I thought TNG was far better in terms of an intelligent, moral man as captain. Jean Luc Picard, to me, is the very ultimate hero. And, FWIW, while there was a sort of implicit statism, I thought it did a pretty good job in terms of Prime Directive and advancing ideas of self determination. Also, my sense about the idea of money being irrelevant was “sold” better. Picard explained more as something people had grown out of because they have everything material they need for free (manipulation at atomic level) and so people are free to pursue their intellectual pursuits.

      BTW, it’s worth being on FB just to follow George Takei. I have his new book but haven’t read it yet. He is a very witty, entertaining, lovable man. But this is new, him calling Shatner “douchy”

      • Sean on January 19, 2013 at 12:23

        Yeah, the optimism of swashbuckling around the galaxy in a post-scarcity culture was pretty cool. If nothing else it looked like a lot of fun, and of course there were all the babes in their futuristic mini-skirts and go-go boots.

        The fascist, statist undertones only got realized much later. Also, come to think of it, one the big themes was about trusting in ‘human’ feelings and intuition, which, is a pretty common refrain of the socialist mindset.

        Didn’t watch much TNG, I think that was the decade or so that I tried to eschew TV as much as possible. But they did do a much better job of adhering to the Prime Directive. The money being irrelevant came directly from Rodenberry, or so I’ve read, he forbid it completely, it was one of his basic rules to the writers.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 12:30

        I watched all of TNG, but only sporadic bits of DS9, and there you had that society who were capitalists, always out for profit—the enormous ear guys, can’t recall the name. That was pretty badly done.

      • Sean on January 19, 2013 at 14:21

        Yeah the Ferengi(sp?). Never watched much of that but caught a few and I’ve heard about them being space capitalists or just space Jews. But that just dovetails into the narrative that free market exchange is about venal greed not price signalling and efficient distribution of finite resources. And resources are always finite, even in the Star Trek Universe, not everyone can have their own planet or starship.

      • Joshua on January 19, 2013 at 18:48

        I like how they needed the Ferengi even though they kind of hated them. There will alway be trade.

      • Cow on January 19, 2013 at 19:07

        I has always said only society that might be peaceful is one like ST, without monies. Money among worst of human invention, right up with gods, religions, marriage, and Taylor Swift.

        I thought TNG was perfect series from begin to end (excepting movies, which I thought suck). I think show end perfectly with last TV episode.

      • aminoKing on January 19, 2013 at 19:30

        I disagree Cow. Money is a lubricant that solves many problems. I would take a good guess it has actually prevented many wars and murders. Money allows nations and people to seek compromise and some sort of middle ground as opposed to the all-or-nothing reasoning that justifies war and murder.

        For example: if I want a steak I can go to my butcher and buy one bit of meat. The butcher can repeat this arrangement with many others. However, if the butcher could not take money from his customers they would have to go and find their own cow to kill. Much meat would go to waste as it would rot before it could be eaten. Many more cows would die. Is this what you wish for?

      • Cow on January 19, 2013 at 21:02

        I agree, money is lubricant –mostly use to fuck the masses.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 21:07

        I liked First Contact. Best ST film of all. Wrath of Khan 2nd.

      • Sean on January 20, 2013 at 03:26

        I agree, money is lubricant –mostly use to fuck the masses.

        Money is simply a way to engage in trade in a less chunky manner. It arises spontaneously wherever humans engage in trade, which is pretty much wherever humans have existed in the last 5000 years (and that’s just what we know of from archaeology). Any stable commodity can and probably has been used as money. Price signalling of commodity goods (unlike, say Veblenesque goods) simply reflects the supply and demand of that commodity, minus things like government distortions, tariffs, subsidies, etc, and imperfection in humans as market players, bubbles, lack of knowledge, etc.

        Until commodities exist in infinite amounts that are infinitely accessible there will be a need for money, whether gold, cigarettes or warm fuzzies. After that it will still be needed for Veblenesque goods or just for the trade of creativity and innovation.

        In fact, I’d say the concept of money is simply a Platonic ideal that has existed in the Universe since the Big Bang, and was discovered by humans, like pi or bacon.

      • Sean on January 20, 2013 at 03:44

        Yes, the masses are getting fucked by government abuse of representational money, of course, but that has nothing to do with some sort of inherent evil in the concept of money itself.

      • jeff on January 20, 2013 at 05:41


        Since money is an inert object (as opposed to something like meth), it can not fuck the masses. It is the powerful and rich who fuck the masses through criminalzation of just about everything and the ability to selectively enforce the laws. Hence Jon Corzine and David Gregory have nothing to fear. Enforce the little crap to keep the masses in line.

      • Cow on January 20, 2013 at 08:02

        Point is, as long as there anything that human perceive to be of desire, and as long as it is monies that can facilitate this desires, they is gonna be greed for money, and while some greed just ambitious, most greed gonna go corrupt and even violent, so ultimately riches end up in hands of most greedy and corrupt select few.

        By eliminate currency and making things not exclusive to those who has currency, ST eliminate such inevitable corruptions and divisions. But I no actual think this ever work for non-fiction humans, anymore than I think Q can be trusted.

      • Sean on January 20, 2013 at 08:25

        This is what I get for trying to argue with a fucking cow.

      • Cow on January 20, 2013 at 10:38

        I no see how my sex life have anything to do with it.

      • Dr. Curmudgon Gee on January 20, 2013 at 11:51

        sorry, i am B5 fan. although i do like ST tho.

        the best ST movie i think is Galaxy Quest. XD

      • Elenor on January 22, 2013 at 06:30

        “Picard explained more as something people had grown out of because they have everything material they need for free (manipulation at atomic level)”

        The problem I always found with “ooooh replicators! Now everyone can have everything!” is always: who build them? Who repairs them? Who gets called out at midnight to unstick the button? (And oh yeah-sure, robots do…. So, who build them? Who repairs them? Who gets called out at midnight to unstick the button?)


      • Robert Ve on January 23, 2013 at 10:47

        ST didn’t make sense on so many levels. Why replicators but not replicating replicators? Why are so many things still done the old fashioned way? Why do people not live in virtual reality and only enjoy it on occasion (holodeck)? Why don’t people live much much longer, yet many diseases have been cured?

      • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 12:16

        “ST didn’t make sense on so many levels.”

        Is that your 1960s brain talking, or your 2013 brain talking?

      • Robert Ve on January 25, 2013 at 12:13

        You have a point there, but newer scifi movies still have these weaknesses. Still, you can’t make an interesting movie when your characters have to many options. I think science fiction will become more like science inspired fantasy with deliberate limitations in technology (rules of magic).

  2. 30 muffins a day on January 19, 2013 at 12:49

    Pharmaceuticals kills a lot of people aswell.

    • aminoking on January 19, 2013 at 13:13

      Cigarettes, medical negligence, war, suicide, industrial accidents…

    • Leo desforges on January 19, 2013 at 15:43

      great fucking name: 30 muffins a day. ha.

  3. SteveRN on January 19, 2013 at 13:48

    That next to last picture, the one guy not throwing the Nazi salute. I love/hate that image. Like slavery, or racism from way back, or any evil thing that has happened in history, I think when everyone sees that picture, in the back of their minds, they think, “Yeah, I would be that guy.” But it reminds me that no, I probably wouldn’t. We all like to think we would stand up to evil, not give into group think. But probably not, it is hard to do, probably goes against our inherent nature as pack animals. I think the first step in combating the bad influences of the group think, the manipulation of the group using your pre-programed nature by the “authority” is realizing you are not that guy. It is a hard, but necessary, truth to accept about yourself, if you want to change it. Love your political posts, wish you still had a purely political blog. I have learned quite a bit from you and others comments, about economics, political and social theories, etc. Thanks!

  4. CW on January 19, 2013 at 14:26

    Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the ‘men can still rape without touching a woman’ picture. I am very confused by that.

    • Sean on January 19, 2013 at 14:33

      A few months in the re-education camps and you will be fully enlightened.

      Also, you will learn to love Big Sister.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 15:36


      A trip to the reeducation camp, learning what words really mean, new speak, etc., ought to fix you right up.

      I almost captioned it as the most moronic picture I’ve seen in my life, but I prefer the banal, for something like that.

      • CW on January 19, 2013 at 16:21

        Well, I was wondering if this was the typical “I am being oppressed by your maleness.” or if there was a less abstract meaning to it.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 16:41


        Nope. That’s it, basically. Unable to deal with reality, even the reality of males who would never lay a hand on her.

      • aminoking on January 19, 2013 at 16:50

        Unfortunately some chicks love to play the victim card. Little do they realise that it’s just a filtering mechanism to find a partner credulous enough to believe any shit they’re told.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 16:55

        Absolutely. I’m very bullish on the short to medium outlook on prospects for Beta males.

  5. Remnant on January 19, 2013 at 20:01

    “yet here you are”

    This meme really made my day. Well, there was the coffee all over the keyboard and screen that I needed to wipe up but it was worth it.

    The Wolff and Nick T ideas are good ones: paleo goes way way beyond what you put in your mouth.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 19, 2013 at 21:11


      Just between you and me, I just keep snickering about that one to myself. All day now.

  6. Paul Riemann on January 20, 2013 at 01:43

    Gene Roddenberry: Great writer, terrible logician.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 20, 2013 at 06:28

      You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence, Paul.

      • Sean on January 20, 2013 at 06:52

        Huh? You don’t think it’s possible to be a great writer with insight into theme and character and still hold idiotic and illogical political views?

        Also, Roddenberry was far from a great writer, his genius was to make a ‘western in space’ and to have the clout and vision to actually get it on TV for three years. Compared to the new wave of SF writers in the same period, people like Roger Zelazny, Brian Aldiss, and JG Ballard, Roddenberry was very much a simple country doctor, ehrm, writer.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 20, 2013 at 09:27

        In the context of the Roddenberry quote, I took Paul at face value. His comment wasn’t in reply to yours.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 20, 2013 at 09:31

        …Roddenburry was talking about “story logic.”

      • Paul Riemann on January 21, 2013 at 16:42

        Really Richard? “story logic”? LOL! Roddenberry’s comment is in keeping with many typical, age old, erroneous, and *philosophical* anti-theistic arguments.

        There’s nothing logically contradictory about being a great writer and being a sloppy logician. Roddenberry created great characters with an interesting storyline. But his implied philosophical argument is fallacious.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 21, 2013 at 17:58

        “Roddenberry’s comment is in keeping with many typical, age old, erroneous, and *philosophical* anti-theistic arguments.”

        Thanks for letting me know where you’re coming from, Paul. I have no interest. No more than trying to talk with monkeys or earthworms in the jungle.

        Have at your “theism.” You’re dismissed. Just not interested. Never, ever will be and BTDT.

        Now, see, Sean? Who called it square on?

      • Paul Riemann on January 22, 2013 at 15:46

        “Have at your “theism.” You’re dismissed. Just not interested. Never, ever will be and BTDT.”

        I’ve read your blog for a long time. So that’s no surprise. And in the interest of nutrition, it is excellent, and will continue to read it.
        However, I thought the “mandarins of all knowledge” would be interested in logic. But then again, empiricism is inherently fraught with logical fallacies. So much for philosophy and a real desire for truth. Atheism is built on queer presuppositions, not rational thought.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 16:11

        Well Paul, yea, I know you’ve been around for a long time. I guess we’re destined to take shots at each other now & then. I’m fine with that and I suspect you are too, so be well.

        Oh, my latest post is a bit apropos. Seems like the whole world is getting illogicaller and illogicaller. 🙂

      • Robert Ve on January 23, 2013 at 10:55

        “But then again, empiricism is inherently fraught with logical fallacies. So much for philosophy and a real desire for truth. Atheism is built on queer presuppositions, not rational thought.”

        This is obviously not true, yet I think you really believe it. That is both sad and truly amazing.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 12:17

        “That is both sad and truly amazing.”

        Well, it is amazing as a study in what lengths people will go to to logically justify their own bias.

      • Paul Riemann on January 23, 2013 at 15:36

        And what exactly is “obviously not true”? And how is it “obvious”? Perhaps you could enlighten this darkened mind.

      • Paul Riemann on January 23, 2013 at 15:41

        Yes Richard, our worldviews are…worlds apart. No pun intended. However, we share common beliefs about nutrition and health, and as far as that is concerned, your blog always has been–and I suspect always will be–at the top of my list.

      • Paul Riemann on January 23, 2013 at 15:47

        “Bias” Richard? Yes, I’m biased and have presuppositions. But so does everyone else…including even you. You can’t ask someone to prove the axiom of their worldview–after all, you have to start your thinking somewhere–but you can ask them to defend it. And this I do without apology.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 17:12

        But Paul, I think my axioms go a bit deeper than yours. You’ll deny that, of course, and I know why. Or, you’ll claim there much the same and argue that they logically lead to magic in the skies.

        Like I said, been there and done that. Many times.

      • Robert Ve on January 25, 2013 at 12:05

        No, I won’t even try.

  7. Mike on January 21, 2013 at 00:54

    The set of pictures with various dictators being friendly with kids does not represent good logic.
    It’s a little bit like Durian Rider cherry picking photos of fat people eating meat, and naming Paleo the cause.
    Some people are dictators without being pictured with kids. Some are pictured with kids without being dictators. Not a useful correlation.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 21, 2013 at 08:21

      “The set of pictures with various dictators being friendly with kids does not represent good logic.”

      In the context of politics it should be seen as how politicians always haul out the children for the photo ops. It’s a representation of faulty logic in itself because children are non-sequitur. Basically, what that photo represents is that democracies use propaganda too.

      I am often amused though at the label of “dictator.” The implied logic is that atrocities are fine so long as done by a democracy and not dictated by a single man or small cabal.

      • Mike on January 21, 2013 at 13:27

        You’re right about children being a non-sequitur. Imagine if corporations routinely hired a group of kids to stand behind an executive announcing a new product. People would find that odd, and maybe they should find politicians doing it just as odd.

  8. MC on January 24, 2013 at 00:29

    I like what was said by Molyneax. I was just saying something similar today to a girl I work with. I said that Piers Morgan wants to kill people, and yet claims he’s against guns. He along with everyone else advocating gun control are saying “I don’t want you to have guns, give them up, or we’ll lock you in a cage and murder you if you resist being locked in the cage.”

    They are advocating violence against good, law-abiding citizens, by turning them into “criminals.” They want goons to go in and kill people, and are either too cowardly to go around doing it themselves, or ignorant of what they are asking for. It would be obvious how wrong it is, to many of them, if they had to go around doing it themselves.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k