Ha! I love the thinly veiled discomfort that things like this invoke in some of the brightest and best intentioned people. Well, in nop's case it's the survival of the fittest, law of the jungle brand of "good intentions." But I'm sure that somewhere deep underneath his new world order master plan complete with a harem of hot girls, his intentions are good as well.
What a bunch of fuking pussies.
Life without stress would be fuking boring.
As the american empire begins to collapse you will see more of these pussy "religions" begin to emerge.
Kinda like what happened to the roman empire.
The Roman Empire was defeated by packs of pussies?
Or was it a result of the packs of pussies from within their empire somehow? Were the Romans themselves pussies spawning pussy religions or were pussy religions organically forming from the empire's collective inner-pussy? Feeling flummoxed I ponder the question: Where exactly do these pussies appear in the 100-year fall of the Roman Empire.... hmmm
Oh wait
I think you're referring to the Goths! Yeah those guys were total pussies. Lawless, free from stress, bored out of their skulls and impossible to govern with unbreakable spirits and no reason to live. You know the type
What about another possibility?
I believe the Roman Empire fell as a result of the people that rejected their rule. This started when outsiders known as Goths were invited in to the empire without proper Roman indoctrination. This medieval and brutal practice of breaking people down and crushing their spirits before grooming them back up in the image the empire was a fatal missed step on the part of the Romans. Today similar elements can be found in basic training, religion and de-centralized social control mechanisms (that don't exist). Ever wonder why America has such a disgraceful imbalance of incarcerated per capita? Oh yeah, they literally can't vote when they return to society.
Anyway, the Goths that revolted and destroyed the Roman Empire were anything but pussies as the Visigothic kingdom that reigned after they fell proves out. But I ask you this question: have you ever wondered or questioned when someone expresses an emotion about something such as anger or a hint of violent disgust when the thing being considered
when viewed rationally and without emotion doesn't have reason to evoke such reactions? It's far easier to see in others than in yourself. I can't possibly know but I can only guess. My best guess is that this challenges some extremely core beliefs, perhaps primarily subconscious beliefs, that cause our survival instincts to growl a little.
Just something to consider 
>rceinstein
I read this article about the origin of that Einstein quote. Love it! And damn funny considering what his dry humor was implying. A few salient points to consider.
It was the offer from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, on the outskirts of Los Angeles, that proved most enticing, thanks to their top astronomer, Edwin Hubble, who had seen distant galaxies streaking away from Earth through his 100in telescope. Here was proof that the universe was expanding, an observation that refuted Einstein's view of the universe as a fixed sphere. Intrigued, he and his wife travelled west in 1931.
"Even if I saw a ghost I wouldn't believe it." - Albert Einstein
And finally:
Curiously enough, when Einstein was asked, years later, about his beliefs in the telepathic experiments of Dr JB Rhine, then studying parapsychology at Duke University, he stressed his scepticism in strictly scientific terms. All of Rhine's experiments had reported that psi-forces did not decline with distance, unlike the four known forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. "This suggests to me a very strong indication that a non-recognised source of systematic errors may have been involved," Einstein wrote.
Indeed it was scientific fallacies such as these, rather than drawing room seances, that could most reliably send a shiver up Einstein's spine. When he was confronted with seemingly illogical phenomena in quantum mechanics - where particles appear to communicate instantaneously with each other - he chose to label it in terms more suited to one of Sinclair's seances as "spooky action-at-a-distance".
@ ITTO: I really smirk at the notion that because something seems unattainable it must be stupid, or not worth trying.
And if Darwin isn't throwing in the towel then neither am I, God damn it
