When people's lived experiences defy and question your "knowledge",
you need to modify your "knowledge", which at the end of the day is an
opinion - rather than outright denying their experiences.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
When does a nationalist turn into a fascist?
When does a nationalist turn into a fascist?
If your love for your fellow countrymen is more than your hatred for
whom you perceive to be its enemies, then you're a nationalist.
If your hatred for whom you perceive to be its enemies, exceeds your
love for your fellow countrymen, then you become fascist.
This is reflected in the decisions you take and the ones you approve of.
If your love for your fellow countrymen is more than your hatred for
whom you perceive to be its enemies, then you're a nationalist.
If your hatred for whom you perceive to be its enemies, exceeds your
love for your fellow countrymen, then you become fascist.
This is reflected in the decisions you take and the ones you approve of.
Friday, November 25, 2016
The purpose of pre-election polls?
While there are others, the ones I've noticed are :
Delhi State Elections, both of the last 2 times;
Bihar State Elections
and then internationally:
Brexit referendum, UK
Presidential Election, US
What do these elections/referendum have in common?
In all of them, the polls commissioned and shared by the dominant
mainstream media channels and newspapers of that country and
internationally, in the run-up to the grand finale, all mispredicted
the result, massively. They said sun and pointed at moon.
In all of these cases, the reigning establishment - the dominant
status quo - the side that the corporate elites backed - was what was
predicted by the polls to win, but lost. And the other
anti-establishment side, which depending on the occasion was
relentlessly attacked by the media in all kinds of ways, ended up
winning.
And these were landmark fork-in-the-road occasions too : times when
there were clear and distinct choices to choose from, where the
electorate actually had a choice rather than the tired old game of
choosing one of identical options.
So what was it that made all these pre-election (and pre-referendum)
polls fail so badly? While there have been many post-mortem
explanations, I'll try to introduce a different angle : by
re-examining the question.
What is the true purpose of these pre-voting polls?
Conventional answer : to guage and report the public sentiment and to
predict what the vote's outcome would be.
But if that were true, then these polls have been failing
catastrophically and consistently, and you would have expected to see
some serious disruption and course-change in this industry. Yet the
same pollsters and the same people did them and reported them, both in
India's case and in USA-UK's case.
I'd like to offer a different purpose.
The purpose of these polls is to influence the final vote.
By repeatedly telling you that side A is going to win and that's what
most of your fellow citizens support, they seek to make you believe
that is the side you should be supporting too.
"You" is multiplied millions of times over. Everybody is privately
told that "A is what everybody else is supporting so you better do it
too. And if you are believing otherwise then you better keep your
mouth shut to avoid any rejection / embarrasment amongst all the
people you live and work with".
Under normal circumstances, come voting day, and people do as they've
been told, and then the final result of the vote is.. totally in line
with what the pollsters had predicted. Everything works as planned and
so nobody finds out what really happened. Did the polls just predict
the vote or influence it.. heck, the results were the same so nobody
cares!
What we miss out noticing, is that what the polls had predicted, ended
up influencing the actual vote, and so rather than the poll being a
reflection of what will happen, what happens on voting day ends up
reflecting what the polls were predicting.
That is, the final vote obeys the polls.
This would be difficult to achieve with just one source and one
station, but if the dominant status quo manages to co-opt the whole
umbrella of public information discourse : all or nearly all the
mainstream newspapers and TV news channels and magazines and academia
networks and now even virally shared items on social media, then they
can successfully guide the public into voting the way they want them
to vote.
The only occasion when the chinks in this mechanism's armour show up,
is, as is true in industrial applications, under failure conditions.
That's when the proverbial curtain gets caught up in the winds of
dissent and is momentarily lifted. revealing a brief glimpse of what's
behind.
On the occasions I mentioned above, I believe that's what has
happened, and the mainstream media got caught in the act trying to
influence the final vote. We have caught them abandoning journalistic
standards and trying their hardest to influence the vote. Heck, even
after the vote they are STILL trying to influence the outcome.
The true purpose of the widespread, repeated and v-high-coverage
pre-vote polling by mainstream media is not to predict the vote, but
to make it go the way they want it to.
What's the alternative?
Well, first things first, what a good researcher would do is to cut
out all the external factors that may influence the experiment. So
yes, these polls need to be recognized as what they really are and
taken down from their current highly respected position. Rather, they
serve only the ends of the competing parties, as a market research so
they can guage where they are and strategise what to do next. Let the
parties do their own research if they truly want to stay ahead of the
curve, instead of mainstream news organizations wasting millions in so
unreliably doing their job for them.
Instead, we would benefit a lot more if that much time were instead
taken up in letting the competing sides offer their arguments and
submit their information.
Isn't it silly, that at the very start of campaign season, before the
public has had any chance to even go through the options on the table,
they are being bombarded with predictions of what the outcome would
be?
It's the equivalent of going to a restaurant with your family and the
waiter, instead of giving you the menu, starts yapping about what that
family over there is having and what everybody else is having and so
what you should be having. Imagine asking this waiter for the menu,
and he gives you only a list of what most of the other people are
having instead of what all the options on the menu are, with the
most-ordered item on top with percentage points and all the prices
removed. If you enquire about the other options available, this waiter
starts bitching and trash-talking about the other options, so as to
make you choose the one he's recommending. Then you ask him for the
actual MENU and he tells you, "No, I'm not going to give you that. If
you're so desperate for it, why don't you go to our restaurant's
official website and look it up yourselves?"
You're damn right we will. We don't need to give a shit about what
everybody else is ordering; we're distinct individuals and we want to
order what we want to eat ourselves.
Delhi State Elections, both of the last 2 times;
Bihar State Elections
and then internationally:
Brexit referendum, UK
Presidential Election, US
What do these elections/referendum have in common?
In all of them, the polls commissioned and shared by the dominant
mainstream media channels and newspapers of that country and
internationally, in the run-up to the grand finale, all mispredicted
the result, massively. They said sun and pointed at moon.
In all of these cases, the reigning establishment - the dominant
status quo - the side that the corporate elites backed - was what was
predicted by the polls to win, but lost. And the other
anti-establishment side, which depending on the occasion was
relentlessly attacked by the media in all kinds of ways, ended up
winning.
And these were landmark fork-in-the-road occasions too : times when
there were clear and distinct choices to choose from, where the
electorate actually had a choice rather than the tired old game of
choosing one of identical options.
So what was it that made all these pre-election (and pre-referendum)
polls fail so badly? While there have been many post-mortem
explanations, I'll try to introduce a different angle : by
re-examining the question.
What is the true purpose of these pre-voting polls?
Conventional answer : to guage and report the public sentiment and to
predict what the vote's outcome would be.
But if that were true, then these polls have been failing
catastrophically and consistently, and you would have expected to see
some serious disruption and course-change in this industry. Yet the
same pollsters and the same people did them and reported them, both in
India's case and in USA-UK's case.
I'd like to offer a different purpose.
The purpose of these polls is to influence the final vote.
By repeatedly telling you that side A is going to win and that's what
most of your fellow citizens support, they seek to make you believe
that is the side you should be supporting too.
"You" is multiplied millions of times over. Everybody is privately
told that "A is what everybody else is supporting so you better do it
too. And if you are believing otherwise then you better keep your
mouth shut to avoid any rejection / embarrasment amongst all the
people you live and work with".
Under normal circumstances, come voting day, and people do as they've
been told, and then the final result of the vote is.. totally in line
with what the pollsters had predicted. Everything works as planned and
so nobody finds out what really happened. Did the polls just predict
the vote or influence it.. heck, the results were the same so nobody
cares!
What we miss out noticing, is that what the polls had predicted, ended
up influencing the actual vote, and so rather than the poll being a
reflection of what will happen, what happens on voting day ends up
reflecting what the polls were predicting.
That is, the final vote obeys the polls.
This would be difficult to achieve with just one source and one
station, but if the dominant status quo manages to co-opt the whole
umbrella of public information discourse : all or nearly all the
mainstream newspapers and TV news channels and magazines and academia
networks and now even virally shared items on social media, then they
can successfully guide the public into voting the way they want them
to vote.
The only occasion when the chinks in this mechanism's armour show up,
is, as is true in industrial applications, under failure conditions.
That's when the proverbial curtain gets caught up in the winds of
dissent and is momentarily lifted. revealing a brief glimpse of what's
behind.
On the occasions I mentioned above, I believe that's what has
happened, and the mainstream media got caught in the act trying to
influence the final vote. We have caught them abandoning journalistic
standards and trying their hardest to influence the vote. Heck, even
after the vote they are STILL trying to influence the outcome.
The true purpose of the widespread, repeated and v-high-coverage
pre-vote polling by mainstream media is not to predict the vote, but
to make it go the way they want it to.
What's the alternative?
Well, first things first, what a good researcher would do is to cut
out all the external factors that may influence the experiment. So
yes, these polls need to be recognized as what they really are and
taken down from their current highly respected position. Rather, they
serve only the ends of the competing parties, as a market research so
they can guage where they are and strategise what to do next. Let the
parties do their own research if they truly want to stay ahead of the
curve, instead of mainstream news organizations wasting millions in so
unreliably doing their job for them.
Instead, we would benefit a lot more if that much time were instead
taken up in letting the competing sides offer their arguments and
submit their information.
Isn't it silly, that at the very start of campaign season, before the
public has had any chance to even go through the options on the table,
they are being bombarded with predictions of what the outcome would
be?
It's the equivalent of going to a restaurant with your family and the
waiter, instead of giving you the menu, starts yapping about what that
family over there is having and what everybody else is having and so
what you should be having. Imagine asking this waiter for the menu,
and he gives you only a list of what most of the other people are
having instead of what all the options on the menu are, with the
most-ordered item on top with percentage points and all the prices
removed. If you enquire about the other options available, this waiter
starts bitching and trash-talking about the other options, so as to
make you choose the one he's recommending. Then you ask him for the
actual MENU and he tells you, "No, I'm not going to give you that. If
you're so desperate for it, why don't you go to our restaurant's
official website and look it up yourselves?"
You're damn right we will. We don't need to give a shit about what
everybody else is ordering; we're distinct individuals and we want to
order what we want to eat ourselves.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Would anti-Trump protests even happen if what they claimed about his side was true?
An observation about the anti-Trump protests.
If all the myths of Trump supporters being intolerant violent
extremists etc WERE true, then all these "F**K Trump. Kill Trump"
protests and riots and social media declarations wouldn't have
happened at all. They have happened only and only because the
participants - whether paid or not - feel safe that they will not get
physically attacked by violent extremists. Just look at other
countries where true tyrants (elite-backed I must add.. why do people
miss out that little detail?) have come to power : the dissenters have
no choice but to shut up for some time and be very, very afraid at
least during the first days when the winning side people are
triumphant and belligerent. I don't see any of that happening in the
US right now.. the anti-Trump voices are only getting shriller, more
violent and more provocative with no retaliation coming from the side
that they have been claiming is violent, intolerant etc etc.
If all the myths of Trump supporters being intolerant violent
extremists etc WERE true, then all these "F**K Trump. Kill Trump"
protests and riots and social media declarations wouldn't have
happened at all. They have happened only and only because the
participants - whether paid or not - feel safe that they will not get
physically attacked by violent extremists. Just look at other
countries where true tyrants (elite-backed I must add.. why do people
miss out that little detail?) have come to power : the dissenters have
no choice but to shut up for some time and be very, very afraid at
least during the first days when the winning side people are
triumphant and belligerent. I don't see any of that happening in the
US right now.. the anti-Trump voices are only getting shriller, more
violent and more provocative with no retaliation coming from the side
that they have been claiming is violent, intolerant etc etc.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
The I-dont-know-who-to-trust syndrome
You've been believing A since some time now.
A had told you some really bad things about B, and said you should
never trust B. And trusting A, you stayed well away from B all this
time.
But suddenly some new information has emerged, in a separate matter,
which puts your trust in A in question. It has turned out that A had
betrayed your trust and has been lying to you.
So now you no longer trust A.
When asked who do you trust, you say "Oh, it's all so complicated, I
don't know who to trust anymore".
But wait a minute. What about B?
"Oh, I can't trust B, no way!"
But who told you that B can't be trusted?
A.
Doesn't the fact that you can't trust A anymore, lead to the
possiblity that whatever A told you about B might also have had some
falsehoods?
It would be foolish of course to blindly go to the opposite extreme
and blindly trust B suddenly. But what if your learned,
indoctrinated-by-A complete aversion to B needs a re-evaluation?
What if you need to re-look into what B has been telling, with a fresh
set of eyes?
What if A's deception had included painting an ugly image of B and
preventing you and B from finding common ground together?
Then by resorting to "I don't know who to trust anymore" instead of
re-examining your aversion towards B, aren't you still making A win in
their game of deception, even after having known that A is fraudulent?
What / who have been the As and Bs in your life?
A had told you some really bad things about B, and said you should
never trust B. And trusting A, you stayed well away from B all this
time.
But suddenly some new information has emerged, in a separate matter,
which puts your trust in A in question. It has turned out that A had
betrayed your trust and has been lying to you.
So now you no longer trust A.
When asked who do you trust, you say "Oh, it's all so complicated, I
don't know who to trust anymore".
But wait a minute. What about B?
"Oh, I can't trust B, no way!"
But who told you that B can't be trusted?
A.
Doesn't the fact that you can't trust A anymore, lead to the
possiblity that whatever A told you about B might also have had some
falsehoods?
It would be foolish of course to blindly go to the opposite extreme
and blindly trust B suddenly. But what if your learned,
indoctrinated-by-A complete aversion to B needs a re-evaluation?
What if you need to re-look into what B has been telling, with a fresh
set of eyes?
What if A's deception had included painting an ugly image of B and
preventing you and B from finding common ground together?
Then by resorting to "I don't know who to trust anymore" instead of
re-examining your aversion towards B, aren't you still making A win in
their game of deception, even after having known that A is fraudulent?
What / who have been the As and Bs in your life?
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Diwali message with a twist
This Diwali,
instead of wearing a new dress,
*can I change the way I address people?* This Diwali,
instead of cleaning an already clean house, *can I work on scrubbing my dusty heart?*
This Diwali,
instead of lighting up my doorway,
*can I question my pathway to ignorance?*
This Diwali,
instead of stuffing myself with sweets, *can I give up the bitterness in my heart?*
This Diwali,
instead of bursting crackers,
*can I burst my egoistic pride?*
Spread Love ❤ and Happiness Friends 😊 Happy Diwali 🙏
-- shared by someone named prachi on a whatsapp group, but can't verify if she's the author. Anyways the message is universal.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Winter travel tip: Use clothes as under-blanket
Poor people's guide to survival without sleeping bags:
Unpack and lay all your remaining clothes as a secondary patched-up blanket below you, to add to the one blanket ur carrying that you'll put on top. Use one clothe to cover ur ears well.
☝🏼 this saved my life on a few occasions and during cycle yatra.
On one bus journey i realized the chaddar was too thin so the clothes went both above and below.
Also, newspapers tucked in can help as insulation.
Note: this was applicable to me in rajasthan's winter (which is in india). If you're at an even colder place then don't take it literally!
Monday, November 14, 2016
Possible additional motive for demonetization move
Came across this article posted as citizen journalism:
http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/the-masterstroke-policy-of-demonetisation/75165/
Following up on that.
I know for a fact that the big corporates have borrowed and defaulted on huge sums of money from psu's. Raghuram was pushed out for exposing this n trying to take action.
If govt doesnt confiscate their assets or take action like on sahara group or even kingfisher, then only way is to do bailout like usa did for their banksters.
For that they need public's money. See, India cannot print large amts of money as usa can, as rupee is not world's reserve currency. Else runaway inflation will happen like zimbabwe/venezuela. Please search online to find how US is able to get away with it. "Hidden secrets of money" series on youtube can explain the details.
So the only way, if you're not confiscating the assets of the defaulters, is to collect surplus cash reserves from the people of the nation and use it to settle the defaulter's debts. Basically, socialism/communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
At the end it results in massive amounts of money collected from citizens that could have been used for nation's progress, transfered to big corporates instead. Classic crony capitalism case.
This isn't the only source. Earlier there have been reports of govt not lowering petrol-diesel prices despite intl crude prices crash. They have been collecting huge surplus as result, and there were speculations of govt deliberately hoarding these reserves so that they can be used to bail out the big defaulters.
This demonetization move would not directly give money to govt's treasury, but is massively increasing the cash reserves of the banking sector. Our banks follow fractional reserve lending, meaning to be able to lend large amounts of money, or in this case to write off bad debts, they need higher reserves of cash.
India traditionally doesn't keep very high reserves in its banks; the term 'black money' has been overzealously used to blanket-paint all the money of indians that doesn't pass through the banks.
Actually there is no real reason for it to be so : banks were originally solely for people to store their money in a safe place so they don't get robbed of it at home. The lending out at interest was a way to make use of this collected money, and a part of the interest earned was passed on to the depositor. So banking is just one for-profit service in the economy, among many. There is really no reason to make banks the holy temple of all money : doing so has caused many problems.
But I digress. Anyways, while i also agree this demonetization move has many benefits, its worth exploring the possible other motives too. A vigilant citizenry is necessary for a healthy democracy.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Gratitude to Infowars, RT and more
Dear Alex Jones / Infowars, RT, Lee Camp, Inessa S, Julian Assange/Wikileaks, John Rappoport and many more,
You've taken on an Empire and have prevented, for the time being,
World War 3 from happening.
It's still difficult for me to explain this matter to the people around me. It's possible they'll hate me for this for some time to come. But I hope we will see through in time. You have my deepest and heartfelt gratitude. Thank you, for being who you are.
You've taken on an Empire and have prevented, for the time being,
World War 3 from happening.
It's still difficult for me to explain this matter to the people around me. It's possible they'll hate me for this for some time to come. But I hope we will see through in time. You have my deepest and heartfelt gratitude. Thank you, for being who you are.
[Rethinking] US Elections
Writing about a major hoodwink operation underway among the social
sector people, and among many of my friends.
Right now on these networks I see a conspicuous absence of people
choosing to talk about the ongoing US Elections. It's one of the
biggest issues but strangely it has become the elephant in the room
that people want to avoid. I take that as a sign that there is
uncertainty and confusion, and I think I know the reasons for that
confusion. People are following a standard narrative when asked, but
aren't proactively expressing it so I don't think they're really
saying what's in their hearts.. I sense more of an obligatory
compliance. It seems fashionable now to talk only ill of certain
people and there is an imminent threat in the air of excommunication
should one break the taboo.
There are simply too many links to track down and share here. I had
earlier thought I'll do a proper curated email, but there are too many
threads of info and I don't want to share this AFTER the election
results are out, as I want to stake my claim on what I've been
observing and share my conclusions and not be doing a post-facto
post-mortem of the matter. I've been afraid of even talking about this
with people as at first conversation I learn that it's going to take
forever, we don't have forever and in the meanwhile even I'll just get
damned, pinned as a misogynist or something. So anyways here goes.
The major corporate and banking elites that have been running the
world into the ground, seem to have successfully convinced
well-meaning and i-had-assumed-were-more-aware people to back their
chosen candidate for the US elections, Hillary Clinton. If you want
any specific names, then see : Goldman Sachs.
The mainstream media, which is lock stock and barrel acting like
Hillary Clinton's PR agents, has demonized Trump for the exact purpose
of instilling so much fear in people's heads that they become blinded
by this fear and blindly support the opposite camp. The media's
portrayal of him looks too bad to be true, and that's what got me
questioning. And I've found out that this portrayal is both deliberate
and unnatural. He's actually not the monster they've painted him to
be.
What's happening is a classic case of a controlled situation spinning
out of control. The media's job was set, but the elites didn't count
on Trump actually turning out to be something more than just an
attention grabber. It has been told by countless participative
democracy proponents: one does not need to be a career politician to
be a good leader. Any human being is sufficient and can make the right
decisions if he/she is a free person and is not beholden to any vested
interests.
"Oh no, anything but Trump!" Really? How did we become so childish all
of a sudden? "Anything?" Really? Do you have any idea what you're
signing up for when you say "anything" ?
So here it becomes necessary to question the prevalent mood that Obama
is a good guy.
The Obama+Clinton regime of the past 8 years has not only continued
Bush's legacy, but taken it to even lower depths.
The core problem with US politics is not blunt-mouthed politically
incorrect people, but smooth-talking liars. Obama came into office
with a Nobel Prize in hand; he should leave with an Oscar for best
Acting. He said he'll stop war and he's created even more. He said
he'll reign in Wall Street and instead he made them more powerful than
ever. He promised justice, and he's industrialized drone assassination
programs that have a 90% innocent-kill rate, is using Kill Lists where
he can choose who he wants dead without any due course of law or
oversight, has signed record number of executive orders (an
unconstitutional practice started by Bush) and has given himself
powers to wage war anywhere in the world as and when he sees fit. This
isn't President Obama anymore; it's Emperor Obama. Very recently he
even vetoed to protect Saudi Arabia's government from lawsuits by 9/11
victims' families. Frankly he has acted like he has absolutely no
intentions of leaving the White House. And Hillary is right up there
in the Emperor's court, waiting in the wings to take over the title
and continue the Empire. The only thing saving these people from open
revolution is the illusion they're putting out of being nice, coupled
with the illusion that there is no other possible choice, with the
full complicity of the international mainstream media that has a
highly centralized ownership.
To vote for Hillary is to vote for war, for the banksters who have
already ripped us off trillions and are prepping to do it again, for
the elites, for pay-for-play ie favors given to people who donated to
her Clinton Foundation (which it turns out isn't even a law-compliant
NGO), for the Saudi rulers who have publicly declared to have
massively funded her and who routinely suppress women's rights and
execute nonviolent dissenters, for more of ISIS, for enormous
corruption, for American Imperialism, for endless wars, for more
secrecy, more mass surveillance, for a very real possibility of a
global nuclear holocaust with her nonstop warmongering towards Russia.
Oh, but it's a vote for women, so let's forget everything and cheer on
more absent-minded symbolism.. after a black guy let's put a woman,
yayy! It's "time" to have a female US President, just for the heck of
it. Let's give the status quo yet another blank frame of symbolic
expectations within which they can fill in whichever stooge of theirs
fits the generic description. And nevermind the fact that the Green
Party leader who is also contesting is also female and a better woman
and a better leader by far. People are so fixated on Hillary that it
looks like she's the only woman on this planet.
I'm realizing the importance of context in all of this. Disguised as
different political parties, I'm now learning that the US has had
actually one constant regime right from George Bush senior, through
Bill Clinton, George Bush, now Obama and now planned through Hillary
Clinton. They have all had the exact same funders, the same
puppetteers guiding these puppets. George sr. back-stabbbed Saddam by
one day telling him he can go invade Kuwait and next day saying it's
not allowed, and with that started the next leg of American
imperialism. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagal act which had
been preventing banks from becoming too-big-to-fail, and signed NAFTA
and other free trade treaties that have directly, massively,
contributed to a global acceleration in CO2 emissions and extreme
pollution, by allowing corporations to employ and mine as carelessly
as they want anywhere, transport goods across large distances without
any control, and still their products won't be blacklisted or taxed.
He also continued the trend of unilaterally bombing countries without
proper peaceful dialogue and destroying international law. In Bush's
time, 9/11 gave the excuse to do more imperialism (and mind, it wasn't
co-incidence) and then Obama has only continued it. All these years
there have been whistleblowers coming out and warning that these
people plan to invade a multitude of countries, and the mainstream
media purposefully ignored them. Bush also unilaterally withdrew from
the ABM treaty, which according to Russia is the single biggest blow
to international mutual peace. Obama took that forward and has now
placed missiles right on Russia's borders, with no way for even their
European hosts to know whether the missiles are carrying a
conventional or nuclear warhead. And after doing 100 times worse than
what the Soviets had attempted during the Cuban missile crisis, when
Russia objects to their country being put under direct threat, the
media has been painting the Russians as evil. Obama also did more to
severely deregulate weapons manufacturers, resulting in a
multiplication in the world's stockpiles of instruments of death, and
now there is little to no oversight on who's buying the weapons. They
might be selling to mercenaries, tyrants and it's ok. This has
directly caused the increase in human suffering due to weapon
violence. While he and Hillary have been rattling on about removing
the right of US citizens to bear arms, behind the scenes the American
domestic police agencies have, with Obama's blessings, amassed
unbelievable amounts of military weapons, ammunition, gear and
vehicles : enough to wage a civil war against their own people, with
more than a billion bullets stockpiled and waiting to be fired and
companies who benefited from this large purchase waiting to
manufacture and sell more. So that has got people questioning if the
move to disarm the population is being done to enable a dictatorial
takeover and not just stop mass shootings.
I have to dedicate another para to Ukraine and Syria. Western powers
funded and aided right-wing orgs in Ukraine to overthrow the elected
government, violated international norms and gave official recognition
to coup leaders, and now Ukraine is one of the most corrupt states in
Europe. When Crimea voted, democratically, to move from Ukraine to
Russia, and Russia moved in without firing a single bullet, the media
painted it as an evil takeover. When Donbass tried to do the same
thing, Ukraine behaved exactly the way a right-wing fascist government
does: they indiscriminately bombed them (even using weapons banned for
use on civilian areas by the UN), destroyed all possibility of civil
life or peaceful dialogue, and when rebels resisted the hostile
takeover, the media again painted the separatists as evil. If Russia
helped them, then as the immediate neighbour, with ethnic Russians
under fire, in a similar situation as India was when Bangladesh was
trying to separate from Pakistan, suddenly, the people who have been
intervening everywhere, are demonizing Russia for intervening,
equivalent to demonizing India for intervening when Bangladesh ceded
from Pakistan. And then Syria! The Obama-Clinton admin did the exact
same thing to Syria what Pakistan has been doing in India's Kashmir :
funding, arming and sending militants across from NATO member Turkey's
border, with the difference being that here the funding was to the
tune of billions of dollars and they did it to a much smaller country
with no capability to cope against such a hugely externally funded
armed rebellion. Imagine what would happen to Kashmir if Pakistan
suddenly got $5 billion to spend on the insurgency. The majority of
the "rebels" fighting the Syrian govt are well-paid foreigners! How
does one square that circle? And in all this free money flow we have
ISIS emerging, with the world's biggest cash flow among terrorist
organizations, and with not a single intelligence agency like CIA or
Interpol even attempting to track down their money flows which are So
easy to track and suspend.
Hillary Clinton was very much part of this dishonest regime and is the
continuation of Obama's legacy; she is the anointed heir to the
Empire's throne.
"Oh, so you're saying Americans should vote for Trump?" >> see the
knee-jerk response in this statement? An absolute absense of
non-binary, realistic thinking. Either you're with Her, or you're with
Him. Suddenly any third option is intolerable. How about the Green
Party, Jill Stein? "Oh but that will waste the vote and make Trump
win" >> Gee, where have I heard that claptrap before? Suddenly
election is a chessgame and you're Viswanathan Anand. My ass. It's not
your bloody business to speculate, buddy. The voter's ultimate duty is
to simply pick who they think is best candidate, and leave the rest to
God / whatever their inclination is.
There's very few entities that have questioned the bluff that Hillary
should be voted for, and for that they have won my respect which many
others have, sorry to say, lost.
And what have I been seeing? Whether Jill Stein or Trump, they're both
actually quite good as presidential candidates. Yes, I actually think
Trump would is ACCEPTABLE whereas Hillary is not. So let's just flush
this guy's entire life down the toilet and assume hereon that he's
also a bad guy, ok? After all, that's what the media has instructed
you to do and you're an obedient little sheep, aren't you? I've seen
that the allegations credited to him are nothing more than cultural
blabber that my own father being his age carries - anyone who hasn't
ever said anything controversial has to be guilty of pre-planning the
whole thing like a career politician - which Hillary is and Trump
isn't. The argument that he's got some devious thing to gain in
comparison to all that he has lost (including his own private wealth
that he spent rather than be beholden to donors) just doesn't hold
water : the situation is simply too impossible when seen from the past
to give any guarantee of success.
I heard one person repeat another propaganda piece : Trump is a
monster! If he gets his hands on the nuclear codes then we're all
dead! >> He missed one critical point : Trump has absolutely no
intention of doing nuclear war with Russia. Hillary does. She's the
one you need to worry about keeping away from the nukes. Hillary wants
to intervene and invade everywhere; Trump does not.
When Trump and Putin talk about making peace on the planet instead of
destroying it, they're accused of bro-mance. Suddenly wanting my and
your family to stay alive is a crime.
And then come the Hitler comparisons. They say Trump is like Hitler,
after having committed the intolerable crime of not actually having
slaughtered thousands to millions of people, while Obama/Hillary who
have been actually doing the things that would give Hitler a hard-on,
are oh-so-puppy-like. You think Trump will slaughter everybody. Can
you please explain to me how?
You quote Mein Kampf to prove that oh, these selective personality
traits are matching. Hillary's ACTIONS and campaign strategies match
Hitler's. And the biggest point of all that everybody is missing out
about Hitler because it was cleverly not mentioned in our textbooks :
Hitler was completely funded, aided and armed by the dominant Western
corporate elite and Western banks of the day. IBM helped him track
down the Jews and Bayer and folks constructed the concentration camps
for him - do they care to mention that in their recruitment videos?
The mainsteam media of the day completely supported him as their
masters were among the elites raising him. Even Charlie Chaplin was
royally screwed for having dared to make "The Great Dictator".
Hitler became Hitler not through deft populism as is mistakenly
attributed, but through complete assistance by the corporate and
banking elites. Mein Kampf is at the end of the day a propaganda piece
that does NOT mention the truth about how Hitler actually rose to
power : who helped him get there. If it wasn't for the western elites'
funding and complete assistance, he would've been just another
localized goon that would have vaporized quickly.
And then there's the total misunderstanding of human nature (with
thanks to Freud the perverted d**khead who made the classical
technocratic mistake of finding only the savage in people and not the
noble side that the Apaches had found, in their two wolves fable,
aeons before him). It wasn't frenzied mobs that brought Hitler to
power. Germany and Japan both fell to fascism precisely because at the
time they had the most DISCIPLINED and OBEDIENT populations in the
world. Germany was where the system of compulsory education began,
with the publicly declared purpose of creating an obedient public that
will do as told. An out of control population would have rebelled, has
far better checks and balances and would have screwed Hitler over
long, long before he could have gotten to any power position. No sir,
it was and always has been obedience that has caused the maximum
carnage on this planet.
The people of Germany were hoodwinked by the Western powers to be
their pawns, for the express purpose of destroying the Soviet Union.
The Soviets / Russians suffered unspeakable destruction : areas
greater than whole countries were completely flattened with extreme
prejudice: but it was their perseverance despite all odds that turned
the tide and defeated fascism. The Normandy landing by US/UK troops
was nothing compared to what the Russians shored up and it happened
AFTER Hitler had sounded the retreat, AFTER the Frankenstein monster
had turned on its own creators.
Ok, enough context. Back to present.
So among Clinton and Trump, which one is completely funded and aided
by the corporate and banking and media elites of today as Hitler was
back then? Who is out-spending the other, in TV ads by 50 to 1? Who
has taken massive corporate donations and who is using up 100 million
dollars of his own personal wealth to stay campaigning but not get
beholden to the corporates?
Follow.the.money. Have you even thought about it? Oh no, Trump is so
bad, Trump is so bad, we're physically incapable of intelligent
thought because Trump is so bad.
Oh, he wants to kick out the poor little puppies, sorry, illegal
aliens who didn't follow due visa procedures that any Indian would
rightfully expect anyone entering India for work to follow. Suddenly
that's so horrible. Oh, he wants the kind of borders for USA that
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HAS where people who want to enter have to show
some papers and had better not be carrying drugs. That is soo bad,
he's going to kill us all, oohh ohhh STOP IT.
The academia, the media, and a lot of people reading this, think that
regular people are all idiots, that it's a crazed and deranged mob
rallying for Trump and attending his speeches in never-before-seen
numbers, and they know better than the people getting off their
couches do. Their contempt for normal people has reached its peak in
these days. What if that's not a mindless mob but a movement of real
people : people who haven't spent most of their lives living under an
academic rock and who know the reality that lies beyond the blackboard
: people who are not as easy to brainwash as our
degree-and-published-paper-chasing intelligentia are? What if, heavens
oh heavens, Sigmund Freud was wrong and people ARE capable of
distinguishing between right and wrong and are getting better at it
since Internet?
On climate change : guess what's going to bring the best control over
CO2 emissions across the world? Hillary's greenwashing just like
Obama's greenwashing after which he unleashed Tar Sands and is
currently shooting pipeling protestors with rubber bullets without
provocation? TPP and buddies? How about : the restoration of
country-to-country import taxes, the repeal of NAFTA and similar "free
trade" agreements? Doesn't simple logic say that the plan to bring
back US jobs, stop the out-of-control outsourcing will lead to a
better control over the globe's excess CO2 emissions?
Isn't a policy of leaving other countries alone to sort out their own
problems better than being Big Brother and intervening between
Childish governments clamoring for aid?
"Hillary is just another corrupt politician" - excuse me, corruption
is an act of crime, and once you put a criminal in charge of the crime
scene, guess what happens to all the witnesses?
Lot of cool stuff happening! Media has hoodwinked us long enough.
People everywhere are waking up. What's up with you?
Stopping here. Haven't included many things because it would take too
much time to explain the context around them : time I'd rather not
waste right now..
sector people, and among many of my friends.
Right now on these networks I see a conspicuous absence of people
choosing to talk about the ongoing US Elections. It's one of the
biggest issues but strangely it has become the elephant in the room
that people want to avoid. I take that as a sign that there is
uncertainty and confusion, and I think I know the reasons for that
confusion. People are following a standard narrative when asked, but
aren't proactively expressing it so I don't think they're really
saying what's in their hearts.. I sense more of an obligatory
compliance. It seems fashionable now to talk only ill of certain
people and there is an imminent threat in the air of excommunication
should one break the taboo.
There are simply too many links to track down and share here. I had
earlier thought I'll do a proper curated email, but there are too many
threads of info and I don't want to share this AFTER the election
results are out, as I want to stake my claim on what I've been
observing and share my conclusions and not be doing a post-facto
post-mortem of the matter. I've been afraid of even talking about this
with people as at first conversation I learn that it's going to take
forever, we don't have forever and in the meanwhile even I'll just get
damned, pinned as a misogynist or something. So anyways here goes.
The major corporate and banking elites that have been running the
world into the ground, seem to have successfully convinced
well-meaning and i-had-assumed-were-more-aware people to back their
chosen candidate for the US elections, Hillary Clinton. If you want
any specific names, then see : Goldman Sachs.
The mainstream media, which is lock stock and barrel acting like
Hillary Clinton's PR agents, has demonized Trump for the exact purpose
of instilling so much fear in people's heads that they become blinded
by this fear and blindly support the opposite camp. The media's
portrayal of him looks too bad to be true, and that's what got me
questioning. And I've found out that this portrayal is both deliberate
and unnatural. He's actually not the monster they've painted him to
be.
What's happening is a classic case of a controlled situation spinning
out of control. The media's job was set, but the elites didn't count
on Trump actually turning out to be something more than just an
attention grabber. It has been told by countless participative
democracy proponents: one does not need to be a career politician to
be a good leader. Any human being is sufficient and can make the right
decisions if he/she is a free person and is not beholden to any vested
interests.
"Oh no, anything but Trump!" Really? How did we become so childish all
of a sudden? "Anything?" Really? Do you have any idea what you're
signing up for when you say "anything" ?
So here it becomes necessary to question the prevalent mood that Obama
is a good guy.
The Obama+Clinton regime of the past 8 years has not only continued
Bush's legacy, but taken it to even lower depths.
The core problem with US politics is not blunt-mouthed politically
incorrect people, but smooth-talking liars. Obama came into office
with a Nobel Prize in hand; he should leave with an Oscar for best
Acting. He said he'll stop war and he's created even more. He said
he'll reign in Wall Street and instead he made them more powerful than
ever. He promised justice, and he's industrialized drone assassination
programs that have a 90% innocent-kill rate, is using Kill Lists where
he can choose who he wants dead without any due course of law or
oversight, has signed record number of executive orders (an
unconstitutional practice started by Bush) and has given himself
powers to wage war anywhere in the world as and when he sees fit. This
isn't President Obama anymore; it's Emperor Obama. Very recently he
even vetoed to protect Saudi Arabia's government from lawsuits by 9/11
victims' families. Frankly he has acted like he has absolutely no
intentions of leaving the White House. And Hillary is right up there
in the Emperor's court, waiting in the wings to take over the title
and continue the Empire. The only thing saving these people from open
revolution is the illusion they're putting out of being nice, coupled
with the illusion that there is no other possible choice, with the
full complicity of the international mainstream media that has a
highly centralized ownership.
To vote for Hillary is to vote for war, for the banksters who have
already ripped us off trillions and are prepping to do it again, for
the elites, for pay-for-play ie favors given to people who donated to
her Clinton Foundation (which it turns out isn't even a law-compliant
NGO), for the Saudi rulers who have publicly declared to have
massively funded her and who routinely suppress women's rights and
execute nonviolent dissenters, for more of ISIS, for enormous
corruption, for American Imperialism, for endless wars, for more
secrecy, more mass surveillance, for a very real possibility of a
global nuclear holocaust with her nonstop warmongering towards Russia.
Oh, but it's a vote for women, so let's forget everything and cheer on
more absent-minded symbolism.. after a black guy let's put a woman,
yayy! It's "time" to have a female US President, just for the heck of
it. Let's give the status quo yet another blank frame of symbolic
expectations within which they can fill in whichever stooge of theirs
fits the generic description. And nevermind the fact that the Green
Party leader who is also contesting is also female and a better woman
and a better leader by far. People are so fixated on Hillary that it
looks like she's the only woman on this planet.
I'm realizing the importance of context in all of this. Disguised as
different political parties, I'm now learning that the US has had
actually one constant regime right from George Bush senior, through
Bill Clinton, George Bush, now Obama and now planned through Hillary
Clinton. They have all had the exact same funders, the same
puppetteers guiding these puppets. George sr. back-stabbbed Saddam by
one day telling him he can go invade Kuwait and next day saying it's
not allowed, and with that started the next leg of American
imperialism. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagal act which had
been preventing banks from becoming too-big-to-fail, and signed NAFTA
and other free trade treaties that have directly, massively,
contributed to a global acceleration in CO2 emissions and extreme
pollution, by allowing corporations to employ and mine as carelessly
as they want anywhere, transport goods across large distances without
any control, and still their products won't be blacklisted or taxed.
He also continued the trend of unilaterally bombing countries without
proper peaceful dialogue and destroying international law. In Bush's
time, 9/11 gave the excuse to do more imperialism (and mind, it wasn't
co-incidence) and then Obama has only continued it. All these years
there have been whistleblowers coming out and warning that these
people plan to invade a multitude of countries, and the mainstream
media purposefully ignored them. Bush also unilaterally withdrew from
the ABM treaty, which according to Russia is the single biggest blow
to international mutual peace. Obama took that forward and has now
placed missiles right on Russia's borders, with no way for even their
European hosts to know whether the missiles are carrying a
conventional or nuclear warhead. And after doing 100 times worse than
what the Soviets had attempted during the Cuban missile crisis, when
Russia objects to their country being put under direct threat, the
media has been painting the Russians as evil. Obama also did more to
severely deregulate weapons manufacturers, resulting in a
multiplication in the world's stockpiles of instruments of death, and
now there is little to no oversight on who's buying the weapons. They
might be selling to mercenaries, tyrants and it's ok. This has
directly caused the increase in human suffering due to weapon
violence. While he and Hillary have been rattling on about removing
the right of US citizens to bear arms, behind the scenes the American
domestic police agencies have, with Obama's blessings, amassed
unbelievable amounts of military weapons, ammunition, gear and
vehicles : enough to wage a civil war against their own people, with
more than a billion bullets stockpiled and waiting to be fired and
companies who benefited from this large purchase waiting to
manufacture and sell more. So that has got people questioning if the
move to disarm the population is being done to enable a dictatorial
takeover and not just stop mass shootings.
I have to dedicate another para to Ukraine and Syria. Western powers
funded and aided right-wing orgs in Ukraine to overthrow the elected
government, violated international norms and gave official recognition
to coup leaders, and now Ukraine is one of the most corrupt states in
Europe. When Crimea voted, democratically, to move from Ukraine to
Russia, and Russia moved in without firing a single bullet, the media
painted it as an evil takeover. When Donbass tried to do the same
thing, Ukraine behaved exactly the way a right-wing fascist government
does: they indiscriminately bombed them (even using weapons banned for
use on civilian areas by the UN), destroyed all possibility of civil
life or peaceful dialogue, and when rebels resisted the hostile
takeover, the media again painted the separatists as evil. If Russia
helped them, then as the immediate neighbour, with ethnic Russians
under fire, in a similar situation as India was when Bangladesh was
trying to separate from Pakistan, suddenly, the people who have been
intervening everywhere, are demonizing Russia for intervening,
equivalent to demonizing India for intervening when Bangladesh ceded
from Pakistan. And then Syria! The Obama-Clinton admin did the exact
same thing to Syria what Pakistan has been doing in India's Kashmir :
funding, arming and sending militants across from NATO member Turkey's
border, with the difference being that here the funding was to the
tune of billions of dollars and they did it to a much smaller country
with no capability to cope against such a hugely externally funded
armed rebellion. Imagine what would happen to Kashmir if Pakistan
suddenly got $5 billion to spend on the insurgency. The majority of
the "rebels" fighting the Syrian govt are well-paid foreigners! How
does one square that circle? And in all this free money flow we have
ISIS emerging, with the world's biggest cash flow among terrorist
organizations, and with not a single intelligence agency like CIA or
Interpol even attempting to track down their money flows which are So
easy to track and suspend.
Hillary Clinton was very much part of this dishonest regime and is the
continuation of Obama's legacy; she is the anointed heir to the
Empire's throne.
"Oh, so you're saying Americans should vote for Trump?" >> see the
knee-jerk response in this statement? An absolute absense of
non-binary, realistic thinking. Either you're with Her, or you're with
Him. Suddenly any third option is intolerable. How about the Green
Party, Jill Stein? "Oh but that will waste the vote and make Trump
win" >> Gee, where have I heard that claptrap before? Suddenly
election is a chessgame and you're Viswanathan Anand. My ass. It's not
your bloody business to speculate, buddy. The voter's ultimate duty is
to simply pick who they think is best candidate, and leave the rest to
God / whatever their inclination is.
There's very few entities that have questioned the bluff that Hillary
should be voted for, and for that they have won my respect which many
others have, sorry to say, lost.
And what have I been seeing? Whether Jill Stein or Trump, they're both
actually quite good as presidential candidates. Yes, I actually think
Trump would is ACCEPTABLE whereas Hillary is not. So let's just flush
this guy's entire life down the toilet and assume hereon that he's
also a bad guy, ok? After all, that's what the media has instructed
you to do and you're an obedient little sheep, aren't you? I've seen
that the allegations credited to him are nothing more than cultural
blabber that my own father being his age carries - anyone who hasn't
ever said anything controversial has to be guilty of pre-planning the
whole thing like a career politician - which Hillary is and Trump
isn't. The argument that he's got some devious thing to gain in
comparison to all that he has lost (including his own private wealth
that he spent rather than be beholden to donors) just doesn't hold
water : the situation is simply too impossible when seen from the past
to give any guarantee of success.
I heard one person repeat another propaganda piece : Trump is a
monster! If he gets his hands on the nuclear codes then we're all
dead! >> He missed one critical point : Trump has absolutely no
intention of doing nuclear war with Russia. Hillary does. She's the
one you need to worry about keeping away from the nukes. Hillary wants
to intervene and invade everywhere; Trump does not.
When Trump and Putin talk about making peace on the planet instead of
destroying it, they're accused of bro-mance. Suddenly wanting my and
your family to stay alive is a crime.
And then come the Hitler comparisons. They say Trump is like Hitler,
after having committed the intolerable crime of not actually having
slaughtered thousands to millions of people, while Obama/Hillary who
have been actually doing the things that would give Hitler a hard-on,
are oh-so-puppy-like. You think Trump will slaughter everybody. Can
you please explain to me how?
You quote Mein Kampf to prove that oh, these selective personality
traits are matching. Hillary's ACTIONS and campaign strategies match
Hitler's. And the biggest point of all that everybody is missing out
about Hitler because it was cleverly not mentioned in our textbooks :
Hitler was completely funded, aided and armed by the dominant Western
corporate elite and Western banks of the day. IBM helped him track
down the Jews and Bayer and folks constructed the concentration camps
for him - do they care to mention that in their recruitment videos?
The mainsteam media of the day completely supported him as their
masters were among the elites raising him. Even Charlie Chaplin was
royally screwed for having dared to make "The Great Dictator".
Hitler became Hitler not through deft populism as is mistakenly
attributed, but through complete assistance by the corporate and
banking elites. Mein Kampf is at the end of the day a propaganda piece
that does NOT mention the truth about how Hitler actually rose to
power : who helped him get there. If it wasn't for the western elites'
funding and complete assistance, he would've been just another
localized goon that would have vaporized quickly.
And then there's the total misunderstanding of human nature (with
thanks to Freud the perverted d**khead who made the classical
technocratic mistake of finding only the savage in people and not the
noble side that the Apaches had found, in their two wolves fable,
aeons before him). It wasn't frenzied mobs that brought Hitler to
power. Germany and Japan both fell to fascism precisely because at the
time they had the most DISCIPLINED and OBEDIENT populations in the
world. Germany was where the system of compulsory education began,
with the publicly declared purpose of creating an obedient public that
will do as told. An out of control population would have rebelled, has
far better checks and balances and would have screwed Hitler over
long, long before he could have gotten to any power position. No sir,
it was and always has been obedience that has caused the maximum
carnage on this planet.
The people of Germany were hoodwinked by the Western powers to be
their pawns, for the express purpose of destroying the Soviet Union.
The Soviets / Russians suffered unspeakable destruction : areas
greater than whole countries were completely flattened with extreme
prejudice: but it was their perseverance despite all odds that turned
the tide and defeated fascism. The Normandy landing by US/UK troops
was nothing compared to what the Russians shored up and it happened
AFTER Hitler had sounded the retreat, AFTER the Frankenstein monster
had turned on its own creators.
Ok, enough context. Back to present.
So among Clinton and Trump, which one is completely funded and aided
by the corporate and banking and media elites of today as Hitler was
back then? Who is out-spending the other, in TV ads by 50 to 1? Who
has taken massive corporate donations and who is using up 100 million
dollars of his own personal wealth to stay campaigning but not get
beholden to the corporates?
Follow.the.money. Have you even thought about it? Oh no, Trump is so
bad, Trump is so bad, we're physically incapable of intelligent
thought because Trump is so bad.
Oh, he wants to kick out the poor little puppies, sorry, illegal
aliens who didn't follow due visa procedures that any Indian would
rightfully expect anyone entering India for work to follow. Suddenly
that's so horrible. Oh, he wants the kind of borders for USA that
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HAS where people who want to enter have to show
some papers and had better not be carrying drugs. That is soo bad,
he's going to kill us all, oohh ohhh STOP IT.
The academia, the media, and a lot of people reading this, think that
regular people are all idiots, that it's a crazed and deranged mob
rallying for Trump and attending his speeches in never-before-seen
numbers, and they know better than the people getting off their
couches do. Their contempt for normal people has reached its peak in
these days. What if that's not a mindless mob but a movement of real
people : people who haven't spent most of their lives living under an
academic rock and who know the reality that lies beyond the blackboard
: people who are not as easy to brainwash as our
degree-and-published-paper-chasing intelligentia are? What if, heavens
oh heavens, Sigmund Freud was wrong and people ARE capable of
distinguishing between right and wrong and are getting better at it
since Internet?
On climate change : guess what's going to bring the best control over
CO2 emissions across the world? Hillary's greenwashing just like
Obama's greenwashing after which he unleashed Tar Sands and is
currently shooting pipeling protestors with rubber bullets without
provocation? TPP and buddies? How about : the restoration of
country-to-country import taxes, the repeal of NAFTA and similar "free
trade" agreements? Doesn't simple logic say that the plan to bring
back US jobs, stop the out-of-control outsourcing will lead to a
better control over the globe's excess CO2 emissions?
Isn't a policy of leaving other countries alone to sort out their own
problems better than being Big Brother and intervening between
Childish governments clamoring for aid?
"Hillary is just another corrupt politician" - excuse me, corruption
is an act of crime, and once you put a criminal in charge of the crime
scene, guess what happens to all the witnesses?
Lot of cool stuff happening! Media has hoodwinked us long enough.
People everywhere are waking up. What's up with you?
Stopping here. Haven't included many things because it would take too
much time to explain the context around them : time I'd rather not
waste right now..
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Outing the method behind the media's madness
The intention behind the mainstream media's shenanigans is to make you
despair over where your country/planet is heading and to make you
think it's all a sad state of affairs.
Because a disempowered human being makes a much better customer and/or
pawn for the powers that be.
A person feeling hopeless is less likely to show some spine and
question the status quo when they make their move to grab more power
and rob you of your rights, your liberties, your duties and your
future.
My take : do not give them what they want, not one inch.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227
despair over where your country/planet is heading and to make you
think it's all a sad state of affairs.
Because a disempowered human being makes a much better customer and/or
pawn for the powers that be.
A person feeling hopeless is less likely to show some spine and
question the status quo when they make their move to grab more power
and rob you of your rights, your liberties, your duties and your
future.
My take : do not give them what they want, not one inch.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Interesting Links for October 2016
Here's what I've found of note in October.
I'm finding immense value in increasing our attention span when it comes to news, and seeing things at a larger time scale of months instead of news-by-the-day.
Note: Many youtube videos by Inessa S, Redacted Tonight, WeAreChange and InfoWars have been left out of this list - I had seen them while not saving the links and haven't had the time to go back to them. I'll encourage you to look them up.I'm finding immense value in increasing our attention span when it comes to news, and seeing things at a larger time scale of months instead of news-by-the-day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
