Boston Bombing: The Importance Of Public Executions In Peacetime


It has been a long time since I had picked up a copy of the “Report From Iron Mountain“.

But something about this recent bombing event in Boston reminded me of the incredible accuracy of this report in its articulate foreshadowing of many of the decade’s recent political and media “events” and their consequences as a plan of action for a system of peace by deception and control induced by perpetual fear and terror.

If you have not read this document, I strongly urge you to do so as soon as you are able. Here is the link to a pdf:

LINK–> http://projectcamelot.org/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

And for those who have an aversion to reading, this video presentation was made long ago on vhs tape (warning: severe but tolerable biblical overtones):

 

The report’s subtitle is, “On The Possibility And Desirability Of Peace“, though the personal perspective of the report’s author(s) is more one of psychopathic control by force-induced Orwellian quasi-peace through the threat of violence. It is a carefully thought out plan created in the 1950’s, think tanks, laying out the most perfectly devious ideals on social control through government induced terrorism imaginable. So plausibly insane are these historically accurate suggestions that until you realize they describe exactly what is happening all around us today, you can hardly believe they’ve all but come to fruition.

There was one aspect of the Report From Iron Mountain that particularly stuck with me over the past decade or so from when I first read it. This was the concept of purposefully created and implemented spectacles of public executions by government and its think-tanks and secretive military apparatus.

The report continuously focuses on the state of peace in the population, kept specifically by creating the continuous fear of and simulation of terror attacks and war. In this current stage, the public promotion and media publicizing of these “events” like that of the recent Boston Marathon bombing, the steady string of school shootings, the hanging of Saddam Husein, US Soldiers getting their heads chopped off in supposedly an Arab country, 9/11, Waco, or any other violence and graphic scenes is implemented and delivered into the minds of the population through media. And ultimately, this is considered necessary to maintain the peace by keeping  the constant fear of war and terrorism in the forefront of the peaceful people.

Of course, this process must also be blamed by government on some outside or foreign enemy; the false ideology of unknown terrorism and terrorists all around us that can strike at any time. Even the environment and the weather are the weapons of future control in Report From Iron Mountain.

The report concludes that only in the past has war been the only reliable means to achieve peace at home, theorizing that only during times of war – or the threat of war – are the people compliant enough to tolerate the whims and tyrannies of government without complaint or outright revolt. The perpetual fear of invasion and a random unpredictable attack by an unseen enemy instills a sense of duty to obey and accept nationalist efforts to secure the borders defensively by striking offensively, no matter how morally, ethically, or constitutionally wrong those efforts or how many millions are killed. Random violence creates a tool to promote nationalistic feelings of patriotism where no amount of vile human rights violations and retaliatory sacrifice for the act of self-induced terror will be rejected by the public at large. To rally against and protest this national fervor to kill for revenge to maintain the peace is made to seem like treason by the masses of the population.

And for that nationalistic herd mentality to be accepted and continued even during times of peace, this presentation of “false flag” terrorism and violence must be kept fresh and exiting as a public spectacle often enough to keep instilled in the people that the homeland must be defended without question at all times. For in times of peace and prosperity, without the constant flashes of TV monitors and graphic print media propaganda, the people will inevitably begin to ask why such organized homeland security and the violation of their natural and political rights is either necessary or warranted. They will eventually resent higher taxes and the bureaucracy of government’s legal organized efforts to extort as much money as possible from the public without some threat from an outside enemy. They will even except the unreasonable paradigm that food, water, and natural resource shortages are a result of this illusion of terror. In peacetime, respect is lost for public leaders, which leads to social breakdown of the continuity and control of government. But with violence comes a false sense of respect out of perceived necessity, just as any person would temporarily respect a robber who required their wallet at gunpoint. Indeed no past government or civilization has overcome the deterioration and self-awareness of the masses that comes with the establishment of peace. Thus, to “stabilize society”, the Report From Iron Mountain concludes that the perpetual threat of perceived war, attack, and violence at home is paramount.

Here is what the report notes on (page 39):

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy”, or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.

It is extremely difficult for so much of the population to even ponder the possibility that these attacks, bombings, and public killings blasted all over the media could actually be perpetrated by their own government. And yet, what possible group or person would hope to gain anything by bombing a bunch of runners in a marathon in Boston – except the group that wishes to pass ever more controlling regulations over all people; calling it “Homeland Security”? Who else but government can doctor the evidence? And who else but government can force the media to push the theory that Arab terrorists from some nation-less militant cell of “terrorists” were the responsible party with no proof whatsoever but that which government creates?

The report explains on (page 39) just how peace and control can be maintained through continuous planned and publicized public executions of innocents by perceived terrorists for “social organization”:

In general, the war system provides the basic motivation for primary social organization. In so doing, it reflects on the societal level the incentives of individual human behavior. The most important of these, for social purposes, is the individual psychological rationale for allegiance to a society and its values. Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the “enemy” sufficient to warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.

It follows, from the patterns of human behavior, that the credibility of a social “enemy” demands similarly a readiness of response in proportion to its menace. In a broad social context, “an eye for an eye” still characterizes the only acceptable attitude toward a presumed threat of aggression, despite contrary religious and moral precepts governing personal conduct. The remoteness of personal decision from social consequence in a modern society makes it easy for its members to maintain this attitude without being aware of it. A recent example is the war in Vietnam; a less recent one was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In each case, the extent and gratuitousness of the slaughter were abstracted into political formulae by most Americans, once the proposition that the victims were “enemies” was established. The war system makes such an abstracted response possible in nonmilitary contexts as well. A conventional example of this mechanism is the inability of most people to connect, let us say, the starvation of millions in India with their own past conscious political decision-making. Yet the sequential logic linking a decision to restrict grain production in America with an eventual famine in Asia is obvious, unambiguous, and unconcealed.

What gives the war system its preeminent role in social organization, as elsewhere, is its unmatched authority over life and death. It must be emphasized again that the war system is not a mere social extension of the presumed need for individual human violence, but itself in turn serves to rationalize most nonmilitary killing. It also provides the precedent for the collective willingness of members of a society to pay a blood price for institutions far less central to social organization than war. To take a handy example…”rather than accept speed limits of twenty miles an hour we prefer to let automobiles kill forty thousand people a year.” A Rand analyst puts it in more general terms and less rhetorically: “I am sure that there is, in effect, a desirable level of automobile accidents—desirable, that is, from a broad point of view; in the sense that it is a necessary concomitant of things of greater value to society.” The point may seem too obvious for iteration, but it is essential to an understanding of the important motivational function of war as a model for collective sacrifice. A brief look at some defunct premodern societies is instructive. One of the most noteworthy features common to the larger, more complex, and more successful of ancient civilizations was their widespread use of the blood sacrifice. If one were to limit consideration to those cultures whose regional hegemony was so complete that the prospect of “war” had become virtually inconceivable —as was the case with several of the great pre-Columbian societies of the Western Hemisphere—it would be found that some form of ritual killing occupied a position of paramount social importance in each. Invariably, the ritual was invested with mythic or religious significance; as will all religious and totemic practice, however, the ritual masked a broader and more important social
function.

In these societies, the blood sacrifice served the purpose of maintaining a vestigial “earnest” of the society’s capability and willingness to make war– i.e., kill and be killed—in the event that some mystical–i.e., unforeseen — circumstance were to give rise to the possibility. That the “earnest” was not an adequate substitute for genuine military organization when the unthinkable enemy, such as the Spanish conquistadors, actually appeared on the scene in no way negates the function of the ritual. It was primarily, if not exclusively, a symbolic reminder that war had once been the central organizing force of the society, and that this condition might recur.

It does not follow that a transition to total peace in modern societies would require the use of this model, even in less “barbaric” guise. But the historical analogy serves as a reminder that a viable substitute for war as a social system cannot be a mere symbolic charade. It must involve risk of real personal destruction, and on a scale consistent with the size and complexity of modern social systems. Credibility is the key. Whether the substitute is ritual in nature or functionally substantive, unless it provides a believable life- and-death threat it will not serve the socially organizing function of war.

The existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society.

Part of this difficulty to truly grasp that government is the true terrorist is the refusal to believe that at the end of the day, government is nothing but a corporation – an enterprise operation that treats people no differently than cattle in its consideration of the governed. The report refers to several think tanks and authors who make this distinction quite clear; that people are nothing but profit and loss commodities for governments disposal. Here, at the end of the Iron Mountain report, we read this:

1. A primer-level example of the obvious and long overdue need for such translation is furnished by Kahn (in Thinking About the Unthinkable, p.102). Under the heading “Some Awkward Choices” he compares four hypothetical policies: a certain loss of $3,000; a .1 chance of loss of $300,000; a.01 chance of loss of $30,000,000; and a .001 chance of loss of $3,000,000,000. A government decision-maker would “very likely” choose in that order. But what if “lives are at stake rather than dollars?” Kahn suggests that the order of choice would be reversed, although current experience does not support this opinion. Rational war research can and must make it possible to express, without ambiguity, lives in terms of dollars and vice versa; the choices need not be, and cannot be, “awkward.

2. Again, an overdue extension of an obvious application of techniques up to now limited such circumscribed purposes as improving kill-ammunition ratios determining local choice between precision and saturation bombing, and other minor tactical, and occasionally strategic, ends. The slowness of Rand, I.D.A., and other responsible analytic organizations to extend cost-effectiveness and related concepts beyond early-phase applications has already been widely remarked on and criticized elsewhere.

(Page 53) expounds upon the importance of this Orwellian necessity of war in peace with regards to the thinking people who un-patriotically oppose this “war system”:

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. Up to now, this has been suggested only in fiction, notably in the works of Wells, Huxley, Orwell, and others engaged in the imaginative anticipation of the sociology of the future. But the fantasies projected in Brave New World and 1984 have seemed less and less implausible over the years since their publication. The traditional association of slavery with ancient pre-industrial cultures should not blind us to its adaptability to advanced forms of social organization, nor should its equally traditional incompatibility with Western moral and economic values. It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service.

When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war capable of directing human behavior patterns in behalf of social organization, few options suggest themselves. Like its political function, the motivational function of war requires the existence of a genuinely menacing social enemy. The principal difference is that for purposes of motivating basic allegiance, as distinct from accepting political authority, the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life; the construction of an up-to-date mythological or religious structure for this purpose would present difficulties in our era, but must certainly be considered.

(Page 54) continues:

Games theorists have suggested, in other contexts, the development of “blood games” for the effective control of individual aggressive impulses. It is an ironic commentary on the current state of war and peace studies that it was left not to scientists but to the makers of a commercial film to develop a model for this notion, on the implausible level of popular melodrama, as a ritualized manhunt. More realistically, such a ritual might be socialized, in the manner of the Spanish Inquisition and the less formal witch trials of other periods, for purposes of “social purification,” “state security,” or other rationale both acceptable and credible to postwar societies. The feasibility of such an updated version of still another ancient institution, though doubtful, is considerably less fanciful than the wishful notion of many peace planners that a lasting condition of peace can be brought about without the most painstaking examination of every possible surrogate for the essential functions of war. What is involved here, in a sense, is the quest for William James’ “moral equivalent of war.”

It is also possible that the two functions considered under this heading may be jointly served, in the sense of establishing the antisocial, for whom a control institution is needed, as the “alternate enemy” needed to hold society together. The relentless and irreversible advance of unemployability at all levels of society, and the similar extension of generalized alienation from accepted values may make some such program necessary even as an adjunct to the war system. As before, we will not speculate on the specific forms this kind of program might take, except to note that there is again ample precedent, in the treatment meted out to disfavored, allegedly menacing, ethnic groups in certain societies during certain historical periods.

It might surprise the average reader to see such verbiage used as causally as it is here. The fact that there are actually “peace planners” controlling peacetime activities is like a cow realizing for the first time in its life that the farmer has indeed planned out its own life and society, and for that matter its slaughter.

Continued…

The existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society.

The report also gives alternative possibilities to control the people, like the purposeful control of reproduction (population control) through both popular, legally binding, and covert means:

ECOLOGICAL

Considering the shortcomings of war as a mechanism of selective population control, it might appear that devising substitutes for this function should be comparatively simple. Schematically this is so, but the problem of timing the transition to a new ecological balancing device makes the feasibility of substitution less certain. It must be remembered that the limitation of war in this function is entirely eugenic. War has not been genetically progressive. But as a system of gross population control to preserve the species it cannot fairly be faulted. And, as has been pointed out, the nature of war is itself in transition. Current trends in warfare–the increased strategic bombing of civilians and the greater military importance now attached to the destruction of sources of supply (as opposed to purely “military” bases and personnel)—strongly suggest that a truly qualitative improvement is in the making.

There is no question but that a universal requirement that procreation be limited to the products of artificial insemination would provide a fully adequate substitute control for population levels. Such a reproductive system would, of course, have the added advantage of being susceptible of direct eugenic management. Its predictable further development—conception and embryonic growth taking place wholly under laboratory conditions–would extend these controls to their logical conclusion. The ecological function of war under these circumstances would not only be superseded but surpassed in effectiveness. The indicated intermediate step–total control of conception with a variant of the ubiquitous “pill,” via water supplies or certain essential foodstuffs, offset by a controlled “antidote”—is already under development. There would appear to be no foreseeable need to revert to any of the outmoded practices referred to in the previous section (infanticide, etc.) as there might have been if the possibility of transition to peace had arisen two generations ago. The real question here, therefore, does not concern the viability of this war substitute, but the political problems involved in bringing it about. It cannot be established while the war system is still in effect. The reason for this is simple: excess population is tar material. As long as any society must contemplate even a remote possibility of war, it must maintain a maximum supportable population, even when so doing critically aggravates an economic liability. This is paradoxical, in view of war’s role in reducing excess population, but it is readily understood. War controls the general population level, but the ecological interest of any single society lies in maintaining its hegemony vis-a-vis other societies. The obvious analogy can be seen in any free-enterprise economy. Practices damaging to the society as a whole–both competitive and monopolistic–are abetted by the conflicting economic motives of individual capital interests. The obvious precedent can be found in the seemingly irrational political difficulties which have blacked universal adoption of simple birth control methods. Nations desperately in need of increasing unfavorable production-consumption ratios are nevertheless unwilling to gamble their possible military requirements of twenty years hence for this purpose. Unilateral population control, as practiced in ancient Japan and in other isolated societies, is out of the question in today’s world.

Since the eugenic solution cannot be achieved until the transition to the peace system takes place, why not wait? One must qualify the inclination to agree. As we noted earlier, a real possibility of an unprecedented global crisis of insufficiency exists today, which the war system may not be able to forestall. If this should come to pass before an agreed-upon transition to peace were completed, the result might be irrevocably disastrous. There is clearly no solution to this dilemma; it is a risk which must be taken. But it tends to support the view that if a decision is made to eliminate the war system, it were better done sooner than later.

Earlier in the report (page 42), it also states:

Another secondary ecological trend bearing on projected population growth is the regressive effect of certain medical advances. Pestilence, for example, is no longer an important factor in population control. The problem of increased life expectancy has been aggravated. These advances also pose a potentially more sinister problem, in that undesirable genetic traits that were formerly self-liquidating are now medically maintained. Many diseases that were once fatal at pre-procreational ages are now cured; the effect of this development is to perpetuate undesirable susceptibilities and mutations. It seems clear that a new quasi-eugenic function of war is now in process of formation that will have to be taken into account in any transition plan. For the time being, the Department of Defense appears to have recognized such factors, as has been demonstrated by the planning under way by the Rand Corporation to cope with the breakdown in the ecological balance anticipated after a thermonuclear war. The Department has also begun to stockpile birds, for example, against the expected proliferation of radiation-resistant insects, etc.

And what of the subversive element of self-thinkers like myself, who rail against this eugenic control structure and war paradigm while trying to inform others of their unwitting fall into a projected peace based upon the lie of an imminent threat of terror attack and war?

Why government creates a service-oriented, non-violent military structure of course, as seen on (page 52):

SOCIOLOGICAL

Of the many functions of war we have found convenient to group together in this classification, two are critical. In a world of peace, the continuing stability of society will require: 1) an effective substitute for military institutions that can neutralize destabilizing social elements and 2) a credible motivational surrogate for war that can insure social cohesiveness. The first is an essential element of social control; the second is the basic mechanism for adapting individual human drives to the needs of society.

Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically unconformable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or less dedicated social service workers. This presumption also informs the otherwise hardheaded ratiocination of the “Unarmed Forces” plan

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery… (listed above)

–=–

Perhaps most difficult to comprehend for myself is the fact that this report actually lends credence to the dystopian ideas of Orwellian doublespeak. The Report From Iron Mountain clearly has the conclusion that war is peace, or at least that the illusion of war is necessary to maintain peace and government. Murder is life. Depopulation is duty. Procreation is death. Government is necessary…?

This paradoxical thought process, if one stops to ponder, is the very foundation of our current and growing sub-economy. From unmanned drones, NSA surveillance, cameras at every intersection, computer cyber-security, credit fraud protection, satellite monitoring, Homeland Security, transportation security, biometric identification, identification theft prevention, private contracting for military, security guards of all types, firewalls, anti-virus software, and every other form of terror-prevention programs, the country is literally being transferred from a war system to a peace system preventing an external threat that doesn’t really exist but internally. And the entire economy is being set up to prevent perceived but staged terror attacks by the very government control system that supplies and promotes violent attacks so as to promote a totally defensive peace.

Peace through terror is the New World Order.

Are we to live in a world where peace can only be kept through government-planned and executed terror attacks?

According to the Report From Iron Mountain, the answer is yes. And this means that random yet purposeful bombings like the one that hit the Boston Marathon on Monday are surely to continue perpetually into our foreseeable future.

That is, unless the “socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically unconformable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable” people out there rise up, organize, and put an end to this madness on behalf of all those who cannot see that government is the true enemy of the people.

Until then, I will continue to use my keyboard as my weapon against this “peace system” that is being foisted upon us, and I hope that you will take the time to read the Report From Iron Mountain before we, the “unconformable subversives” – the “potential enemies of society” become the new peace system slave foreshadowed in this report.

See you on the other side, my fellow degenerates….

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Advertisements

Conspiracy 101 – A Breakdown of Reality


Since nothing in the American culture of politics, religion, and society is what it appears to be on the surface, I’d like to just cover a basic truth for each paradigm we “believe” in…

1) The Constitution – There is no constitution. The United States was declared insolvent and bankrupt in 1933 by President Roosevelt, and it then became a communist state. (http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm). Besides,  the only “people” that were ever bound by the constitution for the united states of America, were the ones who wrote and signed it, and they’ve been dead for 200 years. Any contract must be entered into willingly and signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged by you in order for you to be bound by it. Therefore, the constitution is null and void for all of us. While our politicians do take the constitutional oath to keep up appearances, Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. constitution states:

“They (politicians) shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

This means that they cannot be held accountable for anything they do that is “unconstitutional”. Therefore, the oath of office is a contradiction to the protections afforded by the constitution itself. And who decides what is supposedly unconstitutional? The judicial branch of the so-called “government”. So… “government” decides what “government” can and cannot do “constitutionally”. If the irony of this is lost on you, then quit reading now… The most simple way to comprehend this, is that the constitution guaranteed a republic form of government. However, we are in a democracy – a system vehemently opposed by all of the writers of this so-called constitution, and a system that is a communist platform (democracy, socialism, fascism, etc…). Therefore, the very democratic “government”, or rule by majority, that we all live under is already inherently unconstitutional. Therefore, we do not live under constitutional rule. Democracy is a communist ideal… period.


2) Government – There is no government, because there is no country. We have private corporations, not representative governments. This is easy enough to prove, simply by looking at the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of all “government” bodies (corporations) in the “United States”. All for-profit corporations must file this report, as it is the law to do so. These are public domain, and hidden in plain sight. We have representatives of the “government” – some voted for, some not – from the president on down to local representatives. But, what is the actual “government”. If you can answer that, let me know. For it is not a tangible thing. It does not have any physical attributes that you can point to and say: “That is the government”. The closest thing to a “government” we have, are banks – since government is just transfer of wealth by government agents like the IRS by force. Your money or your life… or at least your property and your freedom.

3) Law – God’s law in natural law states that you shall do no harm to others, or their property. This is basic common law, and the only true law that really applies to us. An eye for an eye applies here… But over time, a bunch of lawyers and attorneys have come up with a bunch of unintelligible, barely comprehensible word phrases stating your inability to be free. Again, as there is no contract that you signed stating that you except and are therefore bound by these laws, you are not accountable for following these laws. A law can not be constitutional, since the constitution does not apply to our country or ourselves, accept in some idealistic, unrealistic theory. As long as you are duped into believing that your rights are granted to you by the constitution, you will follow even the most tyrannical, socialistic, communist, and draconian laws that are passed under the guise of constitutionality and false-liberty. A law is an intangible thing… Laws and the authority of their enforcers can only exist if the common people can be trained like dogs to follow them, forgetting their own natural-born, God-given authority to live free on this land without tyranny and oppression.

4) Borders – When you cross over into another state, do you somehow feel different? Does a little bell go off in your head on a trans-continental flight every time you fly into the official airspace of each state? When an “illegal” person of Hispanic decent crosses the Mohave Desert and over the U.S./Mexico “border”, are they any less hungry or thirsty as they step over the pretend invisible line? Are they any less Mexican? Borders are invisible lines – again not tangible things – which begs the question of jurisdiction… what actually stops the powers of the “government”? An invisible line? Each state is a separate corporation, controlled by the main corporation: U.S. Inc. And, when one researches who owns U.S. Inc, one finds that the United States never really separated from Great Britain, whom never really separated from the Vatican. So, the true jurisdiction of our “government” comes from a child molester in a big castle called the Vatican, which is not part of Italy, but rather a separate corporate state within the Italian “country”. There are no borders, only psychological fear and oppressive punishments for the crossing of imaginary lines by your “government” and its “code-enforcers”. Borders are ideological pretenses that mean nothing if you do not recognize their power, which is bestowed by the “government”, which of course also only has power if you give up your own. There are no tangible borders, because there are no “countries”, because there are no “governments”, because there is no “law” but what you participate in. Participation is paramount to communist control and domination. Without it, there is nothing but you and your own boundaries (borders).

5) Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States – The District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) is a separate entity from the United States. It is not a state – meaning it is not one of or part of the United States. It is not a commonwealth of the U.S. It is not a city, town, county, or island. It is however, a country! But remember, a country is simply a corporation. The ten-mile stretch of land that holds our federal government, is not under the jurisdiction of anything except itself. It is untouchable by us. We have no rights there, and we have no power to do anything to stop this corporation from doing its business – control of us. States are just sub-corporations under the Federal corporation of Washington D.C.

6) Terrorism – Blind acceptance of the myth that terrorism equates to individual persons or extremist “groups” killing and blowing up things for their personal gain is how terrorism has been sold to the American public. But I challenge you to find one person or group who has benefited from these terrorist incidents and attacks. Traditionally and historically, terrorism has been used by governments to persuade their citizens to act according to rule of law or to enter said “country” into war for profit. The act of terrorism is indeed a government tool for control. If you need proof of this fact, one must only inquire as to who profits from these acts of terror?

Osama bin Laden? He lost everything, and gained nothing… even losing all of the support of his people.

Saddam Husein? He lost his country, his wealth, and his life!

The Taliban? They are constantly hunted down, beaten, imprisoned, and killed like animals and are now cast as the scourge of the world.

But when one does look at who profits from terrorism, one finds massive profits in our corporate “government” and its corporate partners like Halliburton. We find the complete takeover of other countries, declared as the spread of “democracy”. Translated, this means the spread of corporate fascism – the takeover of all land by the main corporation, while destroying the infrastructure of that land in order to force monetary loans and debt in order to rebuild that infrastructure. Of course, since these “countries” can never pay back the “loans” provided by the charitable corporate “government” (banks), the terrorized “country” is forced through this clandestine terrorism to give up all mineral, water, and other resource rights to the corporation who conquered it through its spread of “democracy”. Incidentally, when one researches who it is that is bombing, killing, threatening, and destroying things all over the world, one always inevitably finds a connection to the CIA and/or the Mossad, though I’m not sure there is really a difference. From the shoe-bomber to the school-shooters to the suicide bombers (who bomb their own peoples schools and hospitals??? – Figure that one out!) to the 9/11 hijackers (many of which are still alive and asking why they are being blaming), there is always a CIA/MOSSAD connection. Even Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (CIA name: Tim Osman) were involved with the CIA. There are no terrorists but our own “government agents”. Heck, where do you think they get all of their weapons???

7) War – The “United States” has not officially declared “war” since World War II. Therefore, all of the more than 50 “countries” that we have attacked, conquered, occupied, assassinated the leaders of, destroyed the infrastructure of, killed the people of, destroyed the pride of, and committed war crimes and human rights atrocities which are unparalleled in our history, were terrorized by us. These should be interpreted as nothing more than the corporate takeover of every world economy. War is something completely different, being a declaration that falls within the laws that govern such wars. War crimes, Geneva Conventions, and other protective vehicles for civilians do not apply in an undeclared war. We are the terrorists.

8) Voting – An educated voter is non-existent. Even the most educated of the voting public can not possibly “know” anything about the candidates for which they vote, besides by their portrayal in the propagandist media. Therefore all voters are technically uneducated. If that weren’t bad enough, we have been tricked into voting on machines – machines which have been proven over and over again to be fixable. In other words, at least 80% of the public votes on machines that can be easily manipulated to change their votes to a desired result. Elections are show business. They no more represent the will of the people than they do the integrity of the “government”. Elections can best be described as the hiring of non-representative corporate figureheads through carefully manipulated public opinion. The only vote that counts is no vote at all. Participation is the only action that lends credence to this false system of “government”. And when more than half of the entire country’s populace doesn’t even show up to vote in the first place, the legitimacy of these “politicians” to rule by majority vote is completely unfounded. There is no legitimate government…

9) America is a free country – This opinion has been propagated upon America’s population since day 1. So let’s discuss briefly what we as citizens are free to do: I can drive, but only with a license and mandatory insurance. I can buy and sell items, but only if I pay a tax and have a seller’s license. I can fly on a plane, but only after military style search and seizure and a complete background check with two forms of ID. I can get a job, but only if I am a member of the Social Security club and pay state, federal, and local taxes on my wages, as well as mandatory insurance. I can listen to the radio or watch TV, but someone is always there to decide what is proper for me to hear – editing out words and scenes, and sometimes even banishing my favorite speakers and shows from available viewership. I can own a gun, but only if I register it and let the police decide if I qualify for one based on my personal and criminal history. I can live in an apartment or house, but I must keep that house and its land up to local and state code, otherwise code enforcement (corporate private police) will be knocking on my door and handing me a citation. I can hold up a sign declaring my disdain for all of these rules, regulations, and the people who force them upon me, but only if I have a permit and do so in a free-speech zone. You do not live in a free country.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

10) Police are there to protect and serve – Police are there to enforce code. They are there to assign taxes, in the form of citations and tickets. They are there to command a sense of authority and the illusion of control. They are not there for the benefit of the people, though sometimes they coincidentally protect or serve some fortunate people, usually the wealthier ones. They are the corporate enforcers of legalities, statutes, codes, signage, rules, regulations, etc… Many police forces are in fact private corporate entities. Parking police aren’t police at all. They take no oath, and they are not schooled in standard police training. They are barely required to have a high school education, and may just hav a G.E.D. instead. Many are hired by private corporations who only hire minorities. The parking enforcement in Los Angeles, for instance, is part of a corporation based in New York City, which is paid for by taxpayer dollars to write tickets and tow as many vehicles as possible to make a profit. They have been caught many times removing temporary permits and handicap placards after breaking into vehicles, in order to ticket and tow. They have a quota. And the regular police do not have authority over these private corporate enforcement companies acting as police. Protection is purchased from private security, not bestowed by public police officers. Service is not in the law enforcement handbook.

11) Only a fool represents himself in court – When you hire an attorney or one gets appointed for you by the court, you are in fact admitting to the court that you are incompetent to represent yourself , and mentally unstable to the point that you must become a ward of the court (of the state), giving up all of your rights. Attorney’s, like police, are there to ensure that code is followed, and to object to anything the court does that might entitle his client to sue the court (the state). A monetary value must always accompany any judgement, and the attorney ensures compliance with legal procedure. He does not represent you, but instead represents the court. A BAR’d attorney has taken an oath to uphold the legal requirements of the judicial system. What you must understand is that the BAR stands for “BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY”. This association is housed in London England, or more properly, the small area in London that is not part of England, but rather like Washington D.C. in the fact that it is its own country – a corporate “state” controlling our own.

12) Churches are independent, non-profit, charitable organizations – Catholic, Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, Islamic, and all other organized religions have one corporate structure of which all individual churches are sub corporations (501-3c). The main church is a for-profit corporation. Each individual church is a non-profit sub-corporation of the main corporate entity. They are not independent. They must pay their share of money to be a part of this corporate structure. Charity is often not what it appears. Welfare is a form of domination and control. And religions, as for-profit corporations, are free to contribute to and influence politics, politicians, and government just as all other for-profit corporations are allowed to do. After all, according to the Supreme court: Corporations are people too!

13) You have rights – No, you have privileges granted by the state. Of course, you have natural God-given rights, but only if you know how to exercise them through sovereignty and natural law. Since the constitution does not apply to you, you cannot invoke this document as a source of your “rights”. You did not sign it. It is not a binding contract, even for the agreeable parts. Your privilages are granted by the “state” even though technically there is no state, only a corporation that exists solely because you let it control you and your life, liberty, and freedom.

14) You own your house or property – Actually, if you look at your deed or title, you are listed plainly as a “tenant”. Your land and by default the structure built upon it (your house) is the property of the “state”, or more accurately the bank. No matter how long you live in your house, you will be forced to pay property tax. This is not necessarily a tax as much as it is rent to the “government”. If you believe me to be in error about this fact, I would invite you to stop paying your rent (property tax). Your home and property will be confiscated. Consider this protection money… protection from corporate takeover. And if this is not enough to convince you, one only need consider the law and practice of eminent domain. This confiscation tool can be used to take your property at any time and for any reason. No exceptions there, except in cases of elodial title or land patent. Sure, they pay you what “they” set as fair-market value… but you must also consider that “they” are the ones creating the money supply and therefore the “market”.

15) 9/11 was an inside job – This is the popular cry of the 9/11 truth movement, of which I am happily a part of. But this is not a true statement. All roads lead to Israel and it’s CIA counterpart, the Mossad. That would make it an outside job. Of course, Israel is supported by billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and would not exist without U.S. backing. But, to say “inside job” doesn’t make clear that the people in our “government” who were involved with the events of 9/11 are Zionist and/or dual Israeli citizens, or very supportive and uber-friendly with the “state” of Israel. In other words, many in the Bush cabinet were in fact Jewish Zionist and duel-Israeli citizens. But also, to bring home that this event was not an “inside job”, our federal government is an outside entity (corporation), as discussed above, and not housed within the United States proper. Remember, Washington D.C. is not part of the United States. It is a foreign corporate entity. Therefore, any federally employed persons involved with 9/11 were operating outside of the “United States” – or the 50 unified states. So to call it an inside job is inaccurate, as this implies that our “government” is an inside entity and part of our “states united”.

16) Pro-choice means pro-abortion – Choice is a fundamental quality of freedom. Abortion however, is not. When someone is pro-choice, they are not necessarily pro-abortion. They are what the name implies… “for” the individuals right to choose, which should never be taken away. They are declaring freedom of “choice”, and are not declaring that abortion is in any way good or acceptable. No subject is cut and dry, and abortion cannot be classified into one of two group views. Choice is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Education is key.

17) There is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties – “The left-right paradigm” is a phrase coined by Alex Jones. It represents a state of belief in the two-party system. It means that which ever “side” you choose, you inherently and by default vilify the other side. It means that one is good and one is bad. All the while, party members and supporters never comprehend that there is no difference between the two parties standard platforms, excepting their “public” views on abortion. But even on abortion, the efforts by both parties to depopulate the world is clear, with forced abortion mandates in Africa, one-child policies in Asia, and others. These policies are corporate. They are instituted by the corporation, which dominates these poor countries. And the corporation includes democrats and republicans. You see, it doesn’t matter what you believe as a democrat or a republican, it only matters what the men and women who are the elected and unelected officials in these parties believe. They are corporate officers. They have no regard for what you believe is right or wrong.

It all boils down to this: If the democrats are in power – as they are now – they were put there because the public opinion of republicans was guided by the media to make you vote democratic this time around, not realizing that they are simply the same people playing good-cop/bad-cop roles in a publicly broadcast, fake dramatic sitcom. Now, after 8 years of horrific republican rule under the Bush regime, we will get 4-8 years of even worse tyrannical rule by the Obama ragime. And, once the media works its magic, we will once again vote republican. But, the same players (or actors) that were in previous administrations are again in power. Because what you have to realize is that by electing a single man for president, you are really “electing” all of the unelected officials that the “elected” president “hires” once he is elected. Therefore, we have tens and hundreds of “APPOINTED” officials ruling over us, and even ruling over our other congressional and senatorial elected officials. This is not a representative government… for you must be chosen to represent the people in order to hold the title of a “representative of the people”. And so as long as the republican party is there to catch the democratic party when it falls, and as long as the democratic party is then there in the future to catch the republican party when it falls, we will always have the same two party’s in office (which are just one party role-playing like professional wrestlers as good and evil – depending on what your perspective of good and evil is). It is a slight of hand trick that will continue to ensure the right-left paradigm stays in power by manipulating the perseptions of the voting public.

So one could put forth here that your vote doesn’t really count, unless you use it to vote out the two-party system by voting for a third party. But the media has manipulated you into thinking that voting for anybody but a democrat or republican is foolhardy. This is the paradigm we must all break out of if we are to ever be a free society.

18) Charities and foundations are grass-roots organizations run by good caring people – The Cancer Society was founded by none other than John D. Rockefeller. The US President only earns $400K ($200K as recently as Pres. Clinton) while the C.E.O. of the Red Cross earns approximately $565K, even though this person has “done little work in the primary mission of the Red Cross: disaster relief” and “will face a steep learning curve”.

Foundations, Charities, Associations, and Organizations are Corporations! Though billed as non-profits, the amount of money brought in by these foundations is staggering. When corporations donate to such things as Red Cross Haiti relief, they are not donating to the people of Haiti, but rather to the corporation of the Red Cross. In return, these corporations get no-bid contracts from foundations like the Red Cross. The board of directors for the Red Cross are the who’s who of agri-business, construction, contracting, banking, infrastructure, and other for-profit corporations. And while the Red Cross is indeed a non-profit, it gives this money away to it’s board of director’s companies, as well as paying them a ridiculous salary. So the majority of the money that you donate to these “charities” never reaches the people you believe it will help.

19) The nightly news is comprised of independant jounalism you can trust – When a news story is produced, it is writen in a way so as to be usable in all markets. It is then sent to each affiliate news station across the country, to be recorded by the local newscaster as if it was their own story. Meanwhile, on every other news station across America, the same story is being screened by different newscasters reading the same thing verbatim – but attaching thier name to the end of the story. This is media. It is entertainment. It is hypnotic. But it is not truth. It is a set of meticulously researched standards and practices employed to mentally labotomize you from discovering the true nature of your world and your “government”.

.

More detailed discussion of these topics can be found within this blog.

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Inside The Paradigm – Where Do You Hide?


Paradigm – A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. (dictionary.com)

I found this to be a most interesting definition of this word – paradigm. It states that when we as a group or number of people are stimulated to collectively believe in the same way, we are basing that belief on our assumptions, concepts, values, and practices. Most notable about all of these words in their semantic meanings, is that they are all four based on hearsay instead of factual evidence. Let’s look closer at this revelation:

From dictionary.com:

1) Assumption – Arrogance; presumption. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition. The act of taking for granted or supposing.

2) Concept – A scheme; a plan. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. An idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

3) Values – To consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance. To regard or esteem highly. To rate according to relative estimate of worth or desirability; evaluate. To assign a value to. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable. In Mathematics – magnitude; quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like. In Ethics – any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself.

4) Practices – To perform or do habitually or usually. To follow or observe habitually or customarily: to practice one’s religion. Habitual or customary performance; operation. Habit; custom. In Law – the established method of conducting legal proceedings. In Archaic – plotting; intrigue; trickery. To plot or conspire.

As we can see by these dictionary definitions, all four of these words are non-factual. They are based in non-reality. They require belief, or faith. And most importantly, they do not require proof. So, a paradigm could be defined as follows: a state of belief and compliance in some thing or idea, where one or more people follow what they consider to be true without the benefit of any factual evidence supporting that belief and their compliance to improvable and idealistic concepts.

One could consider livestock in this examination as an equitable synonym to the power of this paradigm. As lambs are lead to the slaughter, as Lemmings ironically follow each other off a cliff, and as sheep follow in packs of oblivious domesticated herds, so too do the masses of people follow their paradigm of perception and belief.

Let’s look at some examples of these types of paradigms:

Politics –

Usually, when one thinks in terms of American politics, one associates oneself with one of three parties: Democrat, Republican, or 3rd party. These can also be said to be politically left, right, and center (or alternative). Alex Jones brilliantly coined the phrase, “the left-right paradigm”, meaning that most people, due to their above defined assumptions, concepts, values, and practices, are mentally blocked from understanding the bigger picture (habit and custom) and so subscribe to the illusion of being left or right, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, as if there were no other options outside of this illusionary paradigm.

Though there were eight candidates running for president in the 2008 election, we found that because the media blacked out and ignored any fair coverage of these other six candidates (except for brief side-stories of unwarranted and inaccurate ridicule and humiliation) the vast majority of voters would not even consider a 3rd party candidate due to the stigma that has been attached to these “outside the box”, enormously qualified competitors. When asked about their reluctance to vote for an alternative candidate, the overwhelming reaction and response was negative, and most truly believed that a 3rd party actually cannot and will not ever be voted into office. Their proof…? Hearsay.

They are stuck in the right-left paradigm.

Even voters who use the Constitution of the United States in their political debate and rhetoric have no idea that there is even a Constitutional Party. While many voters complain that their government has gotten too big and powerful for the peoples liberty, the Libertarian Party remains constantly invisible to voters even though this party’s main platform is in fact the reduction in both size, power, and world expansion of our government and military. Even the Green Party remains a void in comprehension for the masses that are stuck in their paradigm. The fact is that the biggest polluters on the planet are subsidized and de-regulated by the democratic and republican two-party system of government. And in turn these huge corporations are the main contributors to these democratic and republican campaigns (which ensures continued pollution and non-green policies and products). Wouldn’t it make more sense to vote for the “Green” Party, if only by simple word association?

Can the media really spin political bullshit so deeply into people’s minds that they truly believe that a square peg can fit into a round hole?

Apparently so…

– Food –

How many times have you heard a vegetarian say I occasionally eat meat? Or that eggs and milk aren’t really meat. How about a kosher Jewish man that eats at Denny’s? How many strictly organic food eaters shop at huge conglomerate grocery stores, without a clue that organic on the label only means that 75% of it’s ingredients have to be organic? And how many of them fall for the “all-natural” label? Arsenic is all-natural. Heck, so is human feces, though I suppose it could loosely be considered man-made! And with the crap that passes for food now days, I suppose even our poop isn’t qualified to be called organic any more…

The point is, consumers one and all fall for the same old marketing tricks that are used in politics. When a huge corporate conglomerate bought up Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream company many years ago, they didn’t change the label! The picture of those two fat guys still entice buyers to purchase this product, even while they lay on a lounge chair at Club Med for the rest of their obese lives and laugh at the irony of it all, that is if they haven’t died from an even more ironic heart attack by now. The paradigm of just accepting that the food, meat, produce, and pharmaceutical industries have our best interests as consumers in mind when they sell us their products is absolutely ridiculous.

Monsanto and companies like it have succeeded in genetically altering and contaminating most of our food supply to the point where its nutrition value is so depleted that it is now deadly and cancer causing. Case in point: Monsanto has completely inundated the market with their Round-up ready, genetically altered corn and soybeans. Since most of our products are now made with corn, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, partially hydrolyzed soybean oil, and on and on and on, we can barely escape eating this poisonous corn or soybeans. Cows and pigs eat this corn, and are therefore contaminated with this genetically altered unnatural ingredient. Do you eat meat? Well then, you eat Monsanto corn!

We feed our pets kibbles and bits of the worst possible scraps of meat and cancerous growths from the beef and poultry industries; spoiled, contaminated, and not fit for human consumption. Why do we do this? Because we like the commercials where the beautiful dog has the high-pro-glow. Product placement. Brand loyalty. But you can rest assured that the dog in that commercial has never eaten the product it is selling before that day! And you can also take it to the bank that the Monsanto executives and board members will not eat the products that they sell. These are upper class; the pedigreed (that’s pedi-GREED). There is a reason the Queen of England has her own organic garden and protected hunting grounds.

The dairy industry has its own set of paradigms in which we all fall under. Whole, 2%, 1%, low-fat, non-fat, skim… and non-dairy (main ingredients: corn syrup and partially hydrolyzed soybean oil). And then they have the clever ploy of printing on their label that they do not use the growth hormone rbst in their cows. And, for the unsuspecting consumer, this is true. But what they don’t comprehend is that there are a multitude of growth hormones that can be used, and that only this particular hormone was in fact not used in this particular dairy product.

Silly consumers…

So which of the food paradigms do you fall under… bottled water, false organic, all natural, diet, low-carb, fat free, or non-rbst? Any way you look at it, our assumptions, concepts, values, and practices are severely manipulated in the marketing of these products. And at this point, it is nearly impossible to eat non-contaminated, truly organic, actually natural, corn and soybean free, non-hormone laden products. Good luck though. Perhaps the usual ignorance will help us through this particular paradigm.

– Religion –

Being the ultimate in belief and faith-based paradigms, I have to give a shout out to the billions who subscribe to a particular religion. Personal enlightenment aside, the corporate religious paradigm actually succeeds in making its followers live less in the image of God!

For instance, the stories of Jesus are so far off from the way a typical Christian behaves and lives his or her life, that this is the biggest reason people are turned off by the Christian religions. The assumption (i.e. arrogance, presumption) that a man can know God while in this life is the basis of this paradigm of faith.

It is based on the concept (a scheme; a plan. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.) of God that was put forth in an ancient book, which has been transcribed, translated, cut, downsized, censored, and reinterpreted so many times that there is no way that its original message or historical factualness can be validated or even conceived.

And, it was written by men.

It is the basis for the values (To consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable. Any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself.) for which Christians have and personify in life. Perhaps the definition of values has been taken to literal by the devout? Materialism is not what the writers of this book had in mind when trying to assign personal values. However, with the money that the corporate churches take in at the expense of their parishioners, perhaps it is the church itself that is the problem. Blind faith in the corporate materialistic church itself instead of the personal and loving nature of each of our individual interpretations of God might be the true paradigm that has corrupted the very best of us.

Based on the teachings of the corporate church, and not necessarily the teachings of the original bible, Christians and individual churches develop their practices (To perform or do habitually or usually. To follow or observe habitually or customarily. Habit; custom. Plotting; intrigue; trickery. To plot or conspire.) The inevitable destination of those with blind faith is ignorance. Belief in God or something necessarily unknown after this life is perfectly understandable and should be encouraged. Faith that the afterlife is and can only be one thing as determined by the church is perfectly irrational and downright frightening. The religious paradigm has led the masses into war, witch-burning, human and animal ritual sacrifice, a disrespect for nature, a sense of immortal irresponsibility for the earth and its other inhabitants, and has been used to control and manipulate these masses in a way that can’t be fully explained here. But this control influences politics and the very freedoms that we as a people hold dear. And the powers that be control these puppet strings of blind faith with precision and evil intent.

A good example of this manipulation of the religious paradigm which influences millions is this: By using the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion as a battle cry, Christians and other religious faiths are convinced that they must actually vote to take away other people’s or minority group’s civil and human rights. Even while the church and its followers are screaming about the attack on their freedom of religion as this basic human right is slowly getting drained away by legislation and other ignorant thinking, they mount insurmountable advertising campaigns to take away, through the vote, the rights of other groups. All the while never realizing what a hypocritical and non-peaceful thing they are doing.

With well over 1000 different official religions in this world, all claiming to be the one true religion, it is hard to believe that religious faith is even still a paradigm that we can all fall under the influence of…

Yet we do.

Religion and righteousness are not fit to be in the same equation. They are two different concepts – one of corruption and one of being incorruptible. My values come from deep within. They do not come from the fear of a selfish, omnipotent, unforgiving God, nor from the fear of His opposite – Satan. My practices and actions come from my righteousness, instinctively knowing what is right and what is wrong. Where those instincts come from I would never presume to have an assumption. And my concept of good and evil, positive and negative, light and dark, come from looking at all history, religions, texts, and most importantly the ancient knowledge that has been suppressed by the corporate church.

I applaud anyone that does anything righteous in the name of God (whatever your definition). But I can only condemn anyone who acts on behalf of the corporate church in the name of God, as if the church is a holy corporate middleman that has some unearthly powers to attune and command the thoughts and will of God.

We must break all of these paradigms in order to see the true nature of what is happening around us – how we are controlled and how we are being slowly made sick and dying in the name of profits and control.

Isn’t this what Jesus would do?

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
February 1, 2010

Diplomacy and Barack Obama: The Audacity Of The Nobel Prize Committee


Barack Obama and diplomacy do not belong in the same sentence:

He has reinstated the Patriot Acts.

He has invaded Pakistan.

He continues to invade Afghanistan.

He pulled troops out of Iraq… only to replace them with even more private security “police” – a privately funded army.

He is about to make the biggest blunder in history… by attacking Iran.

He allows Israel to continue it’s genocidal violence and stealing of land from the Palestinians by giving billions of tax dollars to Israel.

He refuses to use diplomacy to require Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, while threatening attack against Iran (who is a signatory) for the false propaganda that Iran is in the process of building its first nuke. Israel, meanwhile, has enough warheads to blow up the planet.

He continues to support troops in the streets in America, against the Constitution.

He has helped the United Nations to implement forced abortion policies in Africa.

He has done nothing of any significance at all as President of the United States, except to ruin any modicom of freedom and Constitutional liberty we have left.

So, to the Nobel Prize Foundation, I must ask once again… where do you come up with this stuff?

It’s actions like these that make me hope that there is a God, so that your souls are judged and you burn in condemnation of your treachery and contempt of the human race. That includes you too Obama. For accepting this award is akin to stealing from church, as someone good and deserving will now not recieve recognition for his or her work – not that the Nobel Prize Foundation would ever do anything to promote real diplomacy or peace.

First Al Gore, and now Obama? I am now convinced that this foundation is completely corrupt and should be rejected, boycotted, and made a mockery of.

(See why here: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/158/)

Mr. President… your humility only fools the brainwashed idiots who elected you in the first place: who didn’t take the time to research you and your true nature and supporters. You are a travesty to America and the World, and when or if they realize your disgusting nature, I hope the wrath of their anger is felt by you in ways I can’t even begin to describe here.

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

October 9, 2009

The Nobel Prize: An Award For Liers Like Al Gore


I was really mad when I was fooled (apparently like millions of others) into believing that global warming was a man-made event, because I simply watched a movie called, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gores movie won such massive acclaim, an academy award, countless accolades, and the man even won a Nobel Prize!

A Nobel Prize… I was especially curious about this. The Nobel Prize is a very distinguished and coveted award, and it’s not at all easy to be its champion. Therefore, when I found out that almost all of the information, facts, and figures used in Al Gore’s ‘shock-u-mentary’ were either doctored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, falsified, junk science, or completely fabricated lies, I wondered at the qualification process in being awarded a prize from the Nobel Foundation.

And so, I decided to send an email to the Nobel Foundation.

I had two questions.

1)    How does the group decide who to elect and what are the research and verification criteria involved?

2)    If a winner is proven to be a hoax, or in Gore’s case, use junk science and false information in his glorious work, is the prize then withdrawn or retracted from the corrupt recipient in question?

The following is a transcript of my correspondence.

—Ω—

To: comments@nobelprize.org
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 7:51 PM

Hello,

I have two questions I would greatly appreciate an answer to for a school project:

1) Has there ever been a case where, after earning a Nobel Prize, the prize was withdrawn due to dishonesty or fraud in the earning of said prize?

2) How was this acknowledged, and what would be the process for this to take place. (i.e. petitions, court case, vote, etc…)

I thank you for your time and consideration.

—Ω—

From: Sofia Bryngelson via RT <comments@nobelprize.org>
Subject: [nobelprize.org #3414] Help with questions…
Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 1:25 AM

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in the Nobel Prize.

No, it is not possible to revoke a Nobel Prize, according the the statues of the Nobel Foundation § 10:

No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.

Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decisionof a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged.

A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.


Yours sincerely,

Sofia Bryngelson
Marketing and Communications Assistant
Nobelprize.org

—Ω—

To: comments@nobelprize.org c/o Sofia Bryngelson
Friday, July 3, 2009 4:44 PM

Hello Mrs. Bryngelson, and thank you for your timely response.

In regards to your answers to my previous questions, may I interpret your response as meaning – The Nobel Prize organization, if and when confronted with overwhelming evidence, obvious visual proof, or blatantly plagiarized writings or lies in regards to the qualifications and merits in the earning and bestowing of a past Nobel Prize, would not reconsider, convene a board to reconsider, or even mention to the public that the prize awarded was in fact earned under false pretenses, not merited, plagiarized, or was based on half-truths and lies?

And, if this is the case, what could possibly be a logical, reasonable, moral, or fiduciary  explanation for such behavior from a most respected organization?

As an organization with such uncompromisingly high standards of fiduciary responsibility to the world, I would be extremely disheartened with this organization which I have held in such high esteem for as long as I can remember if the above statements are indeed true.

This being said, the Nobel Prize surely represents the body of work of a person or group, and not the person alone. Therefore, if the “work” is proven to be contaminated or false after the prize is bestowed, surely the Nobel Prize committee would strive to keep it’s name in good standing as the premier academic amalgamate of our time by denouncing an award given under false or malevolent pretenses?

Again, your response to these inquiries is welcomed and eagerly anticipated.

Thank you,

Clint Richardson… a concerned citizen of the United States.

—Ω—

I never received a response to this, but today I resent the email hoping to ruffle some feathers and to make this apparently corrupt and phony organization own up to its deceit and fraudulent support of men like Al Gore.

I’ll keep sending this, and I’d really like for all of you to ask the same questions by emailing the Nobel Prize Foundation. Ask if they support global government. Ask if they support eugenics. And ask what their stance on depopulation, sustainable development through Agenda 21, and everything else these elitists are perpetrating on us.

Good luck and good night.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Czars: Unconstitutional, Unelected, Unofficial, And Unwanted!


There has been a lot of talk about the appointing of and use of Czars in the current Obama administration. Quite frankly, I had no idea what the connotation of this word was, nor what the historical power of that title really meant throughout history and today.

And so, being the ever-curious soul that I am, I did a bit of research.

I’d like to share that with you now:

(Emphasis mine throughout!)

What is a Czar?

According to the 1984 Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition – the term Czar is defined as:

Czar:

  1. An emperor: title of any of the former emperors of Russia, and at various times, the sovereigns of other Slavic nations.
  2. Any person having great or unlimited power over others; autocrat

Czarism:

  1. The Russian government under the Czars.
  2. Absolute rule; despotism

Hmmm… I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound very good to me. It certainly doesn’t sound like a Democracy or a Republic, where leaders are voted upon before entering office. And I refuse to believe that America has fallen so far as to be so ignorant of the past that their jaws don’t drop at the mere mention of the appointment of multiple “Czars” into their government.

Since this was a hard cover traditional dictionary from 1984 (a fitting year for this information, if you ask me) I thought this might be a biased, older, or out of date description of the word used to describe the people who are now advising our president.

So, I checked the Internet.

Here’s what I found there…

I went to Wikipedia, a site I would never use as a source of accurate information, but one none the less that many people do, despite it’s ability to be changed by even the most moronic of its users. But I figure that at least this is the going public opinion of what a Czar might be. Never the less, after some fact-checking… here’s what it said:

Tzar or Czar (Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian): Term with Bulgarian origins used to designate certain monarchs. The first ruler to adopt the title tsar was Simeon I of Bulgaria.

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch).

Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.

“Tsar” was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:

  • Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185–1422 and in 1908–1946
  • Serbia in 1346–1371
  • Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (replaced in 1721 by imperator, but remained in common usage until 1917).

Under the heading “Metaphorical Uses” Wiki-Pedia states:

Like many lofty titles, e.g. Mogul, Tsar or Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority, in English since 1866 (referring to U.S. President Andrew Johnson), with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style, fitting since “Autocrat” was an official title of the Russian Emperor (informally referred to as ‘the Tsar’). Similarly, Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed was called “Czar Reed” for his dictatorial control of the House of Representatives in the 1880s and 1890s.

In the United States the title “czar” is a slang term for certain high-level civil servants, such as the “drug czar” for the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, “terrorism czar” for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, “cybersecurity czar” for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and “war czar” to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, a czar refers to a sub-cabinet level advisor within the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Under the political term explanation page, WikiPedia states the following:

Rationale:

Advantages cited for the creation of czar type posts are the ability to go outside of formal channels and find creative solutions for ad hoc problems, the ability to involve a lot of government players in big issue decision-making, and the ability to get a huge bureaucracy moving in the right direction. Problems can occur with getting all the parties to work together and with managing competing power centers.

One explanation for use of the term is that while the American public rebels at terms like “king” and “dictator”, associating them with King George III or fascist figures of World War II, the term “czar” is foreign, distant, and exotic enough to be acceptable. And the fact that czar positions are often created in times of perceived public crisis makes the public eager to see a strong figure making hard decisions that the existing political structure is unable to do.[6] Another is that Americans of the era adopted exotic Asian words to denote those with great, and perhaps unchecked, power, with “mogul” and “tycoon” being other instances.

The increase in czar positions over time may be because as the size and role of the federal government has grown, so too has the difficulty of coordinating policy across multiple organizational jurisdictions. Indeed, czar positions sometimes become important enough that they become permanent executive offices, such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy or the United States Trade Representative.

Wow! So how many Czars do we have now?

Well, buckle your seatbelts… for in July of 2009, The Daily Citizen reported that:

“It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.

“Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that: Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.


“Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.

“… Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

(Source: The Daily Citizen –  http://www.northwestgeorgia.com/opinion/local_story_189163602.html?keyword=topstory)

Steve Forbes is quoted while speaking about Czars:

“It underscores the inefficiency of government that you keep … having people, hoping that maybe they will get something done that the massive government bureaucracy cannot.”

(Source: “Questions Raised Over Influence of Obama ‘Czars'”. Fox News. July 13, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/questions-raised-influence-obama-czars/)

So who is paying these “Czars” salaries?

Why the taxpayers of course!

How much power do these Czars actually have?

Good question… As stated by the Daily Citizen above:

Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

So much apparent power do these Czars have, that Rep. Jack Kingston [Republican-GA] introduced a bill – H.R. 3226: Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 – on July 15, 2009. Apparently this bill is so important to the members of the House of Representatives that it currently has 116 co-sponsors, all of them Republican. The one co-sponsor that was a Democrat was withdrawn at some point. When the whole of the Republican Party, including my personal hero Ron Paul supports a bill, which would reign in the Democratic President and party, one should not take such legislation lightly. The same would be true in opposite party circumstances. See the contents of the bill here:

(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3226)

The main concern here, one that is generally lost on the American people, is that these Czars are appointed without Congressional or Senate approval by one person: the President Of The United States. This alone should be enough to warrant extreme caution about the man who is for all intents and purposes in charge of our country (or more correctly: the man who signs the legislation and corrupt laws in the stead of lobbyists and wealthy elite bankers and corporations who funded his campaign and are incrementally taking control of our country). For the appointment of these men and women, of whom many have considerably tarnished and controversial political, economic, populist, and global oriented views, is a violation of the governmental and constitutional values we once held so dear to our hearts.

President Obama continues to keep in place and head the advice of such Czars as Paul Holdren – the “science czar” who co-wrote the book Ecoscience – “which proposed and supported such ideals as “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet.” (infowars.com). Strangely, these ideals were not brought to light in Holdren’s Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, this begs the assumption that the Senate is equally complicate in the appointment and support of these Czars, whether they are approved or not.

In conclusion, Obama appears to be out of control! While the gullible masses who support him are still admonishing him as the Savior of America, his empty promises of “hope and change” continue to ring – like a false Liberty Bell, whose crack is ever-widening and is about to break in half, along with this now condemned and nearly broken country. These Czars are the specters of false prophets; ghouls who resemble the character portrayal of Worm-tongue from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And I for one am sickened by the ill-boded direction our electorate has taken towards the support of these tyrannical and unconstitutional, unelected rulers.

Quite frankly, the words of a fictional but oh so relevant news anchor perhaps best suit the stance we should all be taking towards the president and these unelected psychopaths who advise him…

I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
October 5, 2009

The California Water Museum – Featuring The Fluoride Deception


As I was moving out of state in July of 2009, I was driving up Interstate 5’s long uphill grade where I saw an exit and a sign saying “Pyramid Lake”. It was the middle of summer and extremely hot. Since I was in an exploratory mood with nothing but time on my hands, I decided to exit the highway and see the lake. It turned out to be a rather large reservoir that feeds the Los Angeles area. A sign pointed to a visitor’s center and I parked there. Nice view… I walked in to the center to find out about camping around the lake, and was surprised to see that the building housed what was a water themed museum. I approached the guard at the information desk and he gave me an information sheet and directions to the lake’s campground.

Out of curiosity I looked around the museum, corny as it was. For the most part, it was an exhibit explaining to me the amount of water and energy it takes to do just about everything I do in my everyday life; even how much water I waste by filling up my gas tank up with petrol. I was not amused. The atmosphere was what you might call liberal… and by liberal I mean full of propaganda and half-truths that are designed to make its visitors feel guilty for being alive and to accept the fact that water is being used for political gain and prophet through taxation at their expense… and of course that this is a good thing for the environment. The placards and hands-on installations displayed to me in horrifying illustrative and picture oriented detail (perhaps taking into consideration the high illiteracy rate in the country) how the water supply is in crisis. I was sure that none of the museums’ visitors actually stop to think about the government and its lobbying corporate partners in crime (which stand to reap huge rewards from this tyrannical water rationing and taxation) and how they created this water crisis for their monetary gains. War, war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, war on water… What’s next, a war on war?

What I did learn is that most of the water that flows to southern California which does not come from the Colorado River actually comes from the northern most mountainous areas of the state. It is redirected through an aqueduct system down through the whole of California. Since most of its population lives on or near the ocean line, the water is diverted to all of those cities. It is passed on to farms and ranches and smaller cities that pay for this state contracted water delivery service as well. Without this aqueduct system, Los Angeles and the rest of the cities and farmlands that are, for all intents and purposes part of the desert, would not be able to exist. It’s a fascinating accomplishment… a true story of man -vs- nature, where man doesn’t understand the impact on nature until it’s too late. Dams be damned, I say.

As I finished walking through the adult oriented yet child-like museum, I walked to the front doors preparing to leave, feeling a bit yucky. To the right of the glass doors was a display case showing other parks where I might be able to camp. I grabbed a few of the brochures and then noticed a poorly photocopied, double-sided blue sheet of paper in the corner of the display. The title had my name all over it:

Fluoridation… At A Glance.

Underneath the title was a black and white picture of several small children drinking water from a public drinking fountain. This disturbed me, as children are a tool often used in politics and advertising, usually in a deceiving way. Under that heartwarming picture was a list of the dental benefits of fluoride, as well as a quote by the U.S. Surgeon General, which stated that:

“Community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, practical and safe means for reducing and controlling the occurrence of tooth decay in a community.”

What a dick! How does he sleep at night? Does he let his children drink this rat poison?

In the ‘About Fluoride’ section, it deceivingly stated:

“Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in surface water (water from snowmelt, rivers, and streams) as well as ground water.”

It also had this bit of info, which was another affront to my senses:

“Fluoride helps teeth resist decay by strengthening the protective layer of tooth enamel, and can reverse newly formed cavities.”

What a crap basket! From what information I’ve read, the stuff causes bone density loss and osteoporosis. And since teeth are essentially bones…

More disturbing was the next statement that:

“Of the 50 largest cities in the United States 43 fluoridate their drinking water.”

Now… at the bottom of the page, still in the ‘About Fluoride’ section, were these two paragraphs:

“While exposure to fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, most cases in communities with optimally fluoridated water are very mild and characterized by barely visible white opaque spots on the teeth.”

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not recognized claims that low-level fluoride exposure is linked to occurrences ——“

—– At that point the page was cut off! Was this an innocent mistake? I wonder. I’m guessing no. But it’s possible. I guess thinking that this was not deliberate would be called… hope.

I stood there for a moment, battling a flush of political correctness, not wanting to disturb the museum’s natural flow (pun intended). But lately, causing a scene has become my favorite pastime. I did a 180 and headed back towards the information desk. An official tour guide for the center was talking to a nice lady in her very late 50’s (maybe that’s being nice) who at one time, judging by her appearance and demeanor, must have been related to the peace and love movement. She was simply delighted at what the federally employed man was saying, and was listening intently. He (the tour guide) was a bit creepy, confident in a way that only the most ignorant and misinformed of people could be, and as unhealthy looking as most Americans appear to be these days.

I listened from across the desk patiently as he pointed to a map of California and explained how it all worked. He told the woman about water rationing and how only certain cities were actually metered, demonizing the bad people of these water suckling metropolis’. She smiled and chastised out loud that whole horrid Southern California populace, as if their use of water was less justified than hers, considering the equivalent source.

At one point, after a 5-minute history of metering in certain counties, she said intently, “I think everybody should be metered.” He smiled malevolently. It was like watching a salesman fish in a buyer, playing off of her insecurities and lack of knowledge. I just shook my head in disgust for most of the conversation, but respectfully refrained from interrupting.

The creepy guide went on… “Well, (pause for grin) soon all houses will have a meter which can be read digitally from the central station, and shut off if too much water is being used.”

At hearing this, her reply was just short of exuberance. “Oh, that’s just wonderful! There are so many wasteful people out there.”

Now, at this point I had to interrupt. I now understand what Alex Jones (infowars.com) means when he goes on one of his rants about people and how they love their tyranny, carbon taxes, and debt slavery. And also, I must give credit to Aldus Huxley for predicting many decades ago that people could eventually be made to love their servitude. She was truly exited to give up her rights. It all made sense to her in a simple way…

“Wait a minute,” I said in a slightly confrontational voice. “That’s tyranny! Surely you can’t want to be metered and taxed for your right to use water” She looked at me then, confused, possibly only noticing me for the first time. I looked at the tour guide then, and the smile slowly went away from the pushers face.

Silence…

I can really kill a room!

I asked them both if they had heard of the bill in congress that would give control of all water rights in the entire country to the Federal Government – (S. 787 – Clean Water Restoration Act). More blank stares and a cringe of hostility in the tour guide. I directed a short tirade of information towards the woman, who had a sudden look of something I couldn’t quite place, but which I guessed was the first time in a long time that she had thought for herself, outside the media box. It was an expression of the sudden responsibility of ones self, and of brief enlightenment that usually comes and goes quickly with these green, well intentioned, but ultimately brain-washed cult-environmentalist people.

By then, the salesman knew he was losing her, as if an invisible umbilical chord had been cut, and so I turned my attention to him.

“I’d like to ask a question about the Fluoridation of the water supply.” I said. He looked harshly at me, perhaps disturbed that one of the visitors to his place of worship should question the religion of water fluoridation treatment. But somehow, I don’t think I was the first to ask.

He said ‘ok’ in a regrettable way. The slave-lady was still listening, a confused look on her face. She probably thought I was a nut! I gave the brochure to her so she could follow along.

“Tell me this…” I said. “If fluoride is good for my teeth, why then is it put into the water supply to be swallowed and ingested? I mean, Fluoride is one of the most poisonous substances known to man. It’s in rat poison, and it’s the by-product of the aluminum industry. So why do we drink something that’s actually only supposed to be good for our teeth?”

His eyes visibly widened, and he paused a second before letting out a big guffaw. He laughed nervously and tried to regain his composure.

His response… “Well, everything is bad for you if you use too much of it.”

I eyed him with my bullshit meter, not knowing exactly where this was going. “Go on…” I invited.

“Look, if you drink too much water you can drown yourself. So you could say that water is bad for you just like fluoride—“

“What?” I interrupted, angered at his treating me like his usual dumbed down hive-minded idiots. “That’s the most ridiculous association I’ve ever heard! Fluoride was used in concentration camps to make prisoners compliant and calm. What does that have to do with moderation? Why are so many U.S. cities passing legislation against water fluoridation?

Why did most of Europe abolish the use of fluoride in their water supply?”

At this point, the wild-eyed green lady walked away with brochure in hand. She was not ready for this kind of antagonism towards her social religion. But I did hope that she was curious enough to at least look into the other side of the story, and not just trust that her government was doing what’s best for her and her family. She didn’t say thank you… or goodbye.

After about ten minutes of bantering with the tour guide, his sole defense being the fact that I could drink too much water and die (or anything else for that matter) and that science had proven the benefits of fluoride for teeth (guffaw), he was not quite able to grasp the fact that ingestion is quite different than application, and that the warnings on toothpaste tubes that say ‘DO NOT SWALLOW’ are there for a reason, and that no dentist in his right mind would drink even a quarter of a thimble full of pure fluoride.
I wrote down a movie title on a piece of paper. It was “The Fluoride Deception’, a very damning explanation of the fluoride industry and it’s damaging effects on everything it touches. I asked him to watch it some time. He said he’d think about it.

I asked him to watch it on the computer behind him. He refused, sighting work regulations and rules.

I suggested he watch it on his break, since it was only a half an hour long. He was visibly red in the face by then, and said something unintelligible about the restrictions with that computers bandwidth.

I asked him if he would actually watch it later, and he answered ‘If I have time’.

I smiled wryly, and asked him to promise me that he’d watch it later. He then got mad, and gave me excuses why he wouldn’t be able to watch it, none that were legitimate.

My final comments were that he couldn’t do his job correctly without knowing all of the information available, and that he was doing a disservice to his visitors by not looking into fluoride. Short of getting on my knees, I actually begged him to watch it. He made it clear then that we would never see eye to eye and that I should be on my way. Feeling suddenly unwelcome in this house of worship, I pleaded for him to watch it as I walked out the door and to my truck.

What a shill.

Interestingly though, during our banter he did give me a card with the person in charge of such things and asked me to send her the information. Of course when I asked if they would post it for people to read, he lied through his fluorosis stained teeth and gave me an unconvincing and pacifying ‘maybe’.

I sent her an email with the movie link and a few questions, but received no reply.

Some day, I hope to get back to Southern California and actually hand the center a stack of homemade brochures which state all of the facts about fluoride, where it comes from, and who actually approved it’s use for human consumption.

Perhaps I could call it: “Fluoride… More Than a Glance.

If you’d like to know more about fluoride and its effects on your body and mental health functions, click here and watch “The Fluoride Deception”.

Authors note: Most bottled water is bottled from public water sources, which are pre-fluoridated before these water companies ever get their hands on it. The filtration methods these companies use are not sufficient to get this toxin out of the water before it is bottled. Some even add fluoride after filtration for “health reasons”. Spring water is from about as fresh of a source as your toilet bowl – and you thought your dog had bad taste! Most of the bottled water brands were created or bought by big corporations, and labeled in a way to fool you into thinking they are independent companies. Many have been sued and lost, forcing them to label the true water source. Some end up in discount stores or the dollar stores and are there for a reason… buy these at your peril. Don’t be a sheep. Read the labels. Look at the source. Buy responsibly.

The following is a list of some of the more popular bottled water brands, and the mega-corporations who produce them:

Arrowhead – The Nestle’ Corporation

Poland Spring – The Nestle’ Corporation

Perrier
– The Nestlé Corporation.

San Pellegrino (Perrier’s competitor) – The Nestle’ Corporation

Calistoga – The Nestle’ Corporation

Crystal Gyser – The Nestle’ Corporation

Ice Mountain – The Nestle’ Corporation

Zephyr Hills – The Nestle’ Corporation

Ozarka – The Nestle’ Corporation

Pure Life/Pureza Vital – The Nestle’ Corporation

Deer Park – The Nestle’ Corporation

Aquapod – The Nestle’ Corporation

Nestle’ Brand – The Nestle’ Corporation

Dasani – The Coca-cola Company

Glacéau – The Coca-cola Company

Vitamin Water
– The Coca-cola Company

Smart Water
– The Coca-cola Company

Oasis – The Coca-cola Company

Ciel – The Coca-Cola Company

Aquafina – The PepsiCo Corporation

Propel – The PepsiCo Corporation

Evian (Naïve)
– The Danone Group – a large French multinational company.

Volvic – The Danone Group

Fiji – Stewart and Lynda Resnick aquired Fiji in 2004, pumping the “green” angle.

Ethos – Bought by Starbuck’s Coffee Corporation in 2005
.
.

… So which one do you drink, my little sheep?

Are you feeling suckered yet… a victim of clever advertising perhaps?

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
September 28, 2009