Blackmail and Eugenics are Politicians' Biggest Motivator

We all hear, in every lefty documentary, how "profits" are always the main motivator for things like the increasing drugging of our children, selling them useless consumer items, feeding them diets that are making them fatter than ever, and generally killing them off. Well, anyone with any conception of anything at all--anyone who doesn't drool during every waking hour--knows that money can be made in any fashion. The powers that rule the world could easily set up our economy without the planned obsolescence of our consumer culture and still remain with 99% of the resources. No, money is not the sole motivator in all of these scandals: Monsanto in Aniston, Alabama; the ruining of children; the poisoning of food; killing of Americans with pharmaceutical drugs. The sole motivator for these scandals is blackmail, which creates a group, much larger than the critical mass needed, to commit wholly to a planned population control/social engineering. Then, if any of these people mometarily lose their reason, they can be publicly destroyed for something that they did 20 years ago, or, more likely, for something they have been doing for the last 20 years.

But all we ever hear of in the media, even by the left (especially by the left, who is the one who uses their phony tactics to "expose" these problems) is that money is the sole motivator. We never hear of any other motivator. It is like Maslow's hierarchy, and every truism in behavioral psychology for that matter, is completely ignored when it comes to the shapers of our world. It is like they are completely immune from any other motivators, like fear for instance.

Yeah, right, so these people, who have the most shit to hide of any other group of people on this planet, are only motivated by money; other Machiavellian methods of subversion and compromise of potentially powerful people are completely void in our culture. For instance, certain high ranking members of the powers that be, who were caught in 1989 with 10,000 credit card receipts (subsequently sealed by a thoroughly blackmailed judge) from underage call-boy services in D.C., thus proving the nature of their extra-political affairs, are not things that motivate them to maintain the status quo of corruption. Nooooooo. Not at all.

Okay, all facetiousness aside, each one of these people (fucking complete scumbags) are being blackmailed in every way, for every past action which would look immediately immoral to the public if published in any news media.

But why don't we hear about this? Why do we never hear the word blackmail in the media, except in very superficial ways, or in reference to very innocuous forms of blackmail? We don't hear about it because if they were to admit that blackmail was the main currency, thousands of times more valuable than money (in bribery), they would be admitting that each member of the upper class has been hoodwinked into joining this class through improprieties as early as their college fraternity days.

Let me ask you critical thinkers a question. What would motivate you more if you were a politician: $100,000; or the prospect of not losing all of your integrity in the minds of those around you or those below you who grant you your status as "upper class"? I think the one-shot $100,000 grand could go fuck itself in the face of the life of infamy and lack of trust.

But this simple fact that blackmail is several thousand times more motivating than money will never be conceded because the politicians, their counterparts in big business, and the police and military that protect them are all a bunch of criminal scum who rape, deal children and drugs, murder, etc., etc., etc.

Face it folks, every one of the people who are allowed into the hallowed halls of the so-called 'elite' are a bunch of fear-ridden, subverted rats, cornered at all times. We are fucked unless we concede the possibility of blackmail. Unless we begin to significantly hold these fuckers accountable for their actions, unless we much less simply concede that they could be something but perfect saints, we are going to ruled by them, and killed off by them in the hundreds of millions per decade, like we are currently.

Fuck you if you disagree.

Millionares in the Mist

Here's Something quick for my "audience" to discuss.

Some local kids, one a victim of the "civil war" in Sudan, on a local radio program were talking about the mating customs of Sudanese people. They were saying how Sudanese men can take many wives—as long as they “have the money” to take care of them. This perhaps seeks to make Africans appear more primitive?

However primitive Africans may be, the only difference between Anglo-American and Africans, with respect to their mating habits, is that the polygamy of some dominant Africans is well known since it is publicized whereas the “polygamy” of Anglo-American dominant men is more covertly expressed in the burgeoning prostitution, child and adult prostitution, afforded only by American and other white, European men that “have the money;” American publicists have erected a morality that is impossible to adhere to so the members of the American monied class take many “wives” in secret and abuse them and exploit them, as opposed to the much more civilized practice of Africans who actually support and love their wives, maybe not ideally so, but the practices of the average African is definitely no more cruel than raping child sex-slaves, of which over 100,000 exist in the U.S. by many reports.

In fact, a report on CSEC(commercian sexual explotation of children)that was released one day before 911, a report prepard by faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, reveals the brutality right here in the U.S. that goes mostly unnoticed and almost completely unreported in the United States presses.

Huh.

Ask Not What Your President Can Do for Your Country

The following letter is a to National Public Radio. I needed to tell them what I though of having coverage of the presidential "election" start 1.75 years before the election:

Dear NPR,

Wow, you guys are really giving 911 coverage a run for its money with all of the "coverage" of the presidential "race" (there must be some really important legislation being drafted right now, perhaps that which would make it obligatory to relinquish all first-born children to the U.S. Treasury Department for sex slavery enrollment, eh). The last time there was this much filler in the news was the few days after 9-11.

I recall that on 9-13-2001, China, an economy of well over a billion workers, was very quietly entered into the WTO, being granted normalized trade status or some such thing. Even though this news was the hugest thing to happen to all Americans since the Great Depression, a thing that drastically affected their wallets instead of just pulling on their heart strings and playing head games, all I heard about it was one little 100 word brief article in my local newspaper.

Here we had the largest population on the planet Earth ever to be included in the global market place on such a scale and all at once--and barely a peep.

Now, every gesture, burp, fart or general irrelevancy that each "candidate" pollutes us with is supposed to be news?!?!?!?!?

With all of the resources you spend on the mythos of presidential politics and Presidential campaign PR every day, couldn't you find a way to put all that energy into finding ways to just allow a world where people know that U.S. "Presidents" are chosen by "elite" money "trusts" (mistrusts) according to public sentiment and the next 4 year plan. Wouldn't it be easier to just tell everyone once and for all that, "There is no such thing as 'The President'. World policy is decided in revolving, perpetual board meetings that never really end. The several very highly educated, albeit indoctrinated and self-justifying, individuals who take responsibility for the socioeconomic fate of all earthlings take variables into consideration that the average citizen doesn't even realize exist." Then, once every one is on the level, you could just give them 5 minutes of news every day, thus freeing up all of your millions of newsroom, PR firm, thinktank, roundtable, etc employees--who produce lots of smoke and nothing of much use to the population at large--to find more productive, useful vocations. If they then find it hard to find work due to only being qualified to produce bull feces, there are many jobs out there, such as pumping gas, washing dishes, or bagging groceries, all of which they should qualify for.

Thank you for your time and your consideration. I hope this letter helped in some way by either informing you or providing solutions.

[Omnimental]

Now, here is their reply:

Dear [Omnimental] ,



Thank you for contacting NPR's Office of the Ombudsman.

The points you made about NPR’s coverage of the presidential elections have been considered by our staff, as we continue to strive for accuracy and communication within the newsroom.

Thanks again for writing in, and for your continued support of public broadcasting. For the latest news and information, visit NPR.org.




Sincerely,

Chantal de la Rionda
Assistant to the Ombudsman
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

Tricko Sicko-phant

Michael Moore’s Sicko being pirated is a beautiful multi-pronged publicity stunt. On the one hand it simply gives the movie more exposure; on another, it shows that since the "indy film" is so anticipated as to make people want to see it before it is even released then it must be good; and on another hand (this beast has more than two) it legitimates its underground, leftist appeal. The fact that Michael Moore is not being ignored by the mass media has to make folks wonder if he is really as radical as he seems. But, as a clever red-herring to make people think that he thinks low and unsure of himself--you know, as an outsider renegade--he is now questioning the success of the movie in lieu of it's having been pirated, saying that if too many people can watch it before the opening weekend, the movie industry might not give it as wide a distribution.

Yeah, right. The distribution and sale of a propaganda film that has been made by the phony left--and thus The Giant Media Corp.--to contain the debate on the medical industry is going to be undermined by individual theatres? Well maybe the film will flop, that is if the powers that be on top, the spindoctors, can’t invent controversies like this piracy crap to make people curious, to trick more victims of this soulless propaganda into seeing it. Whether it makes any money or not at the box office is not the motive of the Giant Media Corp. anyway (you can't have any more access to resources than infinite access, therefore money means nothing to these peopole) they just want people to see it and take it ALL in, only to be seduced into thinking that the only problem with the medical system is that it fails sometimes to cure everyone and sometimes insurance policies are hard to enforce by their consumers.

The movie does nothing but tell us what we already know.

Michael Moore. Yawn.

Meanwhile, we have all of the conservative and “liberal” news hounds barking about it. The conservatives call Michael Moore a liberal hack, and the liberals call him a refreshing voice, a voice for the common man.

And that is exactly what he is: a voice for the common man. His work is a prepackaged, sterile, contrived, tool of big business to 1) give a vent to common frustration; 2) to give the illusion that the mass media does allow dissent; 3) to contain the debate; 4) possibly to manufacture consent for a socialized healthcare system which would make it mandatory for mothers to give their babies shots and infant formula and many other totalitarian pressures to the people it chooses to “treat.” The new socialized healthcare system can suck people into the vortex of the medical mafia where they can be tagged and sterilized with any one of thousands of fancy new killer pharmaceuticals.

Innocence Lost, Sanity Found

Today there was a story in the NYTimes discussing “opposition” to appointment of James W. Holsinger as the new Surgeon General of the United States. This kind of controlled “opposition” is typical: there is some media coverage of the opposition then the candidate is slipped in, sometimes without any fanfare at all. There is no doubt in this writer’s mind that the plan is to nominate him.

Here is an excerpt with its citation:

Surgeon General Nominee Is Assailed for Church Role

By Neela Banerjee

Published: June 9, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 8 — President Bush’s nomination of Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., a Kentucky cardiologist, to be surgeon general is drawing criticism from gay rights groups, physicians and lawmakers who say they are troubled by opinions critical of homosexuality that Dr. Holsinger has voiced in nearly 20 years as a high-ranking layman in the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Holsinger’s friends within the United Methodist Church and the medical community, however, are defending him as a professional who does not discriminate against people in his congregation or in his care.

The critics said they were worried that Dr. Holsinger might not serve gay men and lesbians fairly as surgeon general, the nation’s chief health educator, largely because of a report he wrote in 1991 for a United Methodist committee that essentially described male homosexuality as unnatural.

They also point to his service on the board of a Methodist group that in 1998 criticized the “radical homosexual/lesbian lobby” for trying to force the church “to grant approval to the practice of homosexuality.”

Critics have also cited Dr. Holsinger’s leadership of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church, the denomination’s highest court, which in late 2005 decided to reinstate a pastor who had been suspended for refusing to allow a gay man to join his congregation, a decision the church’s bishops later rejected.

“If he says, ‘In my religious tradition, homosexuality is considered sinful, unnatural,’ that’s his right,” said Joel Ginsberg, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. Citing opinions by medical associations that homosexuality is not a disorder, Mr. Ginsberg said, “But if he says it is pathological, he is speaking from a discredited scientific viewpoint.”

A good prong in the strategy of this red-herring article was to cover a fake “demonstration” (probably set up by one of various intelligence agency (“peace movements”) accusing him of being anti-gay because he wrote a letter one time to some religious organization saying that sex between men was “unnatural.”

This serves the purpose of telling the public that, to the media and other concerned organizations, this issue of whether or not this guy said he thinks gays are unnatural is very pertinent and totally important. It serves to paint the illusion that things as mundane as moral statements are as much of homosexuality as anyone in the media is even aware of; after all, the illusion goes, they are all totally innocent and naïve when it comes to gayness.

Accept when large numbers of high ranking sophistos are caught red-handed with thousands of credit card receipts from Washington D.C. underage call boy services, like happened in 1989.

Well, what they say to that history is: nothing. They just shut up about it. Then they put out these stories about extremely less interesting issues and act like those are at the pinnacle of newsworthiness, as racy as things can get, and act totally incredulous with a totally straight face at the appalling nature of what this guy wrote down about gays!

Since I am not sensitive anymore to the immorality of slanderous speech (the media is the Kingdom of Unfounded Libelonia), I can ask these questions. What about what he possibly sticks in the anus of gays? Do they even care? No, because, they are all living an extremely sexually liberal lifestyles while they prescribe genital-guilt to the unwitting masses who know nothing of tantric bliss, kama sutra, or "sex majick" with infants and toddlers. The masses must remain so monogamous that natural curiosities we have about others should make us want to self-flagellate

I would have to say that the fact that this guy was a high-ranking member of a Christian church, which puts him in the company of many people who not only know plenty about homosexuality but actually train young boy in the art, is much more newsworthy than his feelings on gayness.

There is really an issue with his being a supposed "radical homosexual" hater though. Will he promote even more AIDS “prevention” and target gay people with “life-saving” AIDS drugs? Probably, or he would not be being nominated, stupid.