If you are a Revisionist, a free, critical thinker, or if you already possess a strong sense of historical truth at odds with that of the establishment and its mainstream media organs, I highly recommend viewing this documentary film. If you’re a gullible simpleton or a lazy academic, however, who automatically trusts as truth whatever you’re taught/told concerning the “Nazis” (or other historical “devils” for that matter), you’re rather unlikely to reap the reward of this four-hour investment. Intentionally or otherwise, the BBC misses the mark with respect to its peripheral mention of Joseph Goebbels and National Socialist propaganda (allegedly inspired by Bernays, which is rubbish)… But in this day and age, I could hardly expect otherwise. To their deserved credit, they do manage to get much correct and, in the course of their exploration, come much closer to certain forbidden truths than they likely intended. Thoughtfully counterbalance the information presented through this documentary with what you’ve (hopefully) already studied of the occupied news and entertainment media, the Neoconservative movement, the Zionist Power Configuration (Z.P.C.), the Frankfurt School/Political Correctness, the international “bankster gangsters”, and the chief proponents and beneficiaries of the wars of the last 100 years (as well as the unseen catalysts, historical deceptions, and false-flags which, more often than not, lead us there), and the value of its core-message will more than triple. -W
Archive for the ‘Rampant Materialism’ Category
Posted in Allied War Crimes, Control, Disquiet on the Homefront / U.S. Affairs, Economics, Middle Eastern Affairs, Programs and Documentaries, Rampant Materialism, The (Occupied) News & Entertainment Media, Zionist Power Configuration on August 5, 2010| 1 Comment »
With the recent controversy surrounding Oliver Stone’s candor concerning Jewish media domination, Russians as suffering far greater losses in WWII than European Jewry, Adolf Hitler as an easy historical scapegoat lacking proper context, and the deleterious Zionist grip on America’s foreign policy, I was able to witness, point by point, the intricate workings of a Hollywood character-assassination ala the wrecking crew.
Following Stone’s recantation, I couldn’t help but notice that the wrecking crew was apparently not yet finished with him. What I did not expect, however, was Hugo Chavez to get dragged (quite literally) into the picture — another easy historical scapegoat lacking proper context. Photos of Stone and Chavez were now rather conveniently surfacing everywhere.
According to hawkish imperialists in D.C. and Tel Aviv, Hugo Chavez is “a brutal dictator,” which, according to the logic of the wrecking crew, only proves that Stone supports brutal dictatorships. But wait…
If Stone supports Chavez, and Chavez supports Ahmadinejad, and Ahmadinejad supports “wiping Israel off the map,” then my God, Haim Saban was right and good to demand the crucifixion of Mel Gibson — I mean, Oliver Stone — right?
This is how the wrecking crew works, and on account of widespread ignorance and indifference on both historical issues and current events of crucial importance, they typically surpass their objectives. I mean, why squander valuable time and energy in the character assassination of one opponent when you can line them up and take out two or three? And why stop there if you can accomplish more?
. . .
Admitting how little I knew of Hugo Chavez and politics in Venezuela, I sought, sifted, and extracted information which clarified precisely why he is an ongoing target of hawkish imperialists in D.C. and Tel Aviv. In short — and whether I agree with many of his positions or not is beside the point — Chavez fights for the right to self-determination. I support that right, and it isn’t necessary, in any case, that we agree on much else in this context. As he said himself, “We were trying to do the impossible. To have a revolution without crashing against the empire — it’s impossible.” I can appreciate that statement.
And while the documentary below has its faults and tends to run rather distastefully hard-left throughout, John Pilger’s “The War on Democracy” brings up some interesting points which accomplish more than he probably intended. Informed readers/viewers, for example, will have a more firm grasp of whom Mr. Pilger speaks when he refers to the well-funded organized coups, the puppet regimes, the destabilization of infrastructure, the theft of natural resources, the orchestrated paranoia, the art of “spin,” and the terror campaigns which masquerade behind “freedom and democracy” around the world this very instant. Informed readers/viewers will know that it is certainly not “the Fascists” who’ve profited from all of this madness, but rather their enduring enemies. The true patriots and nationalists of all lands naturally sympathize with more honest and honorable men than those traitorous cliques who claim to represent our national interests.
Once again, I trust my subscribers and regular readers have become, or have perhaps always been, adept in the art of separating gold from dross. Beyond appearances and titles, there is always something here to enrich and empower you. Discerning minds will reap what is essential and discard the rest. -W.
Posted in Blackout, Disquiet on the Homefront / U.S. Affairs, Existential Threat, Political Correctness, Programs and Documentaries, Rampant Materialism, The (Occupied) News & Entertainment Media, True Diversity : Distinction, Zionist Power Configuration on July 4, 2010| Leave a Comment »
Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is defined as the variability among living organisms, from genes to species, to the broad scale of planetary ecosystems. What applies to the natural world applies no less to man. Genuine diversity — that is, organic dissimilarity, contrast, or variance — is assailed by programs of artificial fraternity, the leveling scheme of equality, and the policies of enforced integration. The keen observer cannot help but notice, either, that the multiculturalist, globalist, one-world doctrinaires who impose their romantic vision of a post-racial whimsical wonderland upon the rest of us curiously tend to dwell what might as well be worlds beyond the direct material repercussions of their reckless, oblivious, and unpardonable oversight. What the salaried scoundrels, in other words, have ceaselessly framed and exalted from the podium as “progressive” has precious little to do with the world they live in. Our reality, our world, is, at most, something they’ve been briefed about, seen between channels, flown over, or briskly driven through and away from. It is, for them, fleeting, distant, abstract. True diversity is the sworn enemy of deracinated pop-culture, of grey, soulless monoculture, and of every expression of vacuous, dysgenic new-world uniformity. True diversity is the antithesis, in fact, of virtually all that is today applauded as “progressive,” and must therefore be preserved at all cost by those who’ve come to know, and to cherish, the vital distinction. As the darkness fades with your awakening, so, too, does the nightmare. -W.
Posted in Disquiet on the Homefront / U.S. Affairs, Ecology, Economics, Existential Threat, Political Correctness, Programs and Documentaries, Radical Traditionalism, Rampant Materialism on June 27, 2010| 2 Comments »
I, myself, welcome the thought of population decrease, worldwide, and there are a number of points of varying importance in this documentary that I happen to disagree with. But in stark contrast with the global trends of the last century, I emphatically support the procreation of the healthy, the intelligent, the creative, and the responsible — just as I support restrictions on the reckless reproduction of the unhealthy, the unintelligent, the destructive, and the irresponsible. This cannot, however, be accomplished without the conscious restoration and safeguarding of the traditional family unit, which must take place first and foremost in the developed countries of the world (if we intend to survive at all). -W.
Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family
One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree – we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.
A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.
Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world – demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:
The “population bomb” not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations [as things currently stand], and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.
The economies of the world will continue to contract as the “human capital” spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.
Government programs will slow-bleed by the decrease in tax dollars received from an ever shrinking work force. The skyrocketing ratio of the old retirees to the young workers will render current-day social security systems completely unable to support the aging population.
Our attempts to modernize through social engineering policies and programs have left children growing up in broken homes, with absentee parents and little exposure to extended family, disconnected from the generations, and these children are experiencing severe psychological, sociological and economic consequences. The intact family’s immeasurable role in the development and prosperity of human societies is crumbling.
The influence of social and economic problems on ever shrinking, increasingly disconnected generations will compound and accelerate the deterioration. Our children and our children’s children will bear the economic and social burden of regenerating the “human capital” that accounts for 80% of wealth in the economy, and they will be ill-equipped to do so.
Is there a “tipping point,” after which the accelerating consequences will make recovery impossible without complete social and economic collapse? Even the experts can’t tell us how far we can go down this road, oblivious to the outcomes, until we reach a point where sliding into the void becomes unpreventable.
Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.
Just as it took the cumulative involvement of activist organizations, policy makers, the business world and the media to create the unintended consequences we are beginning to experience, so it will take the holistic contribution of all of these entities, together with civic and religious organizations, to change the hearts and minds of all of society to bring about a reversal.
It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.
Questions & Answers
What does the expression “Demographic Winter” mean?
The phrase “Demographic Winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.
Demographer Philip Longman (author of “The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity”) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century.”
Worldwide, birthrates have declined by more than 50% in the past 30 years (since 1979). There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility
Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. (The United Nations Population Division says that, worldwide, we could achieve below-replacement fertility by 2030.) At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach what demographers call population free-fall in our lifetimes.
Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.
The term “nuclear winter,” popularized in the 1980s, alluded to the catastrophic environmental impact of a nuclear war. The long-term consequences of Demographic Winter could be equally devastating.
What is replacement fertility, and why is the number 2.13 so important?
Replacement fertility is the point of equilibrium at which a country’s population is neither growing nor declining. In order to maintain current population, the average woman must have 2.13 children during her lifetime. She needs to replace herself and a man. Because some children will die before reaching maturity and having children of their own, slightly more than two children are needed – hence 2.13.
A birthrate of more than 2.13 equals population growth. A birthrate of less than 2.13 means long-term population decline.
If birthrates are declining, why does the world’s population continue to grow?
If it’s already in motion, car in neutral will continue moving forward for a while, especially if it’s going downhill, even if gas isn’t being injected into the engine.
Today’s population growth is due to two factors: 1. higher fertility rates in the 1950s and 60s, and 2. people living longer than ever before.
The thing to remember is this: Declining birthrates will equal a declining population worldwide at some point in the next few decades. In the West (especially in Europe) population decline will become a reality much sooner. In some countries, such a Russia, it’s already happening.
A nation’s demographic future can be seen in its current birthrate. In Europe, the number of children under 5 has declined by 36% since 1960. Worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children, 6 and under, today, than there were in 1990. If present trends continue, the United Nations estimates that by 2050 there will be 248 million fewer children in the world then there are now.
Where are birthrates lowest?
Of the 10 countries with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe. Overall, the European fertility rate is 1.3, well below replacement level (2.1). No European nation [at present] has a replacement-level birthrate.
Italy’s fertility rate is 1.2. Spain’s is 1.1. That means in the not-too-distant future, absent massive immigration, these countries will lose half of their populace in every generation.
Russia’s birthrate fell from 2.4 in 1990 to 1.17 today – a decline of more than 50% in less than 20 years. Each year, there are more abortions than live births in the Russian Federation.
While birthrates are also plummeting in developing nations, most still have above-replacement fertility – for the time being.
The U.S. fertility rate is just at the replacement level, due in part to higher immigrant birthrates. How long this will continue is anyone’s guess. It’s also important to note that all of the factors driving down birth rates elsewhere in the world are present here as well.
What are the consequences of demographic decline?
Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15, 2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “Europe as we know it is going out of business…. Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.”
By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. In developed nations, today, 20% of the population is over 60. By 2050, the proportion of elderly will rise to 36%. By then, these societies will have two elderly for every child.
If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.
Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the nation with the largest land mass?
Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.
This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.
What factors contribute to demographic decline?
A number of social trends of the post-war era have converged to create a perfect demographic storm.
Men and women are delaying marriage, making it less likely they’ll have more than one or two children. Today in the West, almost one in two marriages ends in divorce. The children of divorce are less likely to marry and form families themselves. More married women are putting off having children for careers. After 35, it becomes progressively harder for women to conceive.
The news and entertainment media tell young adults that satisfaction comes from careers, romance, travel and “personal growth” – not from having children. It’s rare that Hollywood even portrays large families (today, more than 2 children). The culture’s message is live-for-moment and live primarily for yourself, with no sense of obligation to generations past or concern for posterity.
The growth of cohabitation also has an impact. (In Scandinavia, almost as many couples are living together as married.) Cohabitation is not conducive to childbearing or childrearing.
For the past 20 to 30 years, children have been taught that over-population (the so-called population bomb) will wreak havoc on the environment and economic development. Not surprisingly, children thus indoctrinated frequently choose to have fewer [if any] children when they reach maturity.
Religious observance has been shown to correlate with higher birthrates. The increasing secularization of Western societies has been accompanied by lower birthrates.
Thus, every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness.
Can’t the problem be fixed by increased immigration?
In a demographic sense, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The host country gains people, but the home country loses. The developing world, which has seen its own birthrate cut in half since 1970 (from almost 6 to barely 4) can ill afford to lose large numbers through emigration.
Mass immigration changes the national character of the host country. Immigrants tend to have a lower education level than natives. Many never learn the language of their new home or identify with its history and heritage. (Instead of being French-Algerian, they remain an Algerian who happens to be living in France.)
Citizens of developed countries often worry about the loss of national identity.
Can’t demographic winter be countered by governments encouraging people to have more children?
This is being tried in Western Europe and Russia. The Russian Federation pays families a bonus of 250,000 rubles (the equivalent of $9,200) for every child after the first – in a nation where the average monthly wage is only $330. It’s not working.
Couples decide to have children for all kinds of reasons – religious, emotional, cultural, etc. Money isn’t one of them.
Children are a life-long commitment. While governments should make childrearing easier by lowering the tax-burden on families (out of self-interest if not fairness), cash incentives don’t work.
If the United States has near-replacement fertility, why should we care?
All of the factors that are leading Europe into the depths of Demographic Winter are present in the United States as well, including high divorce rates, the rise of cohabitation, families putting off procreation to pursue careers, an anti-family culture and voluntary childlessness.
We may be a few decades behind Europe, but we’re heading in the same direction.
National economies are interconnected to such an extent that the impact of economic collapse in one country or region can be felt around the world.
The social, political and economic decline of previously stable nations can destabilize entire regions and create perils for neighbors and far-ways allies. The United States is connected to Europe economically, [culturally], and through multiple security treaties.
What Is “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family”
“Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family,” is an hour-long documentary which explores every aspect of demographic decline based on interviews with hundreds of academics, scholars, researchers, elected officials and civil and religious leaders from more than 33 countries.
Produced by Barry McLerran and directed by Rick Stout, “Demographic Winter” brings together a number of disciplines to examine and analyze what could be the greatest threat confronting humanity in the 21st century.
What role did declining birth rates play in the current economic crisis?
Economist Harry S. Dent notes that 70% of GNP in the U.S. is consumer-driven. As the Baby Boomers aged, they began spending less, moving to smaller homes and planning for their retirement. Gen-X can’t fill the gap of the decline of spending by 81 million baby-boomers. This contributed to the slump in the housing market – when Boomers began selling rather than buying, there was a glut on the market and home sales began to decline. “Demographic Winter” predicted the financial crash of 2008 to within 18 months. The “Demographic Bomb” forecasts worse in store for our economy.
Can the economic impact of declining birth rates be seen outside the United States?
Yes, in Japan, which has a birth rate of 1.25. Of the 10 nations with the lowest birth rates today, Japan is the only one outside of Europe. [Ironlight: K strategists vs. R strategists] It also has the highest ratio of elderly to children in the world. As the rising sun sets, where will the next generation of producers and consumers come from? While much of the industrialized world saw their economies grow in the 1990s, from 1990 to 2005, Japan’s stock market fell 80%. Between 1990 and 2005. Its real estate market lost 60% of its value.
What is the population control movement and how has it promoted demographic winter?
The population control movement includes organizations, governments and international bodies (like the United Nations), dedicated to lower birth rates. Their methods range from the voluntary to the coercive – including forced sterilization in Peru and China’s one-child-per-family policy, which has included forced abortions. Over the course of decades, population controllers have persuaded the public, through fear and hysteria, that there are too many people in the world and drastic action must be taken to curb population growth. Their fallacies have been institutionalized and become the “standard wisdom” of Western elites.
Who is Paul Ehrlich and what is his relation to declining birth rates?
An etymologist by training, Paul Ehrlich is the author of the 1968 best-seller “The Population Bomb,” and the father of the modern population control movement. In “The Population Bomb,” Dr. Ehrlich argued that population would quickly outstrip resources, leading to global starvation. (“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famine … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”) Ehrlich also argued that if voluntary limitations on population didn’t work, coercion would be necessary – a refrain taken up by the movement he spawned. He described human population growth as a cancer that would require drastic action to treat. Currently a professor at Stanford, Erhlich continues to argue that (absent draconian measures) population growth will doom the planet – this notwithstanding that none of his more sensational predictions have come to pass.
What is “The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny”?
Released in July of 2009, “The Demographic Bomb” is the long-awaited sequel to “Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family.”
It continues the examination of rapidly falling birth rates (and both the causes and consequences thereof) where “Demographic Winter” left off. “The Population Bomb” focuses on the economic impact of declining birth rates — especially as they relate to the current global economic crisis – and the role played by the population-control movement in this disaster in the making.
Like “Demographic Winter,” “The Demographic Bomb” includes input from distinguished economists, historians, demographers and other social scientists. It also includes the views of Dr. Erhlich, as well as the current and past heads of the United Nations Population Division.
To order a copy of “Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family” and “The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny,” or view a trailer for either documentary, go to http://www.demographicwinter.com
Watching TV ‘is Bad for Children’
Children under two should not be allowed to watch any TV, experts say.
Older children should watch no more than two hours a day, the researchers at the Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Centre in Seattle said.
Each hour in front of the TV increased a child’s chances of attention deficit disorder by 10%, their research in the Pediatrics journal showed.
The study of 1,345 children showed three hours TV a day made children 30% more likely to have the disorder.
Dr Dimitri Christakis at the children’s hospital led the study. He said: “The newborn brain develops very rapidly during the first two to three years of life. It’s really being wired.”
Children who were exposed to the unrealistic levels of stimulation at a young age continued to expect this in later life, leading to difficulty dealing with the slower pace of school and homework, he said.
“TV can cause the developing mind to experience unnatural levels of stimulation,” he said.
This was made worse by the rapid image change that television makers used to keep young children interested, Dr Christakis added.
Parents were questioned about their children’s viewing habits and asked to rate their behaviour at age seven on a scale similar to that used to diagnose attention deficit disorders.
The youngsters who watched the most television were more likely to rank within the top 10% for concentration problems, impulsiveness, restlessness and being easily confused.
Frederick Zimmerman of the University of Washington in Seattle, another of the authors, said it was impossible to say what a “safe” level of TV viewing would be for children between the ages of one and three.
“Each hour has an additional risk. You might say there’s no safe level since there’s a small but increased risk with each hour,” he said.
“Things are a trade-off. Some parents might want to take that risk. We didn’t find a safe level in that sense.”
Between three and five per cent of children in the US are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder.
The researchers admitted there could be problems in the study as the parents’ views may not be totally accurate.
Also it was not possible to know whether the children already had attention problems early on that attracted them to TV viewing.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2004/04/06 08:56:38 GMT
“All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere. Political principals and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate — the way he is projected by the advertising experts — are the things that really matter.” –Aldous Huxley
Example: “What’s your pledge?”
Here’s a better question: What is “Neuro-marketing”?
“Suppose that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies — you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who, after all, are going to grow up and be adults quite soon.”
Regarding the film Evidence directly above (source: http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/films/evidence.php)
Evidence is an 8 minute 35mm film authored by Godfrey Reggio, during his term as director of Fabrica – a new school founded by Benetton – and a student collaborator, Angela Melitopulos. The film was shot in Rome during March 1995 and edited by Miroslav Janek, a collaborator of Fabrica, with music by composer Philip Glass. Evidence looks into the eyes of children watching television – in this case Walt Disney’s “Dumbo”. Though engaged in a daily routine, they appear drugged, retarded, like the patients of a mental hospital. Evidence is about the behavior of children watching television – an activity whose physiological aspects have been overlooked in the current controversy surrounding television. The pervasive nature of this technology is on the rise throughout the world, yet people watch television without the least awareness of the effect that the medium itself has on individuals and societies alike. In the United States, for instance, children attend school for approximately 40 hours a week; they then watch television for about the same amount of time. Unlike people in a movie theatre, where images are projected onto a screen, television viewers become prey to the television’s own light impulses, they go into an altered state – a transfixed condition where the eyes, the mind, the breathing of the subject is clearly under the control of an outside force. In a poetic sense and without exaggerating one might say that the television technology is eating the subjects who sit before its gaze. The phenomenon recorded in Evidence relates not to programming or software, but to the medium itself – television the household appliance, the cathode ray tube, the radiation gun aimed at the viewer. This gun can be reasonably compared to a tractor beam that holds its subjects in total control. The physical, spiritual and social consequences of this phenomenon are subject to debate. Evidence hopes to enliven the discussion on the hazards of the medium itself. Evidence is one of the first products to come from Fabrica, whose mission is to smell the new world coming, to perceive the future as it is revealed in the present. In this sense, Fabrica is seeing the future as revealed in the eyes of the children: the vision is both alarming and tragic. As with so many developing technologies, the results can be more soberly viewed not from alluring promises, but from simple human observation. Television the programming is one thing: television the medium is something else. It is the medium that Evidence is about. From the point of view of the medium, Evidence is an autopsy, an opportunity in a few minutes to feel and to see, to witness the effects of a technology that has gained acceptance the world-over without question.
Those who control the mainstream news and entertainment media in a so-called democracy also control the electoral process, where “freedom of choice,” is an illusion anyhow. Such a democracy is, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship in all but title. You can vote for war campaigning as “freedom and democracy,” or you can vote for war masquerading as “hope and change.” Is this a choice? You can vote for this lie or that lie. Where is the alternative in such a system? Does “Brand A” poison taste better than “Brand B” poison? The most popular, most charismatic, and most cleverly crafted lie “wins,” while in truth everyone but the architects of this grand betrayal and deceit have lost. The definition of victory, then, begs revision…
So, who controls the mainstream news and entertainment media? And how does this control over what the multitude sees and hears hour after our, day after day, and year after year, play out on the world stage? If those you have been conditioned to blindly trust have deceived and manipulated you from the beginning, you had better reassess all that you think you know and start anew if you wish to be free. Admit that you know nothing, and you will at once receive the highest wisdom. We have to start over. We have to dismantle everything but instinct. Trust nothing untried. A new foundation must be laid, and every building block must be tested, tempered, and true. Your worldview demands radical correction. Let us begin. Let us awaken. Let us sunder the bonds and cast off the fetters. And once you have arisen, it is your duty to reach your Folk. Awaken. Arise. Total awareness, and a total willingness to act upon this awareness, is the greatest weapon against the dictatorship of the future.