I would like to believe that if I were to ever to decide to sell my pride, my integrity and my future, that it would come at a steep price and not for table scraps. Unfortunately, half of the working population in America is allowing itself to be destroyed for mere table scraps that are being handed down by the elite.
Indeed, America is being destroyed from within and the destruction is going according to plan. There are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in our country’s history and the net result spells disaster because these rates are unsustainable.
Not only do Americans no longer make anything, over half of all work-eligible Americans no longer work. The number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of full-time private sector workers in the United States. There are 97 million full-time workers in the U.S. and a mind-boggling 101 million American receive food benefits and a record 47 million Americans participated in food stamps. The Food Stamps program has a monthly average of 46.7 million participants, or 22.5 million households. Food stamps alone had a budget of $88.6 billion in FY 2012.The USDA describes Food Stamps as the “largest program in the domestic hunger safety net.”
The USDA also offers nutrition assistance for pregnant women, school children and seniors.The NationalSchool Lunch program provides 32 million students with low-cost or no-cost meals daily; 10.6 million participate in the School Breakfast Program; and 9 million receive benefits from the Woman, Infants and Children program each month, the latter designed for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women and children younger than five years old. Over 3 million children at day care centers receive snacks through the Child and Adult Care Food Program. There’s also a Special Milk Program for schools and a Summer Food Service Program, through which 2.3 million children received aid in July 2011 during summer vacation. And there are dozens of other programs that you and I are paying for.
But wait, it gets worse as the Department of Agriculture estimates that the 101,000,000 on welfare currently participate in at least one of the 15 separate food programs offered by the USDA. The USDA estimates the cost of these food programs to exceed at least $114 billion in fiscal year 2012.
The population of the U.S. is 315 million people. This means nearly a third of every man, woman and child in the United States receives some form of food aid from the government. The USDA says the number of Americans on food stamps is a “historically high figure that has risen with the economic downturn.” It is more accurate to say that America has been economically conquered by the communists who paved the way for Obama to be put into power. More will be presented on that in part two of this series.
The Net Effect of the Welfare State
The net effect of this massive welfare state is obvious. First, these people pay no tax, contribute nothing of value to society and constitute an extreme burden to the prosperity and potential of the country. This burden is exacerbated by the fact the elite and their corporations pay no tax.
Some people understandably need to be on public assistance, but many do not. However, when we see 5 and 6 generations of welfare recipients from the same family, something is terribly wrong. When we review some of the old footage of the reasons why people voted for Obama, they said things like they were going to pay for their bills with “Obama money”, or he gave me an “Obama phone.” Obama appeals to people and organizations who get a disproportionate share of the people’s money (e.g. bailouts) and Obama appeals to the something for nothing crowd (e.g. Obama phone recipients). Prior to the 1960′s people in distress got help from the Church, the Salvation Army, not public money. Look at how long people in this country “game” the system.
|Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)|
|Time on AFDC||Percent of Recipients|
|Less than 7 months||19%|
|7 to 12 months||15.2%|
|1 to 2 years||19.3%|
|2 to 5 years||26.9%|
|Over 5 years||19.6%|
Nearly half of all welfare recipients in this program are receiving taxpayer money for two years or longer. This is outrageous! Is the government seriously telling us that people cannot find a job in 1, 2 or 5 years or more?
If someone is unemployed for more than two years, it is time to find any job that the welfare recipient can perform, even if that means shoveling excrement in a sinkhole in Louisiana. Society does not owe any able-bodied person a living.
I am sick of working my rear end off so half the country does not have to work. I am weary of paying massive taxes so Wall Street can realize more profits. And it is all part of the plan. If the government can control the resources of half the country, then they control half the country by default.
Many of these people on welfare are capable of working. While receiving welfare payments, all able-bodied people should be made to sweep the streets and pick up dog feces in the park in order to get a share of what you and I earn. Instead, we get far too many bums who play the system, generation after generation.
I know, I know, here come the allegations of racism. Whenever the underclass is busted for their slovenly ways, the race card gets played. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not about race. The following chart breaks down the racial composition of welfare recipients. You race card players might be surprised at the demographic breakdown.
|Percent of recipients who are white||38.8 %|
|Percent of recipients who are black||39.8 %|
|Percent of recipients who are Hispanic||15.7 %|
|Percent of recipients who are Asian||2.4 %|
|Percent of recipients who are Other||3.3 %|
Whites and blacks are equally partaking in the welfare system, so please spare me the racism comments. Ineptitude, laziness and gamesmanship runs equally through all types of human beings.
Personal Dignity Sold for Table Scraps
Where is the pride in one’s own accomplishments? Where has the satisfaction gone which was once associated with building a life that has meaning rather than being a blood sucker that lives off the efforts of others?
Obama is winning in creating a passive America in which criminal regimes like his can thrive and I am sick of it. Half of the working population in this country on some form of welfare? Really? And people are seriously defending this lunacy?
When somebody is paying your bills for weeks, then it turns into months, followed by years and then generations, that person/family is robbed of all their pride and self-respect. Just remember, when someone else is supporting you day after day and year after year, that someone owns you. And spare me the nonsense that I am being heartless towards the elderly and handicapped. Nobody is arguing that the elderly and handicapped do not deserve our help, they do. However, half of the country is not handicapped or elderly. And if half of the country is legitimately out of work with no options, then this country needs to begin a revolution against the establishment, yesterday!
Please tell me why should I fund an Obama phone, while that same able bodied person is allowed to sit on their butt? All the able-bodied people need to be required to do public work projects before getting a dime of my money and they should be drug tested prior to the application process. If we were to do these things, just watch the unemployment and welfare rates dramatically decrease. But to the majority of the Obama supporters, work is a four letter word.
What does not surprise me is that so many sold out to the globalists. What does surprise me is how cheaply they were bought and paid for.
Obama and his minions are laughing at us. They know that government-dependent people will vote to take our guns away, accept carbon taxes and passively accept the death panels of Obamacare. They know that these ignorant people will never challenge the dumbing down of our American education system. Obama knows that the helpless in this country will never rise up against the establishment in anger. And finally, Obama knows that he was the right man at the right time who was brought forth to destroy this country once and for all. Everything is going according to plan as half of us are selling our futures for table scraps.
Obama is a just a sock puppet. Part two will cover who is behind the planned destruction of the United States through the building up the welfare state and then collapsing it.
Source: The Common Sense Show
It is not a secret that summer skipped Europe this year and some meteorologists even predict a sun eclipse for the next seven to ten years. When asked to explain this dire prediction a few experts ended up blaming the Arabs, ‘it is all because of the Arabs, they took all the spring.’
Joking aside, looking at the Arabs and their “Spring” reveals a chilling sight. It is basically an ongoing bloodbath.
A vast popular uprising in the name of “liberation,” “human rights,” “democracy” and other big words has matured in a very short time into regional chaos, civil wars, carnage, loss of life on a huge magnitude scale and scores of interventionist apparatuses that guarantee more havoc to come.
What happened? Why did the “Arab Spring” turn into a regional winter? Why didn’t the Egyptian democracy last more than a year?
I am not going to answer any of these questions. Instead, I will offer a simple method to address these issues.
Some 18 months ago I published The Wandering Who, A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. I argued that if we want to grasp Israel or the extent of Jewish Power we must dig into the ideologies and culture that formed the “Jewish State” and sustain Jewish tribalism and politics.
The book caused a storm, it was praised by some of the most important academics and humanists but it was also harshly opposed by many Jewish tribal activists and a few of their dedicated Sabbath Goyim.
It was, however, the opposition to my work that actually convinced me that I was on the right track — a theoretical and critical study of culture and identity politics is clearly the way forward. The study of Jewish culture explains Israeli barbarism, as it does the Israeli negligence of human rights, it throws light on the Neocon interventionist agenda and it also elucidates the spin at the heart of Jewish Left and Anti-Zionist Zionists (AZZ). It clearly explains why Palestinians are still living in refugee camps while American and British soldiers are fighting Zionist wars.
I would argue here that scholars and Arab intellectuals in particular should similarly examine closely the Arab culture and identity politics in order to understand and amend the grave current situation.
Such an examination could reveal, for instance, that “Western democracy” may not be the optimal political system for various states in the Middle East. Such a study will have to take into account Islam’s take of the notion of the “civil,” it would have to consider the demographics of different Arab regions and states. It may even have to question the notion of “State” in reference to Arab culture and history. Class division in the Arab society is also a crucial topic that must be examined. Such a study could benefit from a theoretical examination of the unique manner in which the Islamic Republic of Iran balances Islam and democracy. Such a study would transcend beyond politics, global affairs and the decaying material dialectic manner of thought. It would locate the subject matter i.e., the Arab and the Arab World, at the centre of the discourse.
Such scholarship should raise the following questions: Who are the Arabs, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Palestinians and so on? What do they believe in? What unites them? What separates them? What can they agree upon? What terrifies them? What makes them happy?
Once Arabs start to deal with these questions they may realise that rather than killing each other for Israel, America or Russia they should identify who they are for real and who their real enemies are.
President (aka Barry) Obama is not, nor ever was a master politician, master diplomat, master bureaucrat, master lawyer or master anything. As a former professor who had to publish or perish, I was especially impressed that Obama lacked a hefty, impressive record of academic publications, actually nothing. As Ed Lasky summed up: “Notwithstanding an apparent eleven-year teaching career in constitutional law at a top-flight law school, not one single article, published talk, book review, or comment of any kind, appears anywhere in the professional legal literature, under Barack Obama’s name.”
Instead of actual accomplishment and performance, he simply took advantage of his color, personality, unusual political opportunities, and an innate talent for sometimes being able to give a great (but not necessarily honest) speech to become President. He took advantage of new national demographics to capture the necessary Electoral College votes to achieve victory, not once, but twice. His ability to enlist the critical assistance of brilliant masters at political fund raising and campaigning has never been matched by being able or willing to obtain similar high caliber people to run his White House and administration.
As someone who held high level positions inside the Washington, DC political system for some twenty years I was always convinced that Obama never was even close to being qualified to be US President. On the other hand, I was totally dismayed at the awful Republican candidates who opposed him. Still, I was bewildered how so many Americans could be seduced by lofty speech rhetoric and end up believing Obama was an unusually honest politician capable and willing to reform an inefficient, corrupt political system. Sure, unlike Hillary Clinton, he was no long term Washington insider. But neither was there any evidence that he was a true, courageous reformer. Obama was never authentically bold and creative, nor driven by a strong moral compass but rather by extreme arrogance. Think: the audacity of arrogance. Self-delusion prevailed, especially among Democrats and progressives drunk over terrific political slogans.
What could not be predicted, however, was that millions of angry and mostly white Americans would seize upon his color, birthplace and family roots to wage an effective national campaign within the boundaries of the Tea and Republican Parties to help make his presidency largely paralyzed through warlike partisanship. What was best for the nation has never been able to overcome hateful political emotions. The combination of hate and racist driven right wing zealots and self-deluded people on the left has dragged American democracy deeper into dysfunction.
Everyone should remember that with just over 50 percent of eligible voters voting and the presidential winner obtaining just over 50 percent of voter support, not much more than 25 percent of Americans actually support this or any other President. Factor in that nearly all incumbent members of Congress get reelected despite dismal overall public support, most recently just 10 percent for Congress. If you still believe in the myth that US democracy is the best on the planet, then you are just plain nuts.
It would take many thousands of words to fully articulate all the presidential failings of Obama. My own personal favorites are these: He failed to pursue a single payer approach for universal health care insurance and instead created a hugely complex and costly system that will probably collapse of its own awfulness. He did not swiftly end the ludicrous and incredibly costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His administration has failed miserably in adequately taking care of veterans. He has clearly done next to nothing to ensure a truly transparent federal government and, instead, has aggressively pursued secret and invasive information and intelligence gathering of US citizens. His policies about underemployment and jobs have been pathetic. His Department of Justice utterly failed to pursue criminal indictments of the many people and companies in the banking, mortgage and financial sectors that caused the national and global economic collapse in recent years that even today explains the economic plight of many millions of Americans.
American democracy has so deteriorated that I can see little hope of its resurrection absent some form of revolution consistent with the Constitution, namely using what our Founders gave us: an Article V convention of state delegates with the legal authority to propose true reform constitutional amendments that still would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Clearly, there is no reason to have any faith that Congress would ever propose amendments to fix our corrupt, inefficient and dysfunctional federal system that Senators and Representatives continue to deface and defraud. For example, taking all private money out of politics. Nor is there any basis for believing that the Supreme Court will come to the rescue.
Seems pretty hopeless, don’t you think? Unless millions of Americans join together and demand that Congress obey the Constitution, honor the many hundreds of state requests for a convention and convene the first one.
As any honest observer of the dire fiscal nature of U.S. budgets would conclude, the driving section of deficit expenditures are entitlements. The two areas, based upon predictable demographics, that scream out for rational and extensive surgery are Social Security and Medicare. The Obama administration has a long record of gutting Medicare as part of the Obama care malady that is transforming into a national plague as the detail regulations unfold. For a summary of reporting on the subject, review the media accounts on the Kaiser Health News. One of such analysis, found in the New York Times item, Obama Budget to Include Cuts to Programs in Hopes of Deal, identifies the smoke and mirrors modifications, designed to push the Medicare medical reimbursement into insolvency.
“Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama’s left, and they have already mobilized in opposition.
Mr. Obama will propose other spending and tax credit initiatives, including aid for states to make free prekindergarten education available nationwide — a priority outlined in his State of the Union address in February. He will propose to pay for it by raising federal taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.
In Medicare, the savings would mostly come from payments to health care providers, including hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, but Mr. Obama also proposes that higher-income beneficiaries pay more for coverage.”
The mere notion that the Obama administration is submitting a budget at all may be news, but the devil is in the details, within the projected outline is expected. This political kabuki theatre gives little solace to the actuary process that crunches the numbers of an aging society.
The first acknowledgment out of the lack of a grand arrangement, cited by Money News in, Obama Proposes Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, calls for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs.
“Administration officials have said Obama would only agree to the reductions in benefit programs if they are accompanied by increases in revenue, a difficult demand given the strong anti-tax sentiment of House Republicans.”
The glaring omission from this, and any discussion on Social Security and Medicare, is the need to revise eligibility and age admission criteria. The political psyche of the public is stuck on the myth that an entitlement society can be funded on a systemic shortfall of revenue. The perennial cry for just raising taxes on the rich is a fool’s gameand does harm by continually reinforcing the denial of inevitable reality, that services and programs must be dramatically curtailed or eliminated.
Much of the partisan banter and face-off skirts this underlying issue. Feeding this self-denial culture is an electorate and a population that has become comfortable consuming their “so called” free lunch diet. The fact that the eating habits of the majority attempt to digest the social programs off the government menu, without paying for the cost of the meal is inescapable.
The longevity of recent age brackets has caused a fiscal crisis that has only one outcome, namely, national bankruptcy without fundamental changes to such programs. Impoverishment of the younger generations to fund a mathematically impossible obligation is the key element missing from any rational discussion or debate.
The central transformation of medical institutions from a proprietary return on assets system to a not for profit reimbursement corporative would allow for major reductions in the costs of medical delivery services, while enhancing patient recovery. The elimination of bureaucratic defensive medicine, driven by the practice of fear from legal litigation is absent within Obama’s budget.
The assault on holistic medicine in favor of pharmaceutical drugs is a core reason why Medicare is a failed approach to health and wellbeing. Individual Americans are walking cadavers waiting for their expected stroke or heart attack. The diet of the average consumer of fast food drives up the tolls of medical treatment and should not become a public burden upon taxpayers that strive to achieve a healthy lifestyle.
While any form of a socialistic medical payer system guarantees a reduction in the quality of medical services, the Medicare program has a large constituency and lobby influence upon legislation and administration. Only a total breakdown in health care under the Obamacare formula, might offer the slightest opportunity to revamp the entire governmental run fiasco that has an inane disconnect between treatment and the cost of the service.
Social Security has become an unfunded ponzi scheme that in unsustainable as the work force declines. Cutting the rate of growth by a recalculation of the already shaded inflation statistics is the very definition of kicking the can down the road. This time that canister might just injure your toe to the point of needing medical assistance that is certainly not covered under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.Postponing a dialogue on serious entitlement reform or preferably dramatic scale back is playing with national suicide. As the country dissolves into a more democratic frenzy, the addition of millions of more illegal immigrants will add gasoline to the fiscal inferno that is already burning out of control.
Regrettably, the will for an electoral resolution through the ballot box, when the voter has an insatiable desire to live off the tax payments of others, guarantees a day of reckoning. The eugenics outcome that leads to euthanasia acceptance certainly will not be one of the cuts in the federal budget.
The long path to nationwide insanity is paved with governmental programs that claim to help citizens, while pushing the fiscal burden unto the unborn, millions upon which are aborted. Money in government is like poison to a drug addict. In this case, the junkie does not die it only spends more. Good health demands rational behavior.
When your article inspires a big-city mayor to refer your case to a “human-relations commission,” you know you’ve hit a nerve. And when that article is the recent “Being White in Philly” piece by liberal Robert Huber, you know it doesn’t take much truth to hit that nerve.
That’s the scary part. Huber’s article contains mostly tepid examples of whites’ negative experiences with blacks and primarily black neighborhoods, such as a Philadelphia resident whose grill was stolen from her backyard but “blames herself” for not fencing it in. Its tone is basically apologetic, absolving a drug dealer of responsibility because he was just “trying to get by” and describing the US’ racial history as “horrible and daunting.” Yet this wasn’t good enough for Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter and his comrades. They still want Huber silenced.
Oh, they won’t get what they want…at least not exactly and not yet. But, nonetheless, writes Philly.com, “In a scathing letter, Mayor Nutter last week requested that the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission consider whether the magazine and Huber deserved to be rebuked for the article.” Why is this significant? Well, when we hear about Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, Swedes, or other Westerners being imprisoned or fined for criticizing Islam or homosexuality — yes, this does happen — guess what the instruments of their oppression are.
Of course, they’re usually called “human-rights” commissions, and the entities that actually judge those charged with “hate speech” are called “tribunals.” And they have proliferated in the West. You can bet your state has one, and your county may, too. But, no, you won’t be silenced by them — at least not exactly and not yet. We have that pesky thing called the First Amendment (for now).
But Huber certainly was rebuked. In a Monday panel discussion moderated by the editor of his Philadelphia Magazine, Tom McGrath, he was criticized by what appear to be promising future human-rights-tribunal judges. Fellow journalist Solomon Jones scored the publication for having a “history of racial insensitivity,” while People’s Emergency Center president Farah Jimenez said that the “[m]agazine, which has an all-white editorial staff, was not the right ‘messenger’ for a story encouraging racial dialogue,” writes Philly.com. I wonder, does anyone ever say that the all-black NAACP or Congressional Black Caucus is the wrong agent of racial dialogue? Huber’s goal was to bring white people’s feelings and beliefs on race to light, and for this white people may be the ideal messengers.
Critics at the discussion even questioned whether the individuals cited only by first name (or pseudonym) in the article were real. I suppose they wanted full names, addresses, and telephone numbers, which surely would have encouraged honesty in racial dialogue. But when whites are portrayed in history as slave owners and oppressors, or when blacks charge discrimination today, do the powers-that-be question whether the stories are true? Why, there wasn’t even the necessary skepticism in the Duke Lacrosse rape frame-up case. Of course, though, why even ask? White privilege ensures that whites never, ever have bad experiences with black people.
Not surprisingly, the magazine and its “defenders” responded to the lynch mob with deference. McGrath opened the discussion with an apology, and journalist Christopher Norris said, writes Philly.com, “that he understood the outrage over the article, but simply viewed the piece as the work of an older white man writing about his experience.” Yes, and Nutter’s actions are simply the outrage of an older black man airing his complaints. Jimenez’ comments are simply a middle-aged Hispanic woman expressing her feelings. How did that sound? Should we try to discover truth or just dismiss messengers based on race?
Having said all this, Huber gets no sympathy from me. He says in his piece that white people are stuck being “dishonest by default” on race and that “[w]e need to bridge the conversational divide so that there are no longer two private dialogues in Philadelphia — white people talking to other whites, and black people to blacks — but a city in which it is okay to speak openly about race.” Yet his expressed desire for open conversation rings hollow. When John Derbyshire was fired from National Review for speaking openly about race, or Rush Limbaugh lost his position as an NFL commentator for saying far less, did Huber defend them? Did he even defend their comments as part of that initiation of racial dialogue? I suspect that he was happy to see a political opponent twist in the wind. But if Huber now wants to have that conversation on race, okay, let’s have it.
At the beginning of his piece, Huber speaks of a young woman he calls Susan and writes:
She lost her BlackBerry in a biology lab at Villanova and Facebooked all the class members she could find, “wondering if you happened to pick it up or know who did.” No one had it. There was one black student in the class, whom I’ll call Carol, who responded: “Why would I just happen to pick up a BlackBerry and if this is a personal message I’m offended!”
Huber explains that Carol assumed Susan targeted her because she was black and for a long time thereafter gave Susan the cold shoulder. Here is what Huber didn’t have the guts to say: such paranoia is the result anti-white bigotry. It’s just as when a person is irretrievably biased against someone in his personal life and then sees the individual through colored glasses. Every innocent misstep is then interpreted as a malicious act: “Why, that’s just the kind of thing he would do!” is the thinking. With whites, they’re always “racist” because that’s just the way they are.
And this has consequences. It’s easy to justify hatred of and discrimination against people whom you believe are inherently biased against you, and whites suffer as a result of this phenomenon all the time. Oh, Huber won’t talk about this, and it is why, if you want the truth, forget his article. Read the comments under it. For while the anonymity of the Internet enables some ugly talk, it also encourages expression of some ugly truths.
Just about a year ago I investigated a racially motivated fire attack on a 13-year-old Missouri boy named Allen Coon, who was one of fewer than 20 white children attending East High school in Kansas City. During the course of extensive interviews with parents and students, I learned that Coon and other white children had been subjected to severe racial harassment not just by classmates, but also teachers. One teacher called the tow-headed Allen “Casper” and encouraged other students to participate in the teasing; other times students would initiate the harassment and the teachers would chime in. I also spoke with two sisters, ex-Texans, who were verbally attacked in front of their class by a teacher who said, “Everybody from Texas is ignorant rednecks” and that all white people were responsible for a 1998 attack upon a black man in Jasper, TX (the James Byrd killing) because “[their] skin is white.”
And similar ugly truths are revealed in “Being White in Philly’s” comments section. There’s the white poster who said that in fifth grade in his primarily black school, the teacher would purposely ask him questions too difficult for his grade level and then, when he couldn’t answer, make him stand in front of the class wearing a sign reading “White Dunce.” And here are a few other examples (edited for punctuation and grammar), with respondents identified by screen name:
White kid in blackgradeschool
I was targeted daily throughout my childhood because of my race — that was made explicitly clear (verbally). Even teachers in my school were unsympathetic and would look the other way. And the manner in which race was spoken about in an all black school really inflamed students to the point where everything done to me was completely justified in their minds because, as a white person, I was finally getting mine, and some of the teachers I know felt that way too.
Under the bus
I couldn’t open my mouth in class without half of the kids shouting “Shut-up, white boy,” or many similar things. … [T]he majority of my teachers just looked the other way, and many, though not all, black teachers seemed to support it.
The demographics at my daughter’s school suddenly changed one year with black children becoming the majority, and she became a target.
I attended a small elementary school in Georgia. …I was bullied daily by black kids. Several loudly expressed that they hated white kids, yet could not articulate WHY.
[T]here was the black librarian who joined in with the [black students'] bullying. I had never experienced a teacher who was openly hostile to the white students. …I had to sit there surrounded by the librarian’s favorite black bullies, while she bullied as well.
Of course, we’ll now be told that these testimonials are invalid because, well, you know, these might not even be real people. It’s always nice to have full names so that those who dare speak truth can be scorned, ostracized, condemned, and fired from employment. As SaraEdward45 put it, “No one wants to [air these problems] out loud because you are automatically labeled as a racist and your experience is invalidated, leaving you to feel bullied once more.”
But, hey, it’s great that we’re having this conversation.
Upstate New York’s Catskill Mountain Range is a bucolic place near and dear to my heart. It’s where storybook character Rip Van Winkle enjoyed his legendary slumber, and its scenery hasn’t changed much since he was born of Washington Irving’s fertile imagination. Yet, like Van Winkle, if I’d fallen asleep for 20 years when first arriving in that verdant heaven, I, too, would have noticed some profound changes upon awakening.
About two decades ago, many rural Catskill teens — sons of farmers and hunters and fishermen — suddenly started donning baggy pants and reflecting “gangsta’” counter-culture despite living nowhere near any large urban center. The following generation of teens experienced today’s recent cultural evolution and often sport multiple tattoos and body piercings despite living nowhere near NYC’s grungy East Village. Yet I’m wrong in a sense: those places were actually very close — a television set away.
My old hinterland haunt was once place where, if you wiggled the rabbit-ear antenna just right, you could pull in one or two TV stations. And what could you see? Perhaps reruns of The Brady Bunch, perhaps the news. But about a quarter century ago came VCRs and video stores; then cable and satellite TV; and, finally, the Internet. The serpent had entered Eden.
In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, much fire has been directed at gun advocates in general and the National Rifle Association in particular. In response, the organization has implicated Hollywood and popular culture in general for mainstreaming mindless violence. Yet even many Second Amendment advocates part company with the NRA on this point. After all, blaming entertainment for crime smacks of blaming guns. Yet there’s quite a profound difference: guns don’t transmit values. But how we use guns— and knives, fists and words — on screen certainly does.
This message is often a tough sell, however, as it’s very natural to defend one’s entertainment. We grow up with certain shows, movies, characters and music and often become emotionally attached to them; in fact, we may identify with them so closely that an attack upon them can be taken personally. It’s the same phenomenon that causes an avid sports fan to defend his favorite team as if it’s his favored son. And it is then we may hear that old refrain, “It isn’t the entertainment; it’s the values learned at home” (they’re actually one and the same since entertainment enters the home with, in the least, the parents’ tacit approval).
Yet it appears few really believe that refrain. Sure, depending on our ideology, we may disagree on what entertainment is destructive, but that it can be destructive is something on which consensus exists. Just consider, for instance, that when James Cameron’s film Avatar was released, there was much talk in the conservative blogosphere about its containing environmentalist, anti-corporate and anti-American propaganda. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals wanted the old show Amos ‘n Andy taken off the air because it contained what they considered harmful stereotypes. Or think of how critics worried that Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ would stoke anti-Jewish sentiment or that Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ would inspire anti-Christian feelings, and how the Catholic League complained that The Da Vinci Code was anti-Catholic. Now, I’m not commenting on these claims’ validity. My only point is that when our own sacred cows are being slaughtered, few of us will say, “Well, yeah, the work attacks my cause, but I don’t care because it’s the values taught at home that really matter.”
The truth? Entertainment is powerful. This is why Adolf Hitler had his propaganda filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, and why all modern regimes have at times created their own propaganda films. It’s why the ancient Greeks saw fit to censor the arts and American localities traditionally had obscenity laws. And it is why, while “The pen is mightier than the sword” and a picture mightier still, being worth a “thousand words,” we have to wonder how many words moving footage coupled with sound would be. How mighty art thou, Tinseltown? Well, we worry that a child witnessing one parent continually abuse the other will learn to be violent, as children learn by example. Yet often forgotten is that while a person can model behavior seven feet away from the television, he can also model it seven feet away through the television.
And what effect do our entertainment role models have? Much relevant research exists, and the picture it paints isn’t pretty. For instance, a definitive 1990s study published by The Journal of the American Medical Association found that in every society in which TV was introduced, there was an explosion in violent crime and murder within 15 years. As an example, TV had been banned in South Africa for internal security reasons until 1975, at which point the nation had a lower murder rate than other lands with similar demographics. The country’s legalization of TV prompted psychiatrist Dr. Brandon Centerwall to predict “that white South African homicide rates would double within 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television….” But he was wrong.
By 1987 they had more than doubled.
Then the Guardian told us in 2003 that, “…Bhutan, the fabled Himalayan Shangri-la, became the last nation on earth to introduce television. Suddenly a culture, barely changed in centuries, was bombarded by 46 cable channels. And all too soon came Bhutan’s first crime wave — murder, fraud, drug offences.” The serpent had struck again.
And exactly how it strikes is interesting…and scary. Lt. Col. David Grossman, a former West Point military psychologist and one of the world’s foremost experts on what he calls “killology,” explains the process well. In his essay “Trained to Kill,” he speaks of how the military learned that during WWII only 15 to 20 percent of riflemen would actually shoot at an exposed enemy soldier. Yet this rate was increased to 55 percent during the Korean War and then 90 percent in Vietnam. How? By applying psychological principles, says Grossman, identical to the forces our children are exposed to through entertainment. They are (all quotations are Grossman’s):
- Brutalization and desensitization: this occurs in boot camp where the training is designed “to break down your existing mores and norms and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence, and death as a way of life.” Entertainment can perhaps be even more effective when doing this to children because the process often starts when they’re too young to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Grossman explains:
- To have a child of three, four, or five watch a “splatter” movie, learning to relate to a character for the first 90 minutes and then in the last 30 minutes watch helplessly as that new friend is hunted and brutally murdered is the moral and psychological equivalent of introducing your child to a friend, letting [him] play with that friend, and then butchering that friend in front of your child’s eyes.
- Classical conditioning: the Japanese employed this during WWII. Soldiers would have to watch and cheer as a few of their comrades bayoneted prisoners to death. All the servicemen were then “treated to sake, the best meal they had had in months, and to so-called comfort girls. The result? They learned to associate committing violent acts with pleasure.” Likewise, today “[o]ur children watch vivid pictures of human suffering and death, learning to associate it with their favorite soft drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend’s perfume.”
- Operant conditioning: “When people are frightened or angry, they will do what they have been conditioned to do…. [It’s] stimulus-response, stimulus-response.” Thus, one of the ways the military increased riflemen’s willingness to shoot exposed enemies was to switch from the bull’s-eye targets of WWII training to “realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop into their field of view.” The soldiers have only a split-second to engage this new “stimulus” with the response of firing reflexively. As for kids, “every time a child plays an interactive point-and-shoot video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex and motor skills.” This can help explain, says Grossman, why robbers under stress will sometimes reflexively shoot victims even when it wasn’t “part of the plan.”
If the above seems at all simplistic, note that it’s a life’s work boiled-down to 500 words. Suffice it to say, however, that entertainment has an effect. And do we really consider today’s entertainment benign? We’ve transitioned from a pre-TV America where boys sometimes brought real guns to school for target shooting to a TV-addicted America where boys bring toy guns to school and get suspended. And, of course, the reasons for this societal sea change are complex. But if we’re going to point to one factor, is it wiser to blame the AR-15 than PG-13?
Excerpt from The Master Plan
“My father and his colleague’s findings were staggering. At first, I thought he might have been mistaken, but as I studied the facts, I noticed a subtle, methodical agenda weaving its way throughout the whole affair. After thoroughly examining all of the documents, I was forced to agree with his conclusions.
“Father’s reports contained photocopies of documents and maps that came out of the United Nations conferences and the Convention on Biological Diversity. It was categorized under a project entitled Agenda 21 and the subsection, Sustainable Development. Harsh policies restricting people’s rights and liberties were ratified through international agreements and treaties. Every member of the United Nations was bond by this agreement.
“What was happening in Africa was a mirror of what was taking place all over the world, especially America. After connecting all the dots, there was an obvious plan to reduce the world’s population, seize control of large landmasses, and confine humans to designated island areas.
“America is a nation with many states, yet united under one national head. Africa is a continent, with many independent, separate countries, and according to the United Nations report, the goal regarding Africa and the Middle East was to exploit their vast resources.
“Representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were sent to the heads of countries rich in natural resources. The process involved an offer to transform the country into the modern, 21st century. Repayment for these transformation loans were in the form of natural resources and taxable labor. If a country’s leader rejected the bank’s offer of eternal indebtedness, the CIA, MI6 or a like agency was used to overthrow the leader by whatever means necessary. If those attempts failed, NATO Peacekeeping Forces were deployed to defend the hired rebels and depose the nation’s leader.
“The international media always supported the rebel forces under the banner of democracy. So out of ignorance the public also supported the rebel forces and their supposed battle for freedom. The resisting leader was dethroned and replaced with a tyrannical shill for the international bankers whose sole intent was to exploit the country and the people. This was happening all over Africa and the Middle East.
“At this time, my father and I noticed government-instituted, United Nations family planning centers cropping up in surrounding towns. These family planners held town hall meetings and presented videos that strongly advocated vaccines, contraceptives, sterilization and abortions. These videos were mere propaganda pieces to convince the people to be a participant in the family planners’ program of infanticide. As an inducement, they offered medical supplies and food rations.”
“Why are you calling it infanticide?” I interrupted. “At least one organization was making a sincere effort to address the people’s needs.”
“Killing a three week old infant in the womb or a three year old child is infanticide, Lance.” she retorted. “They were teaching the women that a three years old child was no different than an unborn fetus, since both were unable to make knowledgeable decisions.
“With no questions asked, a mother could deliver her three years old child, or younger, to the United Nations Planners for termination,” Monique responded with disdain.
“Africans have always believed in large families, possessed strong family ties and heterosexuality relationships. Under normal conditions, Africans would never agree to be sterilized, and they certainly would not hand over their children to be murdered. With Africa a warzone, the family planners successfully targeted the hardest hit areas.”
“I see your point. Couldn’t your father or his associates intervene?” I probed.
“They tried,” she answered. “This was all part of the United Nations Agenda 21, population control program. But the African project, which was pure eugenics, was special; it was being assisted with funds from billion dollar tax-exempt foundations whose founders controlled large companies and held the purse strings of governments around the world. The sole objective was to reduce the world’s population. According to their own figures, they wanted to eliminate ninety percent of the population, with Africa and the Middle East their number one targets.”
“What was the world’s population at that time?” I asked.
“Oh, roughly eight and a half billion people,” she quipped.
“So we’re talking about five hundred million people left on the planet when they get through with us,” I countered.
“Yes, approximately five hundred million; but we found some foundations demanding it be reduced to one hundred million. With that small number of people on earth, they claimed, they would be able to procreate as they pleased, they would have the freedom to travel anywhere on the globe un-accosted by commoners, and the whole world would be their playground.”
“That is an awful lot of people to kill, and then bury,” I exclaimed.
“The documents my father discovered provided detailed accounts that every war within the past one hundred years was orchestrated to bankrupt the nations and reduce the population. And yet, war had not significantly decreased the population to their satisfaction.
“The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) provided planning centers with clinics that administered vaccinations. These centers had a list of everyone’s name living in that vicinity. These centers were guarded by the military who administered server punishment to anyone who refused to be vaccinated. We soon discovered that most of the vaccines were laced with various diseases.
“Father began to advance his research, and his findings revealed documented proof that HIV, along with a number of other viruses had been engineered. Under the cloak of germ warfare, Congress funded a project to find a virus capable of deteriorating the human immune system. During the developmental stages, they grafted an assortment of animal viruses that had been mutated in monkeys and chimpanzees. These viruses were eventually cultured with human cells and ultimately injected into human genes. The final result was a number of very powerful, independent viruses commingled into one. What makes AIDS extremely difficult to eradicate, is the number of individual viruses constituting different strains. Father was also able to locate a patent for the cure of AIDS.
“The strain of AIDS introduced into Africa was far more infectious than strains found elsewhere. It was also discovered that the Negroid gene had a predilection to HIV. In some areas of the African continent, seventy-five percent of the people had tested HIV positive, and in other areas, as high as one hundred percent.
“We also learned that most incidents of HIV positive were not being transmitted through homosexual relationships or promiscuous sexual encounters as disseminated by the press. But instead, HIV, as well as other viruses and diseases were being transmitted through the forced immunization program. This was discovered when seven year old children were testing positive for HIV, yet neither parent was found to be HIV positive.
“Included in this genocide called Societal Cleansing was the culling of the genetically inferior, such as morons, misfits, the maladjusted and the aged. Senior citizens were terminated at fifty years old to prevent a financial and psychological burden on society. This also prevented senior citizen’s opposing and archaic views from being passed on to younger generations.
“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was the agency chosen to administer this societal cleansing. This involved restructuring the cities of the world, protecting the ecology against the destructive forces of modern society and the implementation of social equity and the restructuring of life itself. This all fell under the UN Agenda 21’s Sustainable Development program.
“Broad and unbridled authority was given to the EPA to prevent humans from draining the earth’s limited resources. This monstrous plan included every facet of life. Man was considered the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical creature on Mother Earth.
“The law enforcement agency to protect Mother Earth was called the Green Police; they had inclusive authorization to confiscate personal belongings, shut down businesses or operations, and kill anyone that interfered with their agenda.
“The EPA’s Agenda 21 manual, stated:
Global warming, the depletion of fuel, water, food, and the like, is the direct cause of human intervention. The real enemy is humanity itself. The damage people cause the planet is a function of demographics equal to the degree of development. The ecological crisis was really the population crisis. Cut the population by ninety-plus percent and you stop injuring the earth by an equal amount.”
With tongue-in-cheek, I interrupted, “I wonder if any of the UN leaders are willing to sacrifice their lives, or the lives of their children or grandchildren in order to save the earth from the blight of human existence?”
“Well,” she continued, “the presupposition is that Mother Earth has the capacity to regulate or heal herself under natural conditions. But the human species has developed technology to overwhelm the earth’s capacity to heal herself, and she is therefore doomed to destruction unless humans are stopped from their technological assault.
“They depict humans as zombies that must be exterminated to stop their destructive behavior to the earth. The association between human beings and zombies is particularly directed against those that reject Globalism and the Global Warming restructuring programs of the earth, its galactic surroundings, and all life forms are the controlling factors behind this thrust to reduce the population. Those that don’t believe in these programs are portrayed as none-human zombies that exist to consume all they can to satisfy only themselves. But the real reason for this push for population reduction is so that they can have the world as their playground.
“This environmental hocus-pocus merely provided justification for their claim that the population of the world was increasing too quickly, and in order to stabilize the population, at least 350,000 people a day had to be eliminated. Although I agree that the world is over populated, I do not believe killing 350,000 people a day is the solution to the problem.”
I quickly interrupted, “Monique, It’s a fact that the entire population of the world can live comfortably in the State of Texas on an acre per person. So, killing 350,000 people under the pretext of over population is insanity. They’ve purposely herded the masses into the major cities to create the illusion that we’re running out of space and resources, but we’re not. If they’re so bent on reducing the population, I suggest they start with themselves!”
“Most of their efforts,” she continued without comment, “were directed toward the United States. They attributed much of the earth’s devastation to Americans’ standard of living, such as industrialization and their usage of air and earth contaminating products. They claimed that one American burdens the earth more than twenty people from an undeveloped country. I thought it was strange that China was never mentioned, although they are the largest polluters on the planet; it might be due to the fact that they introduced the one child policy.
“It was through the land management policies under Agenda 21 that they confiscated the best areas of the countries and designated them under Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites. All major ecosystems in a region were reserved. To protect these ecosystems, buffer zones were established around them. They defined a buffer zone as an area surrounding any property with restrictions on its use. During the mid-1990s, the United States president donated most of America’s National parks and lands under the Bureau of Land Management, National Rivers and Streams to the United Nations for protection.
“Likewise, the continent of Africa was charted and then divided into major ecosystems for reserve. These conterminous States were encompassed in core reserves with inner corridor zones, which created a wilderness network that dominated a region with human habitations being small islands. They designated a half of the continent as wilderness areas with another fourth as buffer zones. These stringent policies grossly restricted human activity. People lived on small islands communities, they could only travel on the thoroughfares connecting the island communities, and they could never trespass into the buffer zones since they protected the delicate ecosystems. This was being done under a religious hypothesis of protecting Mother Earth against the destructive actions of mankind.”
Purchase The Master Plan now.
© 2013 Al Duncan – All Rights Reserved
Source: News With Views
For some years, several times a week while driving to go shopping and do errands, I have listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Pretty much all the time I have become angered because every few sentences I realized that with his total sincerity and conviction he was stating absolutely incorrect things. Add to endless wrong information complete lapses in logic, causing me to be bewildered that Limbaugh has reached such success. My only explanation is that he appeals to a very large number of ignorant and unintelligent people who, like religious zealots, remain enraptured by his ultra-ring wing rhetoric. What a surprise therefore that recently Limbaugh has been speaking relentlessly about “information poor” Americans as his pseudo brilliant explanation of why President Obama has succeeded.
Two things stand out. First, he clearly refuses to face the reality that it is his incredibly loyal audience that must be information poor to readily accept all the falsehoods he dishes out daily.
Here are just two simple example of intentional misinformation and disinformation he has dispensed, like the proverbial Kool-Aid keeping his listeners doped up. He recently was admonishing President Obama for doing terrible things or not doing the right things and in his routinely glib, smooth style spoke of the five years of the Obama presidency. This happened at about 10 percent into Obama’s second term, in other words some weeks, or about 90 percent less than the full fifth year of the Obama presidency. How could an honest, fair person so easily state to his vast audience that there had already been five years of Obama as president? And yet, there it was. I quickly realized that this specific event was just part of the normal design of the ludicrous Limbaugh rhetoric, actually propaganda designed to maintain the conservative idiocy of his loyal audience.
And then today I heard Limbaugh refer to the settlement of Minnesota by the Vikings. As usual I shook my head in disbelief. I could not imagine how the Vikings had managed to get so far inland when they had hit North Americaaround the year 1000. So when I got home I did some easy research on the web and, of course, verified that I was correct to disbelieve what Limbaugh had said. The Vikings discovered Eastern Canada, not what is now defined asMinnesota. But like everything else Limbaugh mutters he conveys a complete sense of honesty, correctness and conviction, despite being totally wrong. Does Limbaugh connect the Minnesota Vikings to historical fact? Perhaps he has learned from many years of astounding radio success that he can say just about anything and get away with it.
Now for my major point about information poor people that he now talks about endlessly. Limbaugh has shown semantic creativity in expressing racist thinking. When he uses the presence of many millions of information poor Americans to explain Obama and Democratic successes he has devised yet another way to attack African Americans and Hispanic Americans that, indeed, are demographic realities causing failure for Romney and other Republicans. Moreover, it is also apparent that Limbaugh does not appeal to the poorest Americans who he routinely condemns for living off of government handouts.
I suspect that if there were good data about the demographics of the Limbaugh audience they would reveal, like those voting for Romney, that it consists mostly of older, higher income white American men. Well, turns out there is some decent information.
As to the listeners of Limbaugh’s daily radio show, according to a 2008 news media consumption survey conducted by PewResearch, 72 percent are male and 80 percent are conservative. About three-quarters of his listeners identify themselves as Tea Partiers and Christian Conservatives. In other words, Limbaugh does not change the thinking of people, he appeals to a mindset and gives those people exactly what they like. Another source says his audience is 95 percent white and two-thirds earn more than $60k a year with the majority earning over $100k a year. In other words, not only is his audience mostly white men, they are also in the upper parts of the economic spectrum (I suspect mostly small business types who may have learned how to make money but nevertheless are quite ignorant and prejudiced.)
As to his website, according to quantcast.com (as of March 3, 2012) the vast majority of visitors to RushLimbaugh.com are aging white males: 54 percent are 45 and older, with 28 percent 55 and older, and 91 percent are Caucasian.
So here is a radio god whose success depends on having information poor people as addicted listeners using the same concept to condemn those minority Americans he aggressively blames for the ruin of the nation because they vote for Democrats. And of course with his male dominated audience he has shown himself to be rude and worse towards women, another demographic that Republicans have lost.
It is time for people, especially decent Republicans, to condemn wacko Limbaugh for all of his many failures, especially his new attempt to mask racism with the cloak of information deficits. If Republicans ever want to appeal to a broad cross section of Americans they should have the courage to disown and openly condemn the appalling strategy of bloviator Limbaugh to cater to the most stupid and biased Americans. They may, indeed, be seen as the core constituency of the Republican Party, but they are a heavy anchor pulling it down. Interestingly, among Republicans, only 13 percent say they tune in to Limbaugh “regularly.” Time to dump Limbaugh.
It’s as with a man I once knew who insisted it couldn’t be proven that smoking was bad for you. He knew better in his heart, but his available choices — giving up cigarettes or accepting the danger of their use —were both emotionally unpalatable to him. Enter the rationalization.
We’re seeing the same thing with Republicans in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election. Radio host Sean Hannity, citing changing American demographics, stated a while back that his position on immigration has “evolved”: we now must offer illegals some kind of pathway to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty). Other conservatives are warning that we must dispense with social issues or the Republican Party will be dispensed with.
Of course, this isn’t always rationalization. Some conservatives, and Hannity is likely among them, may truly believe that we can avoid electoral hell if we have just one more dance with the Devil. Conservatives have always responded to seemingly inevitable political changes by, slowly but surely, compromising their way to tyranny. But rationalization is a huge factor, and what is the scary truth here that conservatives dare not contemplate?
They are losing the culture.
Little by little.
And as the culture goes, so go political fortunes.
Let’s spell it out:
- To paraphrase Lincoln, “The teaching in the schools today will be the politics of tomorrow.” The left has long controlled academia.
- The media, our conduit of information, is largely controlled by the left.
- As Plato wrote, “When modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them.” Just imagine what he would have said about far more influential television and the Internet, two media through which popular culture — which the left controls — is imbibed.
Now, like a computer, people can only process the data they are given. Thus, even when people function logically like a computer (which can be rare), they’re operating within a leftist matrix of ideas forged by the Triumvirate of Evil (TIE): academia, the media, and popular culture. These data entry specialists ensure that it is garbage in as leftist ideology, garbage out as votes.
This brings us to the so-called culture war. The left is the establishment; it controls the above branches of the pen-not-sword military. Conservatives have been reduced to guerrilla warfare, with groups such as the ACLJ, Family Research Council, and Christian Coalition drawing occasional blood; and citizen militia uprisings such as the defense of Chik-fil-A. And while these actions are sometimes successful, they’re always short-lived and are merely defenses that only serve to slow the loss of traditionalist territory. The reality is that there is no culture war. What is occurring now is a pacification effort.
Some conservatives sense this, but the reality is often too frightening to contemplate. You can vote liberals out of office, but how do you control entities whose agents of change are unelected? Boycotts won’t do it because, unlike elections, they require more than a run-up campaign and one voting day of focus and effort; it’s often impossible to get enough people on board, and in the aggregate most don’t have the discipline to persevere in a boycott, anyway. And what of traditionalists reversing the Gramscian march through the institutions by they themselves entering them? Good luck. Time is short, and, besides, TIE leftists are like The Matrix’s sentient programs: they guard all the gates and hold all the keys.
In addition to this, add another element to my eighth-paragraph list:
4. You can supplement your domestically produced leftist voters by importing some ready-made. Most all our new immigrants are de facto socialists.
This won’t be changed, either, because there no longer are the votes to alter our dhimmi-gration model.
So the hear-see-speak-no-evil reality for conservatives is this: politics will always reflect the culture, which is steadily drifting “left.”
And there is no way to democratically reclaim the culture.
So many conservatives shunt this root-rot into their minds recesses and instead focus on growing pretty leaves on the dying tree: they immerse themselves in the political. Oh, perhaps if we fertilize the Hispanic electorate with the manure of amnesty, it will bloom as a Republican rose. Just one more concession!
Or maybe we just need to stop the blinding sunshine of social issues and try a flood of fiscal conservatism.
First, Republicans have already tried focusing on fiscal matters and de-emphasizing social ones. Note that except when answering direct questions, they didn’t talk about social issues much in the 2012 campaign; it was the Democrats, with their WOW (war on women) propaganda, who talked about what the GOP supposedly believed on them. Ah, this only worked because the media offered air support, you say? See the above list. The media won’t suddenly find virtue but will only intensify the pacification effort.
As for the growing Hispanic voting bloc, as I wrote a while back (admittedly, I didn’t provide enough nuance), they don’t mind social conservatism. And since saying, as I did previously, that they are more socially conservative than are whites is imprecise, I’ll rephrase it: Hispanics are less opposed to social conservatism than are whites.
What Hispanics really want is cradle-to-grave handouts, the kind of big government they voted for — but never could quite get — in their native lands. Whether this comes packaged with social conservatism or social liberalism is secondary.
To spell it out more precisely, a higher percentage of whites are passionately opposed to social conservatism, but a higher percentage of whites are also passionately for it. As for Hispanics, the best description of them isn’t socially conservative or liberal, but socially indifferent. They may register the obligatory nod when their priest talks about abortion, but they’d do the same in a setting in which social liberalism was the default. It’s simply not something on which their votes hinge. And because of this indifference, their youth will and do conform to the liberal spirit of the age.
Conclusion: Hispanics are not a natural conservative constituency.
Let’s tackle another myth. We often here that this is a “conservative” country, with a plurality of the electorate describing themselves as conservative; as Pew reported, “40% of Americans[…]describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.” But two important factors are missed here. First, the majority of any nation could be called “conservative,” as the only consistent definition of that term involves a desire to maintain the status quo, and the status quo is determined by the majority. Second, today’s status quo was shaped by yesterday’s left and thus is in that sense “liberal.” This dovetails with the second factor:
Most “moderates” are actually liberals, usually of the lukewarm variety.
How can this be? First, wishy-washy people lacking in principle will hew mostly to what’s fashionable, and, again, progressivism is that. Second, liberals are solipsistic and self-centered and thus see themselves as defining the center (and any deviation from their beliefs as radicalism); hence, even when they are left of our “leftist” middle, in their minds they may be moderates. Third, liberals want to fancy themselves open-minded, so they often like believing they’re voices of reason, moderate and not, perish the thought, extreme. Lastly, both the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been demonized to a degree, and it takes conviction to brand yourself as one who has unfashionably strayed from the pack. And since liberals are far more likely than conservatives to be relativists — to believe, “Man is the measure of all things” and thus that true principle (which is transcendent) is an illusion — they tend to care more about social standing than standing on “social constructs” (principles). Ergo, they’re more likely than conservatives to adopt a label that sounds good than one that rings true.
So that is America in 2012. And where do we go from here? For starters, we need to stop fooling ourselves. Many Johnny-come-lately-to-reality types only started talking about Republicans’ demographic and cultural winter after the Nov. 6 election, as if some kind of unforeseeable revolution had taken place. But while it may have represented a tipping point, a long Gramscian evolution had pushed America to that point. A process is in motion, a disease besets us, and if you understand its pathology, you know that no amount of Hispandering or appeals to virtue (e.g., personal responsibility) with an electorate largely lacking in the quality will bear fruit. The remaining healthy acorns need to recognize this, stop trying to fertilize a tree destined for the sawmill, and instead prepare to seed new ground.
While modern society prides itself on being unbiased, it’s no exception to the rule that every age has its fashionable prejudices — and unfashionable people. Among the latter today are white men, and the closer they are to “dead white male” status, to use a favored leftist descriptive, the greater the disdain in which they’re held.
Thus do we see sneering at “old white men.” Earlier this year, Senator Harry Reid — one well acquainted through experience with old-white-male machinations — complained of “angry old white men” who bankroll conservative causes. More recently, the old-white-media paper the Guardian published a piece about America’s changing demographics titled, in part, “No country for angry old white men….” Ah, yes, it’s not just that they’re old, white, and men, that triad of turpitude. They’re “angry,” too. So just dismiss them out of hand, with their agenda born of blinding, irrational hatred. It’s another example of projection, from the group (leftists) that makes intellect-clouding emotionalism an art.
If we’re to define matters based on group identification, however — and the left makes clear we will — there is an irony here.
You could roughly say that old white men built the whole modern world.
You can precisely say this if you include in the category the budding old white men known as younger white men. Who were all the great inventors, innovators, and philosophers from ancient Greece and Rome up through medieval and modern Europe and the United States? Who forged the West? Who birthed democracy? Who improved upon it, giving us our Constitution and modern republican government? There is a reason why most of the busts and pictures of legendary figures portray old white men.
We might also note that while old white men probably weren’t the first to practice slavery, they were the first to eliminate it. The same can be said of human rights: old white men had lots of company trampling them. They were alone in crafting the modern conception of them.
And is America really advancing as old white men’s cultural and political weight wanes? During what group’s hegemony were our national finances, morality, culture, and economic growth healthiest? Is there a group with a better track record of running successful civilizations? As to this, if only old white men had voted during the last 50 years, we likely wouldn’t be facing the fiscal cliff that hangs over us like a sword of Damocles.
Of course, much demonization of old white men is mere artifice, an effort to sell an inferior product (liberalism) by discrediting its opposition. “Hey, why buy from these white-prune Willy Loman salesmen when you can patronize sales people? We’re young, we’re hip, and quick with the lip!” Yet this appeal only works by playing on very real prejudices. Exposition of the anti-white variety has been done to death in the Reality Media. It was epitomized when Susan Sontag said, “The white race is the cancer of human history” and thus proved that some white people certainly are. But far more interesting and less discussed is the other bias relevant here: that against the aged.
For most of history, old was gold. There is the stereotype of the wise old man, and, historically, societies would be governed by “elders.” For example, ancient Sparta had a council of elders, and only men of at least 60 years of age qualified. And, of course, insisting that children respect their elders was once common.
This now has been turned on its head. One underappreciated reason why John McCain lost the 2008 election is that he appeared old — an old-looking candidate hasn’t won the presidency since the TV era’s advent — whereas Barack Obama seemed young and hip. And while fear that the person may die in office and our eye-candy culture certainly explain this in part, an increasingly significant factor is that many view seniors as they do our Constitution: old and yellowed and not relevant to our time. Just consider how the only consistent stereotype the hit show Seinfeld played upon was that of older people — and it was wholly unflattering. They were portrayed as doddering, out of touch, dishonest, egotistical, argumentative, and petty, too engrossed in trivial matters to ponder what’s truly important (such as, apparently, figuring out how to find someone more attractive to sleep with).
Of course, as Warren Buffet, Noam Chomsky, and many others prove, “Wisdom doesn’t always come with age; sometimes age just shows up all by itself.” Yet even if the two are joined at the hip, it won’t matter among a people who devalue wisdom. Note that the definition of the word — until dictionary writers lost their wisdom — was “knowledge of what is true or good.” But there is no such thing in a relativistic universe, that realm with favored mantras such as “That’s your ‘truth’; someone else’s may be different” and “Don’t impose your values on me!” There can be no objective “good” if there is no God; nothing can be truly “true” if there is no Truth. And what is left when people no longer perceive Truth’s existence and thus cannot use it as a yardstick for behavior? There then is just taste, preference, and what do we call the moment’s consensus tastes?
And this is where the elderly cannot compete. People who believe in Truth understand it’s timeless; that those who have lived longer will generally have apprehended more of it; and that it doesn’t matter if older people aren’t “with the times,” only whether the times are with the Truth. But the young will always be more with the fashions. And owing to that dislocation from Truth, they will often embrace fashions even when they’re fallacies. They won’t know they’re fallacies, either, as moderns’ only perceived standard for judging such things is the fashions themselves. And they won’t care what elders have to say about tried and true “wisdom.” It would be much like telling them that they should dispense with pizza in favor of their grandparents’ 1940s biscuits and gravy. It’s all a matter of preference, so why should they subordinate their tastes to those of the past?
This gets at the insidiousness of modern liberalism. The French revolutionaries sought to erase the past by starting history anew with their revolution’s first year, 1789; the Khmer Rouge sought to do so with their “Year Zero.” But revolutionary change is too obvious; it doesn’t gently boil the frog as does modern liberalism’s evolutionary variety. Progressives don’t make any major pronouncements, dear citizen, about the first year of the rest of your life. They simply disconnect each generation from the last — from the past — with the message that, hey, ya’ gotta be with it, which means being nothing like grandpa. And the “it” is change, not tradition; current tastes, not Truth; fashions and not fact. Just convince the young to ignore the old or dead — especially if they’re white and male — the people who formulated Western civilization’s recipe, and that Occidental delicacy is history. Then you will have started history anew not with an iron fist, but sleight of hand that keeps the frog simmering soundly.
Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “To be ignorant of the past is to be forever a child. For what is the time of a man, except it be interwoven with that memory of ancient things of a superior age?” Demonizing white men old or dead keeps the young and alive disconnected from them and hence from the past. This gives us a civilization of children, just the kind of people a pied piper can lead.
Democratic politics is a false premise experiment. The foundation of modern liberalism, based upon an erroneous worldview, is a dead end ideology. Compared to the mad NeoCon war-mongering alternative, the fatal attraction of progressives, allures weak minded and desperate people into thinking government can provide solutions. Step back from the false left-right political discussions and focus upon the principles that make up sound and balanced standards for a civil society.
Basic contrasts between Conservatives and Liberals defined by Christian Walker seem plausible.
“At the core of it, Conservatives base their ideology on what they see as reason and logic and it is individualistic by nature, whereas a liberal’s ideology is based on emotion and ideals and is collective by nature. A liberal is interested in curing society’s ills by social engineering. A conservative is interested in curing society’s ills by individuals exercising their own choices to better themselves. Because of this, conservatives view centralized power with deep suspicion. Liberals on the other hand see centralized power as an opportunity to affect great change for good.”
The central precept that separates and differentiates democratic politics from traditional conservative advocacy rests upon moral doctrine. However, scholars are determined to avoid this requirement with theories such as Realism V. Liberalism. Understanding International Relations Theory, “how the world works IR scholars usually subscribe to one of two dominant theories, realism or liberalism. One, classical/neo-realist thought, is more pessimistic about the prospects of peace, cooperation, and human progress whilst the other, liberalism/idealism, is more upbeat and sanguine about human nature and human possibilities.”Modern Liberalism is based upon the following set of assumptions:
1.Human nature is essentially “good”
2.The fundamental human concern for others’ welfare makes progress possible
3.Sinful or wicked human behavior such as violence is not the product of flawed people but of evil institutions
4.War and international anarchy are NOT inevitable
5.War is a global problem requiring collective rather than national efforts to control it
6.Reforms must be inspired by a compassionate ethical concern for the welfare and security of all people
7.International society must reorganize itself in order to eliminate the institutions that make war likely
The America First foreign policy viewpoint is anti-war and anti-empire. Foreign intervention to make the world safe for democracy is pure poppycock. The premises of democratic liberalism suffer from the illusion that humanity, as a whole, is able to build a global alignment of institutions, treaties and interconnections that can result in international harmony.
The notion, which discredits democratic bias and governmental programs that surround us, is all around. The utter catastrophe of the Obama administration is not simply a failure of a partisan regime. It is systemic of a system that has abandoned time-honored principles.
The inspiring and late Dr. Schaeffer preached the following message back in 1982.
“I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view — that the final reality is an infinite creator God — over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.”
Can any person argue with sincerity that fundamental improvement in the plight of humanity has improved in the last three decades?
Facing up to the decline in Western Civilization is hard for many people. Most prefer the comfort of illusionary denial. Justin Raimondo offers a cogent insight in TheDemocratic Delusion.
“Rooted in the old-fashioned idea that people are merely the playthings of all-powerful and highly abstract forces, Soviet socialism was a throwback to the reactionary mechanistic doctrines that had ruled the earth and its peoples since time immemorial. Human beings, in this view, are passive lumps of clay whose fate is determined by History, the gods, or, perhaps, the gods of history.”
This looming conflict for the democratic liberal is unsettling, since their beloved governmental authority structure, is their presupposed answer to resolve intrinsic power struggles. After stripping away all the political posturing and propaganda, the Obama cohorts are left with an empty intellectual defense of their pernicious and intrusive tyranny.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS – MAXINE WATERS
MICHAEL SAVAGE EXPLAINS THE MENTAL DISORDER LIBERALISM
Those who identify themselves as part of the Democratic Party or supporters of liberal policies really do suffer from a mental disease. The Maxine Waters’ video illustrates, while caring the bucket for the cause. Move over and watch Michael Savage, Herb Denenberg is giving you a run for top honors.
“You can look at almost any plan and policy of Obama, and more often than not find it runs contrary to common sense and logical thinking. He more often than not does the opposite of what common sense would dictate.”
Apply the following Obama traits to your favorite liberal. Do they also suffer from the same symptoms?
A. NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. If that’s not enough, consider the Mayo Clinic’s definition of narcissistic personality disorder: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”
B. PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. I think the most obvious disorder to add to all of the above is being a pathological liar. That condition is defined by the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary as follows: “an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.”
C. THE TALKING DISEASE. I’ve spoken of another mental disorder, which I don’t think psychiatry has yet named. It is the talking disease. He thinks his words are magical, and that all he has to do is talk to solve problems.
Liberals and progressives want to feel your pain, while inflicting misery from the consequences of their policies. The Manchurian Candidate president champions Marxist pillaging as a badge of pride. The crux of the rationale that drives such plunder is humanism. Dr. Schaeffer warns, “A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It’s the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration.” The point made is that the liberal sickness infects “so called” conservatives with the integrations of the progressive disease into all levels and stratums of a dependent society.Utopian delusions are the prevalent and dominate political mindset. This infection forbids a serious and substantial contraction of government deficit spending or useless programs. As long as Democrats swallow the social poison of multicultural nirvana, in a futile attempt to create a worldly paradise, the planet is doomed.
The few remaining conventional Democrats bear little similarity with the ultratotalitarian collectivists that currently hold the majority in the U.S. Senate. Abdicating the responsibility of passing a federal budget may seem trivial to the hordes of dependent addicts that vote the liberal/progressive slate. Nevertheless, the results from the next election, the prospect of instituting a sober and comprehensive reform of government is but a pipe dream for wishful escapists.
The final indisputable proof of neurotic perspective is that the electorate may likely vote Barry Soetoro to another term. The reason for such an irrational prospect is that the infected public is plagued by modern liberalism. Is it possible to dialogue with institutionalized progressives? Can cogent arguments penetrate the locked doors in their palatial asylum suites or are they so committed to their medicated state of denial that the destruction of the country is viewed as a mere academic speculation?
Radical Reactionaries understand that co-existence with essentially decadent bottom feeders is a suicidal prospect. America’s collapse is a certainty on much more than an economic level. Political dialogue or activist immersion is a most painful exercise for the average person. The depths of the “Politically Correct” culture disallow a serene separation from federal supremacy. Individual state sovereignty is the only practical response to central despotism. Democrats refused to run a primary challenge to a sitting President in their own party. That error renounced any assertion of the high ground or argument claiming the role of an honest opposition.
The legacy of FDR haunts the socialists that strive to empower the nanny state. H.L. Mencken had it correct, “The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.”
Still the demographics, especially in several swing states like Virginia and Wisconsin, may rally the government employed or the entitled reliant to rise up the dead and vote for Democrats in November. To these kind of voters, the democratic view of the world, transforms into digging graves for the dynamic producers, who create all the wealth.
The progressive malady that shapes public policy is the ultimate superstition. I am from the government and here to help you.
Thyroid cancer cases have more than doubled since 1997 in the U.S., while deadly industrial practices that contaminate groundwater with radiation and other carcinogens are also rising.
New information released by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates that 56,460 people will develop thyroid cancer in 2012 and 1,780 will die from it.
That’s up from 16,000 thyroid cancer cases in 1997 – a whopping 253% increase in fifteen years, while the US population went up only 18%.
From 1980 to 1996, thyroid cancer increased nearly 300%, while the population increased by (again) 18%.
Most thyroid cancers don’t develop for 10-30 years after radiation exposure, but the monstrous spike in thyroid cancer from 1980-2012 is only partly the result of Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 (TMI).
Pennsylvania, with its nine nuclear reactors, does have the highest incidence of thyroid cancer across nearly all demographics among 45* states, reports epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, of the Radiation and Public Health Project. In 2009, he analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control’s national survey of thyroid cancer incidence for the years 2001-2005 and compared it with proximity to nuclear power stations, finding:
“[M]ost U.S. counties with the highest thyroid cancer incidence are in a contiguous area of eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and southern New York. Exposure to radioactive iodine emissions from 16 nuclear power reactors within a 90 mile radius in this area … are likely a cause of rising incidence rates.”
TMI also can’t explain why the thyroid cancer rate for the four counties flanking Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York was 66% above the national rate in 2001-2005.
Other, more subtle sources may also be contributing to hiked thyroid cancer rates, like leaking nuclear power plants and hydraulic fracturing, both of which contaminate air, soil and groundwater with radiation and other nasty chemicals.
Indeed, remarking on this, Mangano (who recently co-authored a controversial study with toxicologist Janette Sherman suggesting a link between Fukushima fallout and US cancer deaths numbering from 14,000 to 20,000) said:
“From 1970-1993, Indian Point released 17.50 curies of airborne I-131 and particulates…. [That] amount exceeded the official total of 14.20 curies released from the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. In 2007, officials that operate the Indian Point plant reported levels of I-131 in the local air, water, and milk, each of which is a potential vector for ingestion.”
Iodine-131, or I-131, is a radioactive isotope produced by nuclear fission.
Fracking a ‘Dirty Bomb’
Radiation isn’t released into the environment only via nuclear plants and bombs. Geologist Tracy Bank found that fracking mobilizes rock-bound uranium, posing a further radiation risk to our groundwater. She presented her findings at the American Geological Society meeting in Denver last November.
Because of some 65 hazardous chemicals used in fracking operations, former industry insider, James Northrup, calls it a “dirty bomb.” With 30 years of experience as an independent oil and gas producer, he explains:
“The volume of fluid in a hydrofrack can exceed three million gallons, or almost 24 million pounds of fluid, about the same weight as 7,500 automobiles. The fracking fluid contains chemicals that would be illegal to use in warfare under the rules of the Geneva Convention. This all adds up to a massive explosion of a ‘dirty bomb’ underground.”
What’s underground seeps into our groundwater.
Thomas House and his wife have become ill since New Dominion, LLC began drilling for oil and gas behind their home in Wellston, Oklahoma. He’s tested the water for barium and strontium, and indoor air quality for BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and styrenes).
Though none of the levels exceed EPA standards, he insists the drilling operations are causing their illness.
“We have been getting sick from headaches, nose bleeds, rashes, vomiting, burning eyes, and breathing problems for the last year,” he told me.
House is reliant on the Veterans Administration for health care, but it refuses to test him for BTEX poisoning.
Radioactive Drinking Water
Though scientists have associated thyroid cancer with water supplies contaminated by nitrates (another knock against industrial agriculture), it is usually indicative of radiation poisoning, as the thyroid sucks up iodine – radioactive or not. Those with not enough iodine in their diets are more susceptible to absorbing I-131.
NCI says that the main sources of radiation exposure are X-rays, nuclear fallout and radiated food and drinking water. The Centers for Disease Control reports that women are three times more susceptible to thyroid cancer than men, with white women being most susceptible. Rather than noticing any symptoms, most often, they discover a lump on their neck.
The good news is that 95 percent of thyroid cancer is successfully treated.
The bad news is that radiation exposure is also coming from our food and water supply.
For over a year, a Houston news station has been reporting on a governmental cover-up of radiation in drinking water. KHOU says that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality under-reported radioactive contaminants in drinking water for over 20 years.
But not just Texas authorities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also low-balled radiation stats by simply not looking for specific radioactive elements, which can be more common and more dangerous than, say, Strontium-90.
Eventually, Texas shut-down two of Houston’s water wells shown to be radioactive.
From an investigative series by the Associated Press last year, we learned that 75 percent of US nuclear power plants leak radioactive materials. Documents from 48 of 65 commercial nuclear power sites showed that radioactive tritium leaked – often into groundwater – in concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard, and sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.
Nukes, Fracking and Earthquakes
The global fallout from Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown means our food and water absorbed radioactive fallout. But, we also see an increasing number of earthquakes from fracking operations that further threaten nuclear plants, which are old, leaking and “brittle” (AP’s word).
Information compiled by Treehugger last year showed that of the 104 commercial nuclear power plants and 34 nuclear research stations, many sit in seismically active locations.
Though earthquake risk in Texas is considered very low, last October, Atascosa County saw a rare 4.8 magnitude quake centered 130 miles from the South Texas Project nuclear power plant. The temblor originated in Fashing Field, a highly productive oil and gas field. One company, Momentum Oil and Gas, is producing 3.8 million cubic feet of gas per day from the field.
Many states that normally had very low seismicity have seen an incredible upswing in earthquake frequency with the advent of hydraulic fracturing, which the feds have long known about. As far back as 1966, federal authorities suspected the fracking-earthquake link so strongly that they shut down Rocky Mountain Arsenal’s 12,000-foot injection well after several quakes rattled Denver.
In 1981, researchers suggested that mobile pressure dynamics could explain epicenters some ways distant from such wells.
Ohio recently shut down two fracking waste injection wells after a New Year’s Eve earthquake, and in 2010 New York imposed a statewide moratorium. Ohio has two nuclear power plants (both on Lake Erie) and New York has five, operating six reactors.
Ohio’s 5.0 earthquake on January 31, 1986 that rocked eleven states and Ontario, Canada was centered 11 miles south of the Perry Nuclear Plant. Researchers suggested the quake was induced by fracking, writing in 1988:
“Three deep waste disposal wells are currently operating within 15 km of the epicentral region and have been responsible for the injection of nearly 1.2 billion liters of fluid at pressures reaching 112 bars above ambient at a nominal depth of 1.8 km. Estimates of stress inferred from commercial hydrofracturing measurements suggest that the state of stress in northeastern Ohio is close to the theoretical threshold for failure along favorably oriented, preexisting fractures.”
Not only preexisting fractures, but new ones created by the massive surge in earthquake swarms also present a risk. As modern horizontal fracturing techniques are employed, earthquake frequency goes up.
From 1900-1970, Arkansas experienced 60 earthquakes. After fracking operations picked up in the mid-1970s, that number jumped exponentially. Per the Advanced National Seismic System, in 2010 alone, Arkansas felt over 700 earthquakes; in 2011, it endured over 800.
The number of quakes in 2010 and ’11 represents a 2,400% increase over the number of quakes in the first 70 years of the 20th century, before horizontal fracking began. With that spike in frequency, is it any wonder that a new faulthas opened up in Arkansas? Geologists say the new fault shows a history of 7+ magnitude earthquakes.
Though the 2001-2005 thyroid incidence data reveals that Arkansas has the lowest incidence of thyroid cancer of all 45 states surveyed, that may change should the new fault become seismically active and damage the state’s two 40-year-old nuclear reactors.
Of note, Arkansas’ nuclear reactors are run by Entergy, which operates eleven others including 40-year-old Vermont Yankee (strontium-90 found in nearby fish last August) and New York’s nearly 40-year-old Indian Point (failed inspection and sought over 100 safety exemptions last year).
Pennsylvania is another strong fracking state, vulnerable to earthquakes originating within or outside its borders. It also houses nine nuclear reactors at five locations. A swarm of small earthquakes occurred near Dillsburg from 2008 until early 2011, reports the state’s Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Dillsburg is 16 miles from Three Mile Island, which still operates one nuclear reactor.
Last August, most of the east coast felt a 5.8 magnitude quake whose epicenter is just 11 miles from two reactors at the North Anna nuclear power plant in Virginia. Both 30-year-old reactors had to be shut down. RT reports:
“The odds of a quake exceeding a magnitude of 5.5 occurring in central Virginia are so slim that Dominion Power determined only around six quakes of that size would occur in the area over the next 10,000 years.”
Protect Your Water Supply
Radioactive particles damage bones, DNA and tissue, including the thyroid. Water softeners, ion exchange, carbon filters or reverse osmosis water-treatment systems can be installed in the home to reduce concentration levels. The National Sanitation Foundation certifies various products for efficacy in reducing or eliminating particular contaminants.
To reduce or eliminate radiation from food and water, see this compilation of articles recommending various techniques, including washing your vegetables in bentonite clay.
A more proactive way to protect the water supply is to decommission nuclear power plants and ban hydraulic fracturing, lest your hometown ranks among the 10 Most Radioactive Places on Earth.
*When the CDC surveyed states for thyroid cancer in its landmark 2001-2005 study, it neglected to publish data for Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Embedded in Creation…
Reformed theology is heavily flavored with intellectualism. Scholastic achievements and college degrees are used to lend authenticity to theological positions and there are too many meritocratic mini-tomes written in support of what are sometimes nit-picky contentions. These contentions sometimes blur and distort more important issues.
Regent University graduate Steve Halbrook, a talented young Christian scholar, has written a book entitled “God Is Just; A defense of Old Testament Civil Laws”. I was attracted to the subtitle since I also support Old Testament Civil Law. Following the Acknowledgements, in the pages preceding the narrative, Halbrook found it necessary to include a section entitled “A Disclaimer Regarding Sources”. Particularly concerned with the Federal Vision, and Kinism he penned the following footnote:
”Spiritually-speaking, there are two races—the elect and the reprobates. As God
told the serpent after the Fall: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall
bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). Thus the Fall didn’t produce racial
division along physical lines, but spiritual lines. This is why the Bible forbids
Christians from marrying non-Christians, but does not forbid blacks from marrying
whites, or Hispanics from marrying Asians, etc. For Christians, when it comes to
marriage the issue is whether the other person is a Christian, regardless of skin
There is no heresy in the paragraph but the verbiage and the emphasis are aberrant. When the word “race” is used to differentiate between the elect and reprobates, there is nothing left to describe the numerous, physically and socially diverse, people that inhabit the various areas of God’s Creation. They are all made in His image and all have physical similarities. They are all sinners and all candidates for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, there are substantial differences. Cultures are distinct, sharing different sets of “attitudes, values, goals, and practices”. Though there has been a concerted effort by multi-cultural, one-world, elitists to confuse and destroy the meaning of the words race and culture the distinctions remain.
Race and culture are related. Different races live in different cultures and their behavior will exhibit their unique cultural influences.
While it is correct that there is nothing in the Bible condemning interracial marriage, neither is there anything that encourages it. The God of the Bible did create diverse languages and scatter the people at Babel. Though the historical connection between Babel and racial diversity is missing racial diversity is a fact in a universe governed by the Sovereign God whose dealings with various nations and races are recorded in the Bible narrative.
Christian marriage across racial lines is acceptable, but the diversity God created should be respected and efforts to ignore races and cultures with the intent of bringing about a one race pagan society with a single heretical state religion is a direct confrontation to the Will of God and a grievous sin.
The Bible supports the family. It records genealogy and the relationships of family members. Marriage not only creates a union between a man and women but also brings together two families. Proper family relationships contribute to good marriages. Cultural diversity hampers family relationships.
Attempts to destroy race and culture in the United States of America are major problems in this era. Pat Buchanan’s banishment from MSNBC (The MS is for Microsoft) is a case in point.
According to a tiny article in our paper NSNBC’s president Phil Griffin has banned Patrick Buchanan from the network because “he doesn’t think the book (Suicide of a Superpower) should be part of the national dialogue, much less discussed on MSNBC. Buchanan argues that America is in the “Indian summer of our civilization”. The book contains chapters entitled “The End of White America” and “The Death of Christian America”. Apparently there are a least two major violations of the propaganda being promoted by our monopolistic media: Racism – it is proper to promote many races but unpopular to promote the American racial majority. Christianity – religious discussions of multiple religious faiths are allowed but Biblical Christianity is condemned and has been successfully discouraged.
The Media will argue that they are paying their commentators and therefore have a right to censor their opinions. There is some truth to that position but it disregards the right of the public to hear all sides of every issue. The American media is a monopoly at both the top and bottom. At the top it is controlled by a handful of powerful, like minded elitists and at the bottom most cities have one newspaper and the usual plethora of television channels that spew out the same biased new coverage along with buckets of degradation
The internet is a refreshing alternative where media censored news is available along with excellent information on almost every subject. It is a little like the old West with freewheeling gunfighters, outlaws, sheriffs, and preachers. There are writers that attack the establishment; there are users that attack the writers; there are clubby unions of agreeable users; there are writers that provide guesses as fact and writers that present theory as reality; there is lots of false information, but through it all a discerning reader can become well informed. Unfortunately, many of our citizens either do not have internet access or do not have time to use it properly.
Banning Pat Buchanan from the media because one does not agree with his book violates freedom of speech and freedom of the press; because of the public nature of news reporting, I believe it is a violation of the First Amendment and is illegal. However, there are vigorous urgings to terminate Buchanan and Griffin seems to be heeding them. Zionists demand free speech for their monopolistic media as long as they can control it.
Multi-culturalism has been promoted by the Zionist controlled networks and attempts to preserve the White European Culture are targets of this assault. Wikipedia describes immigration in the United State this way “American immigration history can be viewed in four epochs: the colonial period, the mid-nineteenth century, the turn of the twentieth, and post-1965. Each period brought distinct national groups, races, and ethnicities to the United States. During the seventeenth century, approximately 175,000 Englishmen migrated to Colonial America.] Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants. The mid-nineteenth century saw mainly an influx from northern Europe; the early twentieth-century mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe; post-1965 mostly from Latin America and Asia.”
In 1952 Senator Pat McCarran recorded this statement into the Congressional Record: “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States…. I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”
In a comprehensive book (available on line) entitled “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review” Professor Kevin MacDonald writes: “The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority in the period from 1924-1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of the peoples of northern and western Europe in maintaining a status quo as of 1924.”
United States was never a Christian Nation but it was a nation with a predominantly Christian population. Today, Christians are censored, mocked, vilified, and confined to the interior of their churches. The Zionist controlled media regularly trashes Christianity and Zionist controlled organizations like the ACLU tirelessly strive to destroy the Christian religion. Laws are being encoded that require Christians to defy the edicts of their God making obedience to God a crime against the state. Demographics tells us that in a few short decades the European Christian culture that produced our nation will be a minority
Many Americans wonder how this has happened. One of the sentences from the preceding paragraph by Professor Kevin MacDonald helps one understand. “What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years.” Jewish ethnic interests worked for decades to expand immigration and remove requirements for new residents. They worked to bring this about with a vigor that would convince a dispassionate observer that they were bent on destroying the nation. In 1965, a new immigration act was passed that dropped skill requirements, opened the door to Asian cultures and allowed immigrants to bring in their families. This new immigration bill introduced in the House by Congressman Emanuel Cellar and promoted in the Senate by Senator Jacob Javits, both Jewish, forever changed the culture and character of our nation.
Zion is a Biblical term that carries a favorable connotation for most Christians. Unfortunately, today’s Zionism has little in common with the Bible, the Torah, ancient Israel, or the Law of Moses. Israel is a secular state and the considerable Zionist world hegemony is secular and amoral. With the lawless heresy of Dispensationalism providing an exploding Christian support Zionism has succeeded in a bloodless coup in the United States. Ariel Sharon said, “We, the Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know it”!
There are real and important social distinctions resulting from diverse races and cultures. These distinctions cannot be ignored. White European immigrants were the founders of the United States of America; they brought Christianity, the essential ingredient for peace and freedom. Prior to the 1965 immigration fiasco serious consideration was given to the race and culture of immigrants.
Interracial marriage is not a sin but it creates problems that unions within race and culture avoid.
The significance of the Jewish race in United States is a case in point. A race that makes up about one percent of our population makes up over thirty percent of students at Harvard. They control our media, own many of your major corporations, and hold significant sway over our government. They consider their race superior and their accumulation of power confirmation of their superiority. They hate Christianity and with the support of hordes of naïve Christians are in the process of using their considerable power to replace it.
Our schizophrenic society has made harming species of animals a crime while at the same time passing other laws that allow human species to destroy themselves. Recognizing races and nations as God given entities does not translate into White supremacy nor does the recognition of racial differences. These are realities that we need to be recognized and confronted.
The Apostle Paul said Christian workers were better to remain single. He did not condemn marriage but believe being single allowed more time to spread the Gospel. Marriage across racial lines is similar; interracial marriage is not a sin but marriage within ones race and culture is superior.
Several months ago, Time editor Fareed Zakaria, a transplant who fled India, told Terri Gross of National Public Radio that America will add a healthy 138 million people via immigration in the next 39 years. He neglected to mention that his own country at 1.2 billion and headed for 1.6 billion—suffers untold human misery, poverty, environmental destruction, carbon footprint, ecological footprint, filthy rivers, toxic drinking water and a litany of problems that are irreversible and unsolvable. I know because I have traveled through India. There is no “Indian Dream” for nine-tenths of its population. The squalor, filth and misery of India takes a sane person’s breath away. And, there is no hope of conditions improving, ever.
I wrote Terri Gross with facts, figures and graphs to show that we cannot sustain another 138 million at the level of water, energy and resource usage of an average American. I invited her to interview my work and that of 35 other top PH.D. experts in the field of environment and overpopulation. She declined.
The fact remains: NPR and the Main Stream Media avoid, evade and suppress any discussion on America’s human overpopulation. Men like Zakaria, are known as “innumerates” or credentialed individuals that lack the ability to perform simple math. Dr. Albert Bartlett, www.albartlett.com, of the University of Colorado, defines “innumeracy” as the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy.
Recently, Zakaria spouted more innumeracy when he said, “US demographics are strikingly healthy. We’ll be the only rich country to increase its population over the next 30 years.” We are following the miserable population path already tread by India and China as the third fastest growing nation on the planet. But not by our own hand as American women have averaged 2.03 children since 1970. As the world adds 1 billion every 12 years on its way to adding 3 billion in 40 years, we will see growing and unending starvation, wars for resources and a line of desperate world citizens knocking on our door to enter. They are already busting down the door on the Mexican border. But Zakaria welcomes unlimited growth!
To which one of the most brilliant men in history said, “Unlimited population growth cannot be sustained; you cannot sustain growth in the rates of consumption of resources. No species can overrun the carrying capacity of a finite land mass. This Law cannot be repealed and is not negotiable.” Dr. Albert Bartlett
I wrote Zakaria a similar letter with facts, graphs and figures. He did not respond, because “innumerates” cannot respond to facts or in most cases, reality. In fact, such persons gain tremendous audiences because few want to face the facts or the future with any realistic understanding of what will happen. It’s the proverbial Cassandra Syndrome.
Once again, others like to shoot the messenger. I am a messenger and a very exceptional one.
One reader from Michigan wrote, “And yet if you try to inform most people of any of those alarming statistics, you are almost guaranteed a “shoot the messenger” reception. Question the growing number of food stamp and/or welfare recipients and you’re called selfish, a bigot and “not willing to share.” Mention the high rate of illiteracy and it quickly becomes a racist thing. And if one dares suggest even a slowing of the influx of immigrants, well . . . you may just get reminded that somewhere in your family history your ancestors came from somewhere else, and that maybe you should just go live in that country! I know that more than one person has said that to me (as if the conditions were the same in 1900 as they are today — not to mention that in those pre-welfare days someone coming to America either engaged in productive work or they didn’t survive!) Keep up the good work. There are readers like myself, that are not afraid to pass this on, despite the listener almost always letting us know they’d rather not hear about it.”
One reader told me that he is optimistic as to adding 100 million. Sorry, optimism won’t cut it when we don’t have the water, energy, food and resources to sustain another 100 million on our ecologically devastated planet.
Therefore, once again, I offer some of the finest minds for you to ponder on what it means to keep wrecking the planet, this civilization and no critical thought as to the impact of human overpopulation.
SERIOUS REALITIES FACING OUR CIVILIZATION IN 21ST CENTURY
“The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations are not due to people, but to poor ideology and land-use management is sophistic.” Harvard scholar and biologist E.O. Wilson
“Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide [that adds 80 million net gain annually to the planet], but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all—ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.” Dr. Otis Graham, Unguarded Gates
Lester Brown, author of Plan B 4.0 Saving Civilization said, “The world has set in motion environmental trends that are threatening civilization itself. We are crossing environmental thresholds and violating deadlines set by nature. Nature is the timekeeper, but we cannot see the clock.”
“Somehow, we have come to think the whole purpose of the economy is to grow, yet growth is not a goal or purpose. The pursuit of endless growth is suicidal.” David Suzuki
“Growth for the sake of yet more growth is a bankrupt and eventually lethal idea. CASSE is the David fighting the Goliath of endless expansion, and we know how that one turned out.” ~ David Orr
The green revolution was instigated as a result of the efforts of Norman Borlaug, who, while accepting the Nobel peace prize in 1970, said: “The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.”
“The cheap oil age created an artificial bubble of plentitude for a period not much longer than a human lifetime….so I hazard to assert that as oil ceases to be cheap and the world reserves move toward depletion, we will be left with an enormous population…that the ecology of the earth will not support. The journey back toward non-oil population homeostasis will not be pretty. We will discover the hard way that population hyper growth was simply a side-effect of the oil age. It was a condition, not a problem with a solution. That is what happened and we are stuck with it.” James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency
“We must alert and organize the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises – exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Over-consumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.” Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Oceanographer
“Upwards of two hundred species.. mostly of the large, slow-breeding variety.. are becoming extinct here every day because more and more of the earth’s carrying capacity is systematically being converted into human carrying capacity. These species are being burnt out, starved out, and squeezed out of existence.. thanks to technologies that most people, I’m afraid, think of as technologies of peace. I hope it will not be too long before the technologies that support our population explosion begin to be perceived as no less hazardous to the future of life on this planet than the endless production of radioactive wastes.” Daniel Quinn - Nature - Life - People - World - Technology - Peace - Environmental
“We’ve poured our poisons into the world as though it were a bottomless pit.. and we go on gobbling them up. It’s hard to imagine how the world could survive another century of this abuse, but nobody’s really doing anything about it. It’s a problem our children will have to solve, or their children.”
Daniel Quinn - Nature - World - Insanity - Greed - Problems - Environmental - Responsibility
“As we go from this happy hydrocarbon bubble we have reached now to a renewable energy resource economy, which we do this century, will the “civil” part of civilization survive? As we both know there is no way that alternative energy sources can supply the amount of per capita energy we enjoy now, much less for the 9 billion expected by 2050. And energy is what keeps this game going. We are involved in a Faustian bargain—selling our economic souls for the luxurious life of the moment, but sooner or later the price has to be paid.” Walter Youngquist, energy
“The U.S. will set a record in the rate of rise—and fall of an empire. Between wide open borders and fall of the dollar and growing population against a declining resource base, the US will be defeated from within. Mobs will rule the streets in the nation that is now the third largest in the world and unable to support its population except by taking resources from other countries.” Arnold Toynbee, historian
“A simple look at the upward path of global greenhouse emissions indicates we will continue to squeeze the trigger on the gun we have put to our own head.” Eugene Linden, The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilization
“The ship is already starting to spin out of control. We may soon lose all chance of grabbing the wheel. Humanity faces a genuinely new situation. It is not an environmental crisis in the accepted sense. It is a crisis for the entire life-support system for our civilization and our species.” Fred Pearce, The Last Generation: How Nature Will take Her Revenge for Climate Change
“At this point, it’s almost certainly too late to manage a transition to sustainability on a global or national scale, even if the political will to attempt it existed, which it clearly does not. Our civilization is in the early stages of the same curve of decline and fall as so many others have followed before it. What likely lies in wait for us is a long, uneven decline into a new Dark Age from which, centuries from now, the civilizations of the future will gradually emerge.”
“We are strong and adaptable animals and can certainly make a new life on the hotter Earth, but there will only be a fraction of inhabitable land left. Soon we face the appalling question of who m can we let aboard the lifeboats? And who must we reject? There will be great clamor from climate refugees seeking a safe haven in those few parts where the climate is tolerable and food available. We will need a new set of rules for limiting the population in climate oases.” James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A final Warning
“Imagine we live on a planet. Not our cozy, taken for granted planet, but a planet, a real one, with melting poles and dying forests and a heaving, corrosive sea, raked by winds, strafed by storms, scorched by heat. And inhospitable place. It needs a new name, Eaarth.” Bill McKibben, Eaarth: Making a life on a Tough new Planet
“If present growth trends in population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth will be reached sometime in the next 100 years.” The Club of Rome 1972
“The power of population is so superior to the power of earth to produce subsistence to humanity that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” Thomas Malthus 1798
“Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases of population, locally, nationally, or globally.” Dr. Albert Bartlett www.albartlett.org
“All causes are lost causes without limiting human population,” Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
What if the U.S. opened its borders to unlimited immigration? What would it mean to inject 10 to 20 or 30 million people into America annually in order to save those millions from starvation and misery around the planet? Since they flood into our country for a better life, what would it mean in the long run? How would our cities, states, environment, language and culture survive?
What if we imported the 800,000 Somalians now starving to death in August 2011? We seem to think we can save all the poor of all the world, so why not start with Africa’s famine victims?
How many equal too many and how much more can we tolerate without a total collapse of our environment, economy, medical systems, schools, infrastructure and civilization? Today, we absorb more immigrants annually than all other nations combined. How many each year? A steady stream of 1.0 to 1.2 million legally and 800,000 illegal migrants make America their home annually. Combined with their 900,000 births, we inject 3.1 million immigrants into America every 365 days. (Source: www.cis.org , Dr. Steven Camarata)
They arrive from overloaded nations that grow by 80 million per year. They arrive as economic refugees, political victims, war and environmental survivors.
They arrive from a line that grows more desperate every year as humanity races toward an added three billion more people in the next 40 years.
Since humans suffer in such horrific numbers, what if America opened up its floodgates and allows countless millions of immigrants?
First of all, California, at one point, housed a mere five million. Today, that state features 38 million on its way to 58 million. At one point, citizens did not suffer gridlocked traffic, water shortages or air pollution. The same goes for all cities of the United States.
But, at some point, beginning in 1965, with Teddy Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act, population growth raced out of control across this great land. At this moment, 150 million Americans living in overcrowded cities feel the pinch, the unease of their predicament and the symptoms of their dilemma. They’ll feel it more when gas hits $9.00 a gallon as in Europe.
Since we invite 1.2 million immigrants annually and another 800,000 illegal migrants into this country annually—what’s the big deal about allowing five or 10 million annually?
If you study international demographics, you know that 77–82 million people add themselves, net gain to the planet, every year. (Source: www.populationmedia.org and www.worldpopulationbalance.org and www.balance.org )
To put things into perspective, one-third of them cannot find a clean glass of drinking water daily. Out of that 77–82 million, 18 million starve to death or die of starvation related diseases annually. (Source: World Health Organization) At least two billion humans live on less than $3.00 a day for food.
Thus, if we opened our borders to save humanity from its horrible fate, an immediate 18 million starving souls could find food and shelter in the USA annually. However, after a mere five years, that equals 90 million added to our country. In 10 years, that equals 180 million people and in 20 years…well, you get the picture. If you think California, Arizona, Colorado and Georgia suffer water shortages, air pollution and gridlock today, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
William N. Ryerson, director of www.populationmedia.org, said, “I have read with interest the various perspectives presented in the debate on U.S. immigration policy. I pose the following question to anyone who thinks “border control” efforts will not accomplish anything: If the U.S. had no border control what would happen to the number of good people entering this country from the far corners of the world?
“There is no doubt that if there were absolutely no barriers or restrictions at our borders, this great nation would be flooded — overwhelmed — inundated — by MILLIONS of well-meaning, hard-working, honest “tired and poor” people within a matter of months.
“It’s hard to know the number who would move to the U.S. if our borders were opened, but surveys in many countries show significant numbers who would like to live in the U.S. If the borders were opened, perhaps 3 billion people would find their way here in a short period of time – ten times the current population of the U.S. The infrastructure would collapse, our water supply (and food supply) would be exhausted, people would be sleeping in the streets, energy would be at a premium, in short, chaos would be the new norm.
“At current rates of growth, in just 15 years the U.S. population will grow by the equivalent of a new Los Angeles, plus New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, Indianapolis, San Jose, Memphis, Washington, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Boston, Columbus, New Orleans, Cleveland, Denver, Seattle, and El Paso. All of these to be added in just 15 years! We have heard a lot about the cost of rebuilding New Orleans. The cost of developing all the new infrastructure that will be required in the next 15 years will be huge – and perhaps not achievable. If we opened our borders, the reality would be much worse.”
Therefore, as you sit idly by watching Obama and Congress dodge the immigration issue, I have a question for you: if YOU enjoyed the power of the U.S. presidency or controlled the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, what would you do? Open our borders to unlimited immigration—knowing your children could not survive in the long term? Or, would you be smarter, more logical and take actions in order to build a sustainable, long term, viable civilization?
Within 25 years, we expect 100 million added to this country at our current level of legal and illegal immigration. Do you want that result for your children? What will they tell you in 30 years if that 100 million comes to pass? What will you do about it now?
The late Garrett Hardin said, “In a less than a perfect world, the allocation of rights based on territory must be defended if a ruinous breeding race is to be avoided. It is unlikely that civilization and dignity can survive everywhere. Fortunate minorities (of rational thinking citizens) act as the trustees of a civilization that is threatened by uninformed good intentions.”
From: Activist Post…
As signs of the End Times both man made and natural become impossible to ignore, it seems that an increasing number of people are willing to take survivalism to its ultimate conclusion: the doomsday bunker.
It is still a relatively small contingent, but builders of fallout shelters and survival bunkers of all stripes are recordingrecord sales in the wake of increasing natural disasters, chaotic political upheaval, and the threat of coming earth changes.
One company, Hardened Structures cites the following client demographics:
- 30% believe in 2012 or end-of-the world scenarios
- 50-55% are concerned about economic collapse and political unrest
- 20% wish to protect against military, data storage and EMP threats.
Knowing that U.S. officials themselves have prepared for the very same cataclysmic scenarios through their Continuity of Government agenda, it would be wise to take a look at what the survival marketplace has to offer for those of us who don’t have the ultimate bunker, Cheyenne Mountain, at our disposal.
A recent story highlighted luxury bunker living, replete with a wine cellar and nearly every manner of creature comforts. However, there is actually a wide range of survival shelters available at various price points and purpose. Do you want to prepare for short-term threats such as earthquakes, storms, or political unrest? Or a doomsday scenario such as 2012, nuclear strike, or massiveearth changes? Do you want a personal family bunker, or fractional-ownership community living?
Bunker living isn’t for everyone, but for those who are curious about what the options are, and at what cost, here is the latest:
Budget: Less than $10,000
One of the least expensive and perhaps practical ways to protect you and your family in a short-term emergency is a portable Protective Tent from Underground Bomb Shelters. Starting at $8,800 plus shipping, their LSS-80 Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection System can be made fully operational in less than 15 minutes.
Budget: Less than $50,000
Option 1: Do-It-Yourself — The video below shows a functional shelter created from an 8-meter long shipping container done on the cheap. If prepared properly this will enable survival of anything other than a direct hit.
Option 2: Ready-Made — According to Hardened Structures, their most popular shelter is a $38,000 unit with a steel shell and blast door with air-filtering system. It is engineered to protect against nuclear, biological and chemical disasters, as well as catastrophic storms. These structures are waterproof, and can be expanded to accommodate additional residents employing a modular approach.
Budget: Less than $100,000 (Family)
These premier underground shelters are built with steel both reinforced and insulated. One shelter holds over 2 years food supply for a family of up to 5 people. Shelters can be clustered together for more people and storage space. Available for 5, 10, 15 people or more. Shelters also can arrive completely stocked.
Budget: Less than $100,000 (Community)
For the crème de la crème of community fallout shelters, one company has risen above the rest:Vivos in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Their ultimate vision is one of a network of shelters near major cities where people could retreat in case of nearly an conceivable magnitude of disaster. They already have designed an underground community that can house up to 200 people for one year of living. Units are sold on a fractional-ownership basis starting at between $25K – $50K depending on geographical location:
Luxury Survival Condos: Developer Larry Hall has chosen Kansas as the place to house his 15-story condo complex with units ranging from $900K to nearly $2M.
Unfortunately, less and less people have the means to afford a fully equipped, long-term survival structure, even if staying underground for months or years on end sounds like a viable option.
If you have constructed, or purchased your own short- or long-term doomsday bunker, please contact us about the process, product report, or tips to reduce the cost — and we will post your experience anonymously if you wish.
In the meantime, absent the ability to prepare for a doomsday that may or may not happen, it is wise to take reasonable precautions against rising food costs, supply line disruptions, and the host of natural disasters which are on the rise.
* Note: Activist Post does not endorse or receive compensation from any of the companies mentioned in this article. Products were selected based on quality of information and presentation only.
Sources for this story: