Super Creepy Video!
By: James Burge
January 7th, 2011
So I was perusing the internet the other day and came across this video that describes a super creepy 1984-esque future where only the rich are allowed to eat meat, drive cars, and choose their own career. Its interesting how the same people telling us we aren’t competent to make our own decision regarding these practices, also feel that they should be above the same restrictions they are trying to get us to embrace. What’s good for the goose, doesn’t apply to the gander, cuz the gander is rich. So in order to fight global warming or some crap like that, we all have to give up our freedom to choose our life’s purpose and get “designated career announcements” from the government, if they didn’t control enough of our life already. The video also talks about rationing food, and how far people are allowed to travel. The creepiest part about the video are the companies involved in creating it, mostly banks and oil companies.
Some of its [Forum for the Future] financial backers include Bank of America, the City of London Corporation, PepsiCo UK, Time Warner, and crucially Royal Dutch Shell – which of course is one of the biggest emitters of CO2 on the planet.
But the creepiness doesn’t stop there, for those who aren’t willing to fit their lives inside the lines dictated to them by the elite, they will be able to live in floating prisons, I mean cities, yeah, cities, where you would be denied jobs, high speed transport, and the internet, because they can’t handle it anyway, right.
Super Creepy vid below. Is this the future you want your kids to live in? I know I don’t.
Oh Helen, you aren’t out of the woods yet
By: James Burge
January 7th, 2011
Okay so I was looking at some of the comments from an article regarding a newspaper who has recently hired retired ex-white house correspondent Helen Thomas and as usual the megaphones are out in full force. I was going to post in the comments but decided not to as I don’t stand a chance at educating the megaphoners and most of the people welcoming Helen back are already painfully aware of the truths I would be discussing. So instead I have decided to post it here.
The big issue surrounding all of this, is the idea that because Israel is a Jewish theocracy which really means that only Jews are welcome in Israel, and any criticism of the systematic displacement and near extermination of a race of people whose only crime is living on land that Zionists claim God gave them (or even their killing of Americans), is criticism of their theology and the belief structure behind it. This tends to tell us more about those who are crying anti-Semitism than most people realize. There are some Jews that believe God gave them the right (or even encourages them) to kill all non-Jews (gentiles) and therefore by suggesting that Jews aren’t given cart blanch to kill whom ever they please is criticism of this aspect of Judaism. Although the most interesting parallel I’ve noticed is that this is the same idea behind Jihad and the killing of non-Muslims which has been increasingly vilified in the years following 9/11.
For most people, criticism of the foreign policy of Israel does not equal criticism of Judaism. This tends to be at the crux of the anti-Semite argument and its beginning to fall apart. I fully support a person’s ability to believe what ever they want; even if they want to believe they are better than me because of it. However, a problem arises when Zionists inject theology into their foreign policy by labelling those who are critical of that policy bigots. It is an interesting trick, by considering themselves a theocracy; they can hide behind a vale of freedom of religion as they slaughter countless innocents. For me the parallels to the holocaust narrative are staggering, and it is very interesting to me that those purported victims of said holocaust are now the perpetrators of this new Palestinian holocaust, and would never have been in Palestine had it not been for the outcome of the first holocaust.
So I guess the next time I am called an anti-Semite I will thank them, and say yes I am, but I much prefer the term anti-Zionist, but by extension I guess anti-Zionism is unfortunately a form of anti-Semitism in that Zionists consider themselves (however incorrectly at times) Semites, but then again, Helen Thomas is also a Semite so the same is true of all the megaphoners calling for her to be fired.
Welcome back Helen, I can’t wait to see what you report on next. But for you sake, I’d leave the Zionists alone and let the rest of us continue to expose their hypocrisy.
Update: So I went to take a look at the article that Helen has written for Falls Church News Press and although I didn’t take the time to read the article as American Social Security is of little importance to me (a Canadian), other than exposing the lies the Clinton administration used to gut social security, I took a look at the comments and saw one on-topic comment followed by a diatribe of comments basically saying Helen has no credibility because she is a… wait for it… anti-Semite. I have a bad feeling this will fallow her likely until the end of her days, which is unfortunate for a journalist of her calibre.
And now for a touch of levety…
By: James Burge
January 5th, 2011
Ok this video is funny, but also true… which is sad.
The first time I’ve heard info on the economy, AND BELIEVED IT!!
By: James Burge
January 5th, 2011
This woman is both honest and amazing. Hopefully some of her honesty will wear off on people. Although, if you’re waiting for those bought-and-paid-for Mainstream media (MSM) reporters (notice I don’t call them journalists), I wouldn’t hold my breath. They are paid to lie and distort the truth for the benefit of corporations and sections of the government. For most, the fourth estate has been dead for years if not decades, so I won’t be surprised to see it die off as people look to the Fifth estate (the blogosphere, any non-MSM investigative journalists (ie. True investigative journalists)) for their news, due only to the fact that it passes the smell test, and they tend to support their claims with evidence not a government issued press release.
