You are on page 1of 170

THE LAST CALL OF REASON: A MANIFESTO

by Anonymous

What if you happen to be wrong about everything? What if the opposite worldview really is correct? What if the worldview that has been imposed upon you originates from men you have erringly trusted? What if your own beliefs have been engineered to use you as ploy against your own nation? Most people are completely unaware of the processes which have now been set in motion, the one which resulted in the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and may or may not result in his re-election now as of this writing. But even after this election, this document will be necessary in the face of what lies against us in this world of information. This document will be hated. It is also your final warning as an American citizen.

CONTENTS:
PART 1: AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR ISSUE WE FACE I. The Plight of Modern America: A Message to Liberals and the Politically Inactive PART 2: HOW DO POLICY IDEAS HOLD UP TO REALITY? II. The Supremacy of Logic III. The Economy of the United States IV. The Hidden Cancer of Propaganda V. Us vs. Them

VI. The Trojan Horse PART 3: THE MANIPULATION OF OUR CULTURAL IDEAS VII. New Values IIX. The Threat of Force and the Death Penalty IX. Myths and Fantasies X. The Third Liberation XI. The Excluded and Doomed PART 4: THE STRATEGY OF THE CONDUCTORS XII. Blind Decline: A Thesis XIII. Barack Obama Must Be Remembered XIV. Defense, Drugs, Education and Various Fallacies XV. The Scientific Heretic XVI. Propaganda in Response to this Document PART 5: CLOSING REMARKS XVII. A Declaration of War

Note: This document is offered free of charge to the public. Data charts are used from two websites, photographs from three websites, and all are included for nonprofit educational purposes. (See section 107 of United States copyright law.) The words in this document may be reproduced or communicated freely.

I. The Plight of Modern America: A Message to Liberals and the Politically Inactive
Imagine, if you would, every window shattering a month from now, every street running with blood and every high building collapsing as the world plunges into chaos and destruction. A few common people warn that this event will happen in advance because of certain details not supported by scientists that nevertheless spell doom. Up until the moment this disaster occurs, would those words of warning even remotely feel real? It's a psychological phenomenon that, if one grows up in the sheltered and prosperous nation of the United States, one would probably not be able to see any glimmer of reality in those warnings because they do not seem to fit the world they have known their entire life. Every single day from one's birth onward in which nothing resembling that disaster happens further conditions one to not expect it. Though it often saves one from ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality, that attitude in itself, the unshakable confidence that nothing can possibly destroy the quality of life we have known, is illogical. How bizarre a claim of danger seems is irrelevant to whether or not it will occur, because this feeling has existed throughout history and it has always enabled people to shun the voice of reason until it is too late. Caligula was a Roman emperor who ruled from 12 to 37 AD. We imagine Caligula as man in royal attire unlike what any person wears today, walking around in simplistic structures supported by ancient columns and using his rule to institute ancient, primitive customs. We separate ourselves so starkly from the eras of the past, but are we not the same creature as Caligula? Do we not have the same limbs?

Does the same fluid pump through our veins? Do we think using the same type of organ? Just like ancient people, do we not all think ourselves immortal when completely sheltered, a rule breached only when some form of danger crops up in our lives? Are we all not inclined to shove off predictions of doom and procrasinate until our own bodies echo that prediction with dread and adreniline when we see it right before our eyes? Our adrenaline is meant to save us from an attacking tiger, but when your flesh finally catches on to the impending effects of the ruin this document predicts, it will be far beyond your power to stop it. We look back on Caligula's pagan beliefs in Roman gods and his ancient ideas and say that he believed lies, but to Caligula, they were just as real as what we believe now. Would we truly feel any more of an instinctive warning if we who so reckon ourselves the most enlightened generation in history believe just as many myths as the people of our past, only in different ways? The quickest defense to such an unusual idea is that we have video, forensics, scientific tools and so many other means to document that our beliefs are sound, but the more technology advances to accurately record evidence, the more it advances to create new mediums that make certain myths seem more and more compellingly true. Indeed, we live in an era of technology and education unlike any other, but it is only our bias which says that this technology and indoctrination can support only truth and not lies. The reality is that we live in the same world the ancients did, breathing the same air, treading upon the same soil and believing lies to the same rough degree. The difference is we now have even more compelling ways to convince ourselves that those lies are true. The person authoring this document is nothing more than a human being like each and every person you see on the street or the person who stares back at you in the mirror. I am not beyond error in

my observations, but my observations tell me that this world is not what many people think it to be. I see individuals born into a life that is vastly different from those of humans from all prior eras, in which the creations of fellow human beings have replaced the real world in the dissimination of ideas and information, in which institutions and media present a different world than the one that exists beyond the walls of a university or a monitor screen. I was born into that same delusion and held it to heart until, by blessed circumstance, I was directed toward an understanding of truths I would have scoffed at years ago. I now find my only way to help the people I love in the nation I have lived my entire life writing a document to examine popular ideas that pose as legitimate fact. This is that document. In their reactions to a world of modern myths, a world that I once believed real and many of my friends still do, people act on virtue to further a disguised evil. Once you have read this manifesto, you will have two options: continue to believe the great and impactful voices that disguise harm as sympathetic help or recognize the world for what it is and take a stand for what is truly right. The latter is much more difficult, socially unacceptable and may even cause one to become subject to ridicule. The former is easy and smooth in the short-term, but if enough Americans choose it, I swear on my own soul that we will reap consequences unlike any we have ever seen in our two hundred and thiry six years as a nation. Are scientists, news program producers, professors, politicians, workers in the entertainment industry and the like not human? Are they not prone to corruption if an opportunity presents itself to supercede the obstacles in place for their own gain? If so, why do we trust them so much more than we would a random person off the street? The answer is we have been exposed to the right stimuli from our impressionable years onward to trust them, and there is in fact no rational reason to do so. This document will demonstrate why we are

to suspect many of these individuals of furthering an agenda, what this agenda is and what it means to accomplish. The question is, have you been exposed to so many varying stories of "agendas" with supposed culprits as varied as every creature on earth that you are conditioned to doubt this document simply because I mentioned that key word, "agenda?" Key words and superficial similarities to false conspiracy theories have no bearing on whether or not this document is accurate. Am I correct or incorrect? There is only one way to find out. Depending on your current opinions, this document may make you feel the burn of emotional friction as the standards you have set for reality are contradicted. Things which you have been conditioned to hate may be vilified, things you love painted as bombs covered in roses. If this document becomes extremely popular, it will be ridiculed on national television. If it does not reach that level of popularity, it will be the subject of scorn on the Internet. It may very well be reviled the same way in your own mind. No matter who you are, however, I have great respect for anyone who would be willing to read it and weight it logically regardless of whether or not they end up agreeing with it. I know that, for me personally, I would just a few years ago have already felt emotional resistance if I were reading this document. The first few paragraphs, I would think, sound ridiculously sensationalist. As it currently stands, the world is full of schools of thought and frameworks that attempt to explain it: the Communist Manifesto, modern conservative/liberal ideologies and fringe new-age documentaries are just a few of them. In our society, we are often able to see why the opposition thinks a certain way on a certain issue and have the ability to respect their opinion. However, one thing is for certain: we live in a world where certain things are true, and others false. We are in a constant lock in some respects because of our preexisting beliefs which may or may not be correct as well as the beliefs

of others, and we have finally come to the point in our history in which believing a lie literally means the death of our nation as we know it. This claim is not meant to be sensationalist; the demise projected is not necessarily a swift one, but it might be better to think of it as impending, because years seem to have passed by quickly once they are already gone, and there are certain injuries to our governmental system and society that will not heal by normal means if we do not expose them and address them. Whether the above statement is fallacious or true is for the reader to examine, because although this document will hopefully provide all the proof necessary, its purpose would fail if the reader did not verify each and every claim for himself or herself. First, let's examine the environment in which a modern American citizen grows up compared to the rearing environment of children in previous epochs of human history. Here are a number of environmental differences which have a striking effect on the overall state of American thought: Children reared in modern America are exposed to artificial media, most characteristically television broadcasts, from an early age onward. Children see their parents watching news programs and getting their information directly from the media. Children learn through experience and through their parents to directly accept news media reports as fact. In other words, in the vast majority of cases, they make no distinction between the claims of a television program and actual, tangible reality. A news reporter speaking in front of a camera with his or her narration accompanying a short video is one thing, and what occurred in real life is another. Despite this, we are conditioned to totally trivialize any lack of a connection between the two. Because our exposure to the news media is quite native to us, having been our source of information from our earliest, most impressionable years onward, we recognize it as our window to the

world without a second thought. Compare this to children growing up centuries ago, before the advent of a machine with a screen that causes a television program to play to inform them about the current state of the world. Rather than an artificial representation of reality, their exposure to events was mostly direct. Sure, word-of-mouth ranged from reliable to completely out-of-touch with reality depending upon the situation, but word-ofmouth was usually incorrect due to natural reasons, the "telephone effect" being just one example. More importantly, people who were out in the world had a hands-on and authentic experience regarding important local issues. Contrasting that with our modern, sterile, sealed-off environment inside buildings watching a television screen, and we see one fatal flaw with the modern attitude: what is in front of our faces is completely artificial, and a news program is nothing more than media produced by a company, which is not the same as the real, tangible events it is supposed to represent. This distinction is important because, as we grow up reliant on the news media, we learn to disregard that fact and begin to assign an almost unquestionable authority to what is said on a news program. Questioning it would, to many people, seem so utterly absurd and unrealistic that it would be comparable to questioning if the sky were blue. After all, how could a mere person know more about the actual events than a media company, which is being fed with information nonstop? How could someone challenge the authority of information, which sounds odd on paper but fits the role we ascribe to the media? It seems like, since we grow up watching a television set and using it as our window to the world, we develop an automatic trust for it similar to the trust we develop to our parents. But, just like some parents can end up abusing their children, media companies often act in a way that operates irregardless of the trust we ascribe to them. After all, if everyone believed you anyway and it would benefit you to lie or distort

facts and you (like many people) did not have the moral fortitude to stop yourself, you would take advantage of that fact. We can apply this same line of logic to several other aspects of modern life that we also take for granted and are conditioned to naturally trust with no questioning whatsoever. From our perspective as we're born into and live in this culture, public school is nothing but a natural means of advancement, an institution that objectively measures knowlege, provides knowlege and is the end-all, be-all of early life. Of course, many children and students resent the education system, but the perception that it is somehow the default way a human being spends his or her childhood is certainly still there. Beyond the fact that history is written by the victors and human knowlege is never 100% correct, what's the danger in public schooling? Children are taught how to count and how to read in early years, they're taught more advanced forms of reading and mathematics in later years, and they're informed about the general history of this world. It seems to be a wholly innocent institution with good intentions at heart, but it has one important characteristic: it is a basic source of knowlege for young children and has that societal reputation of authority; in other words, virtually everything taught is accepted by students without question. If certain falsified ideas can be taught in the exact same manner as basic particle physics and the epochs of human history, then those ideas would likely be accepted by unquestioning children just as much as any other, and whereas one generation of adults might be aghast to a certain idea, that idea can be injected into society over several generations through public school curriculums and accepted automatically because of the means in which it is propagated. Such an idea would, however, have to appear outwardly to be completely legitimate, so it would demonstrably have "slipped in" gradually over several generations. What possible motive someone could have for propagating a false

idea in the instutitions of public schools will be discussed later. I will admit that it looks ludicrous to try to examine things such as public schools in this light, but that ludicrousness is a feeling that will with little doubt be felt by the reader as he or she continues to consider this document. Our society has conditioned us to deem questioning certain basic things as foolhardy, just as it was "foolhardy" to question if the sun really revolved around planet Earth in Gallielo's time. A statement seeming ludicrous has no logical bearing on whether or not it is true, and it is an ever-present fact that although public education and the news media are integrated as key points into our society, they are completely artificial constructions. "Artificial" means "man-made," and if something that is made and operated by other humans enters our young minds with little to no questioning, that means that human beings have had direct access to the minds of successive generations of Americans, allowing other people to engineer ideas in society if they have the psychological knowledge, resources, means and manpower to do so. If there is any sort of motive out there, which there most certainly is, then there are groups of people who take advantage of artificial media to make a desired impression upon the population. What exactly would motivate such a thing will be discussed later in this document. One common tactic of propaganda is defaming ideas by repeatedly exposing people to ridiculous versions of them. Bizarre theories about how aliens, lizard men or the Vatican control the populace with little or no actual evidence would only serve to debase by association any idea that there are conspiracies at work. This is by no means a document which claims that the United States government staged 9/11 or Russia has alien technology or black people have magic melanin powers. A "conspiracy" is simply a group of individuals working together to do something we would deem

nefarious. Many people have become so turned off by conspiracy theories that they have in effect been conditioned not to realize that, since artificial media makes it possible, any group of people with the resources, influence and motives for the propagation of new ideas to serve an agenda can and will try to do it. Because we are so used to the means in which this information is dissiminated, however, we turn a blind eye to the possibility that, in many cases, media sources are instilling completely alien moral values and political beliefs to guide our lives. But why would such a bizarre agenda be necessary? As it turns out, though our basic governmental system has proven superior to all others in modern history, there is one aspect to that system that can be exploited. Our nation's government is "of the people, by the people and for the people." More specifically, we live in a republic in which we can elect both congressmen and presidents who bring along their political platforms. If a group of people wanted to rule or "take over" the United States, all they would have to do is gradually seed new values into the population in education and the mass media and then exploit those values while misrepresenting data to come up with appealing stances on issues, thereby using propaganda to deceive our people enough to cause them to vote for people who further their agenda. In the process, the values of our society and our perception of the real world would be altered severely as facts are misrepresented and values that our culture has never seen before are held to high regard. The dangers involved in this spread of and belief in propaganda are not limed to the transformation of what we consider the "right thing," but what the motive would be among conspirators to place a completely ineffective and untruthful but public-appeasing party in power in the first place. At this point, one is inclined to ask "where is the proof?" That's a good inclination. But, before we begin analyzing the nature of propaganda and how it works in this nation, let's take a brief look at

the issue stances of America's modern political parties. We currently have one party, the Democrats, with these ideas underlying its platform: America's Middle Class should be bolstered with various government programs in order to strengthen our economy. The ultimately impending forces of climate change brought about by greenhouse gas emissions by human beings should be combated before they cause irreperable damage, and "dirty" sources of power such as oil should be discouraged. The richest people in our country should pay a higher percentage of taxes in order to both generate more government revenue and make them pay their "fair share." Not implimenting such a policy is serving the interest of rich corparations. Health care should be a human right universally available to all Americans. Abortion, the mere destruction of a developing zygote, embryo or fetus, should remain the choice of individual women, since if they do not have juristiction inside their own body but the state does, how could they truly have any type of freedom? Stem-cell research involving embryos should be undertaken because it can provide cures for various diseases at the cost of the destruction of non-entities. The government of the United States should remain secular. After all, the constitution separates church and state, and Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams did so more explicitly. People should be able to get married regardless of gender, because their attraction to the same sex is involuntary and just

as "natural" as heterosexual attraction. What harm does two consenting adults getting maried cause, after all? The government should always fight against racism and discrimination in an attempt to achieve "Social Justice."

And we have another party, the Republicans, with this platform: The economy should be left alone by the government, even if it means millions of people are laid off from their jobs. Even though the scientific consensus is that global warming is an impending issue facing the entire planet, we should mostly disregard it. Rich people should get a tax cut, rather than a tax percentage increase. Health care should not be insituted by the government. Abortion should be illegal or severely discouraged. Stem cell research that results in the destruction of unborn children should be illegal. The government of the United States should be informed by Christian values. Homosexuals should, despite their involuntary attraction to the same gender, not get married. The government should not fight against certain statistics such as black people and women being paid less on average than white men. Looking at these summarizations, many young Americans would

literally have no idea why anyone would vote for a Republican or Conservative. Though the overall worldview presented over time through public education and several other mediums, that society's bigotries and unfounded traditions constantly clash with progressive reform toward what is "right," they partially see the Republican pary as the Catholic Church which believed with no evidence whatsoever that the celestial bodies revolved around Earth, and the Democratic Party is Galileo who challenged their traditional nonsense and were persecuted for it. On the flip-side, because of the claims of politicians and television/internet media, it would also seem that the Republicans are just serving their corparate sponsors by not increasing their tax rate while Democrats are fighting for the rich to pay their fair share to help us through a debt problem, and as for why Republicans oppose government health care, young Democrats just scratch their head. Lastly, Republicans are against gay marriage, which many Democrats see as a civil rights issue and a religious majority of people oppressing a minority. What follows will probably make some people stop reading. Of course, I would encourage you to stay for your own sake, but the prior paragraphs were not very inflammatory. Here comes the difficult part. The reason why young Democrats feel this way is because the engines of propaganda have advanced so much over the years that young Americans not only see the world in a distorted manner but are exposed to certain media that makes them see the issue-stances of the Democrats make much more immediate sense to them than that of the Republicans. In fact, to many young people, the issue-stances of Republicans make no sense whatsoever. Eglatarianism, feminism, keynsian economics, gun control and higher taxes for rich people all seem to many people to be virtuous causes. The problem is that,

while their stated intentions are excellent, none of these policies when put into place actually work as they say. In several other cases, such as abortion rights, the issue has been entirely misrepresented to seem virtuous when the opposite is true. If you are still reading and the above paragraph royally rustled your jimmies, I applaud you. I certainly don't expect or want you to believe anything in this section until you know why I say it, but it is necessary to describe these things in order to introduce both why this document was written and explain why people will be so angry about it. If I saw you playing in the middle of the street when a truck was about to collide with your body, I would try to save you. How much more would I try to save my nation, even if the long manifesto I am now typing might be almost totally rejected in a propagandized society? And what about the alternative, the chance that the reader might actually take a step back and consent to logically re-examining his or her values to de-acquaint them to the worldview they have been bred for years to adopt and accept? For the small chance that it might help people, whether it positively affects one person and is ridiculed by all others or it helps to awaken a whole generation of people, I accept the chance that this manifesto may be lambasted and crucified on the Internet and media as ridiculous like almost every other conservative speaker or political figure who is in danger of engendering social or political change. If the document does happen to spread, it would no doubt be condemned by "experts" in the media and made fun of royally on Comedy Central. If it does not spread, it might just be lambasted wherever I happen to post it because anger is a natural reaction to whatever contradicts your worldview and it becomes incredibly easy to pick apart anything that supports the ideology of the "stupid." But the reasons why I can predict this reaction are hopefully enough to make people consider the claims here just a moment longer.

The world is not ignorant of the people who hold power in our government; it is ignorant of the societal mechanisms which brought those people into power and the failed, often cancerous policies those individuals bring forward under the guise of what seems to be moral righteousness. To persist caring only about the things that our friends, educational institutions and the media would have us care about is to lie down defenseless to any type of outward manipulation. It is paramount to wiring one's brain to a machine and letting the person on the other end control one's values; it is only by taking a step back and re-examining life from the ground up that we can truly see the danger of letting ourselves and our children be shaped by artificial media. The facade that we are not at a point in a history that continues unbroken from ancient times, that we are in a modern age of total enlightenment where our culture and our institutions cannot be just as potentially wrong as they were in the past makes the delusion even stronger that the experts and popular opinion are even mostly correct about the world. I'm not saying that our advanced technology does not give us more concrete knowlege about the world than we have ever had before, but I am remarking on the danger of allowing that fact to deceive us into thinking that, when all is said and done, many of our abstract societal movements and subjective ideas are just as correct. It has always been a human fallacy to accept the word of those in authority or of one's peers without question, and it becomes much more fallacious to presum that certain ideas are correct because they are enlightened and modern. It is this unspoken presumption that the secrets of the world are all now readily available that makes many people believe lies. An excellent experiment that pointed out peoples' tendencies to believe things was the documentary "Dark Side of the Moon," which presented more than enough evidence to convince many people that

the moon landing was faked, including interviews with people such as Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger, but revealed in its final minutes that it was an intentional fabrication and the evidence presented was faulty. People see news articles, watch documentaries, watch the news and read from textbooks but hardly ever investigate the sources of those human-authored publications, and because of that, the potential for deception is almost limitless. Why exactly do you believe what you believe? This obviously varies from person to person, but tracing back those beliefs can provide a bit of insight. People in modern society are programmed to automatically accept the views of "experts," scientists and intellectuals in much the same way they were programmed to listen to clergymen, priests, shamans and religious leaders in the past. That doesn't mean that we are not fundamentally better off in some areas, since science is conceptually based on evidence and many "experts" are wellinformed in their field of expertise, but there are very important reasons why their opinions in some areas, authoritative-sounding as they may be, may turn out to be completely misleading. If there is indeed an agenda of coordinated propaganda that most people don't know about, there has to be a core group of people who run it and keep it organized.. The aim of this document is not to identify or expose these conspirators, hereafter referred to as the Cunductors, and it certainly is not to call for their elimination. I straightly forbid (if it be in my power) any person reading this document from trying to directly attack or call a witch hunt against these Conductors. That seems counter-intuitive, but the reasoning behind it is simple: there will always be conspirators, and focusing on them rather than the weapon they use, propaganda, will simply allow the next group to propagandize Americans yet again. On the other hand, opening their minds to logical thinking and indepedent thought is vaccinating them to any such threat, if they are just willing to

investigate claims before automatically accepting them. If this document can get you to re-examine your values, reconstruct them in spite of all artificial propganda and be wary of the modes of propaganda explained here, then it has served its purpose. If you read it, examine it and still disagree, that's also completely fine, because this is a free country. My interest here is only to keep this nation both free and prosperous. Obviously, I think that prosperity is threatened if people are not made aware of certain things that they have been systematically blinded to, but after they are informed of the truth, the decision is in their hands, as are the consequences for their choice.

II. The Supremacy of Logic


Logic is a tightly-ordered system that prevents 1+2 from ever equating to 15 and ensures that no matter how many times a mathematical operation is repeated, as long as a human mistake is not made, the conclusion is always the same. In this chapter, we will speak of "logic" not in a vague or subjective sense, but as a very literal mechanism whose nature can further be nailed down from a few other angles. The universe itself is demonstrably governed by logic, because otherwise, events would be totally unpredictable. Effects would occur without causes and no physical properties would truly be defined. We have never observed two true facts that contradict each other, because that would not be logical, therefore it would not exist in this logical world; for example, we know that John cannot be in two places at a single time and we know that if A=5, A cannot also equal 4. The existence and supremacy of logic might be called the most basic universal law, because without it, no other "laws" of nature could exist.

To forsake logic in a universe governed by it is to die. Someone forsakes logic when they go from point A to point Zebra and decide they can step in front of a moving bus and it won't kill them. We gather very important information related to our survival and must process it with logic in order to come to conclusions to allow us to survive; using any other method than logic would be foolhardy, like urinating on your computer because there's a horse in your yard. If you are beginning to get the concept of that "thing" that makes a bunch of different things "make perfect sense," then you are indeed thinking of logic. Everything in these four paragraphs has been common sense and universal knowlege. However, this information poses a slight problem: if logic is the only viable way to determine what is true, then why is so much information fed to us and established as fact using everything but pure logic? First, let's look at Kony 2012. Kony 2012 was a video designed to engender a strong reaction against Joseph Kony, a rebel leader who is a lunatic who kidnaps children and forces them to fight for him. Based on that information, it would seem that the video presented a sound conclusion: that everyone should band together to work to stop Kony by sending money to the Ugandan military, a noble cause that more than warranted sharing the video with one's friends so one could perform a small but vital role in helping the world. However, the video conveniently left out a couple of facts. Kony's Lord's Resistance Army had not been seen in Uganda since 2006, and eliminating a single man, Joseph Kony, is only helpful based on the unsubstantiated assumption that someone would not just take his place, and moreover, that the instability in the region can be solve in such an oversimplified way as killing one man or trying to help out the Ugandan military when they can hardly assist the

situation if Kony has been outside their Ugandan borders for years. If the video is just peddling a certain agenda based on conveniently leaving out key points that totally undermine its premise, then why does it have 92,407,993 views on YouTube at the time of this writing with approximately 90% likes and 10% dislikes? It's the content of the video. The video begins with the quote "NOTHING IS MORE POWERFUL THAN AN IDEA" in stylized font over a graphical background as dramatic piano music slowly begins to play, then the narrator begins speaking in a surreally soft tone as a beautiful graphic of Planet Earth from outer space is shown, then the narrator begins talking about the human desire to connect to others and the boom in popularity for websites like Facebook while emotional clips of women interacting with their children and the most popular viral videos of the past few years are played. After some historical context about the internet's impact on the real world, the narrator informs the viewer that the "next 27 minutes are an experiment." The viewer is told that for the experiment to work, they have to pay attention, and surreal sounds of wind blowing usher in a swinging perspective through the sky of outer space through to a fade into black. The amount of painstaking overproduction is evident in numerous graphical clips that coincide with the narrator's every word, some of which are too superfluous to mention here but all of which are intentionally designed to create a certain effect in the viewer's mind. As the video continues, we see the birth of the narrator's son, Gavin, with soft and emotional music playing as Gavin is shown playing with his father and doing cute childlike things as his father explains how he would like Gavin to grow up in a better world than he did. The narrator's job as an activist who wishes to empower the youth to stop wars is briefly hinted at, as the video is bridged into a

discussion about an African boy named Jacob. From there, the video actually begins discussing relevant topics, but we have to ask ourselves, what does Gavin have to do with the subject at hand? He offers nothing but the commentary of a mostly uninvolved third-party throughout the video. The real answer is, the entire segment about Gavin is used to do nothing more than create an emotional connection with the viewer, which logically has nothing to do with the argument presented but emotionally influences the viewer to care more, trust the narrator more, and accept the rest of the video as fact. Notice how many times the word "emotional" was used in the above two paragraphs. Appealing to emotions rather than logical or rational reasoning when presenting an argument cannot establish truth, but it was incredibly effective in both making the video popular and distracting people from the hugely important undermining information that was omitted. Emotion is the greatest tool of propaganda, because we strive primarily toward emotion as human beings, but when tangible information like the state of a rebel war in Africa is being argued for, only logic can truly establish a point. All overproduction mentioned in the above two paragraphs is meant to bypass logic and make the viewer come to a conclusion that is not true, because only logic can reveal the truth. Besides the money that might potentially be wasted, the Kony 2012 issue is far from the most important issue at hand. However, the video is such a strong example of sugar-coated propaganda, it may be dissected so the reader can begin to learn how conditioning and propaganda works, what the fallacies are of believing such things for illogical reasons, and how it can make even the majority of people in a society believe something that "seems" very true, but because of certain details that are omitted, is a complete, utter and dangerous lie. Audiovisual media is a very effective and easy way to engender

emotion in people, and many different human emotions are used as tools in propaganda: pity for the poor African children who are starving when the charity being advertising actually pockets 50% of the funds, for instance, or twisting information to engender anger against a certain race or economic class of people who are portrayed as parasites on society or oppressors. In cases such as these, information is typically generalized to a high degree so it becomes "easy to understand," when in fact that oversimplified train of thought misses some key facts that actually render its conclusion untrue, but the masses accept it, because they typically like information being spoon-fed to them from sources they trust without investigating it any further or thinking critically about the actual evidence. If this tendency does not change, if there is no fundamental societal movement to look at the actual evidence and to uncover those inconvenient details propagandists leave out, then society will always be subject to strong deception with impassioned but blind followers, forwarding media to their friends that is designed to fatally bypass logic (hence bypassing truth) while giving them an opinion about a subject that seems to be simple and self-evident, but can in fact be incredibly dangerous when acted on because of the omitted details. We live in a nation that is built by the people for the people, so if the minds of the people can be subverted by exploiting basic psychological vulnerabilities, than the nation itself can be subverted. Therefore, if there are any subverters actively working against the United States, they are using audiovisual media and human psychology to further their cause, and they can only be stopped by an awakening of using absolute logic and disregarding all the other psychological pressures (even including the phobia of conspiracy itself), which would render their propaganda totally impotent even if they choose to shift their strategy.

This document will contain evidence for various specific avenues of propaganda, why the conclusions they present are fallacious, and will also attempt to examine logical evidence to determine the true issue-stances that would support the long-term welfare of both our society and our government. To succumb to the strongest psychological pressure of them all: to stick to one's existing beliefs no matter what they may be, is to lie down and be defeated in this war, and to accept the claims of this document without logically analyzing them yourself is also to defeat its purpose. Note that, by promoting logical thinking, I am not claiming that we should not be sympathetic, that we should not care about other people, or that we should not serve subjective ends like the preservation of the people we love. All those things are subjective values that are more important than logic itself. What I am saying, however, is that we must use logic in order to reach those goals, and we must examine any plans which are purported to work toward those goals with both extensive research and logical reasoning. It could be that a plan that is purported to help poor people will work, or it could be that such a plan will do nothing in the long term but keep them in their impoverished condition. The solution is not just to search for opinions, but find actual statistical and historical data that, beyond the possible twists of interpretation media outlets and encyclopedias might suggest, allows one to see if a purposed plan of action is both morally sound and effective. Succumbing to our conditioned submission and being lazy enough not to dig deeper with investigation is the alternative, and doing so makes one completely vulnerable to propaganda. Plenty of people who enjoy rap music seem to talk a lot about the "Illuminati" who kill off rappers who won't join with their agenda of propaganda. However, the most dangerous aspect of conspiracy ideology is to relegate it to a spooky urban legend that enables a

person to do nothing to help their fellow man. In reality, the ideology in most conspiracy enthusiast communities, regardless of what they believe in, amounts to a scary story about how a conspiratorial group are running things, and its only end is for people to pretend they are "in the know" about everything going on because there happens to be a single group of conspirators running everything, usually including both political parties. The Conductors benefit from this in two important ways: first, the entire concept of a conspiracy becomes dismissed as a whacko fairy tale among those on the outside, and second, the people who actually believe these types of theories tend to take no action politically, which prevents them from fighting the effects of the actual conspiracies that are afoot in real life. Regardless of whether the "Illuminati," "Freemasons" or some other group is attempting to control people, eliminating or targeting or exposing such a group would be nigh-impossible, and even if one did so, another group would be prone to pop up in the shadows in the future. The solution here is not to run around in the streets trying to kill every single replication of the virus, but to give people a vaccine that immunizes them from the weapon of any "conspiracy" of this kind: deception. To even spend time obsessing over who might be causing all this and how to deal with them personally is to be part of the problem, not the solution, and more than likely, details behind many of those widely-known organizations are nothing more than intentional lies or half-truths to distract from the true operators of propaganda. If propaganda in general can be dissected to explain how it works and what factors serve as a warning sign, and people can seperately be taught to think and analyze all things logically, propaganda becomes obselete, and obscuring the truth becomes immensley more difficult. Emotion tells us to engage in a witch-hunt, but logic tells us that making innocents immune to bullets is a much better option than killing off a single group of murderers, only so

another can arise and cap our skulls from behind when we become complacent following our victory. Most documentaries involve music, emotional pictures, editing, narration, and numerous other production tactics. For documentaries like Kony 2012, these tactics might be considered forgivable to a point, because the producers may innocently be trying to get as many people to pay attention to the issue as possible in order to solve it, but if the production tactics and convenient omissions of key facts continue throughout the video, it's a dead giveaway that the production is entirely propaganda. The problem with using the term "propaganda" is we can look back on Nazi propaganda and spot it and its fallacies from a mile away, but most Nazis couldn't. Someone from the future could very well look back and spot the propaganda we are being exposed to from a mile away, but our propganda gets millions of shares, views, and thumbs up, and the populace has grown up in just the right environment to accept it as fact. Our eyes are blinded to certain things because of the environment we've grown up in. Although we are not participating in anything as cruel as the torture and extermination of Jews, if we do not learn to take a step back and critically analyze the forces that impact us to see if they are fact-inclusive logical arguments or fallacious attempts to get us to believe something, we are in practice no better than many other countries who have committed injustices because they believed they were the right thing to do because they were too lazy to critically analyze their own culture, tradition, values and the information they were being exposed to by various forms of media. For most societies, foresight is 20/20, but many of the disasters in history were inevitable because the lends through which they viewed the world was distorted. In our modern era in which we are

exposed to artificial media much more than in any time before, that issue has itensified a hundredfold. The truth picture of world events and what is going on even now is out there; the trick is, you're not going to have it spoon-fed to you by your friends, your coworkers or your educational institution's curriculum, and you sure as hell are not going to find it by watching a slew of intellectuals state blatant falsehoods with credible-sounding explanations on MSNBC, reading a neatly-compacted propaganda post on Tumblr or watching a fringe documentary on YouTube. If you think about it, many of the things we believe do not arise naturally through just logic. This is fine in the natural world, but when the vulnerabilities of human pscyhology can be exploited by audiovisual propaganda made by other human beings, it's time to take a step back and look at what those vulnerabilities are. Exploiting these things, rather than using logic, results in a logical fallacy: in other words, it doesn't logically establish the truth of anything, even though it often makes people believe things. Here are some of the most common logical fallacies used in propaganda: Appeal to Authority: In our public schools and television documentaries, it's taught as a fact in science textbooks that the early Earth was incredibly hot and covered in greenhouse gases. In reality, this claim is nothing more than a concession to explain the problem of why the evidence shows the Earth was in fact hotter when scientists think the sun must have been much cooler due to their rather speculatory theoretical model of how the solar system formed naturally. From the perspective of scientists, models like these involve constant speculation and brainstorming. From the perspective of the

American public, people just happen to believe anything in a science textbook or on a documentary as automatic fact. What is the danger in this type of thinking? Well, the public believes things because they are sciency, rather than looking at the literal evidence as to why scientists believe things in the first place. It demonstrates a fundamental flaw in how people think: rather than thinking for themselves, they trust people they've never met to do their thinking for them. In many cases, this may not cause any problems. In an important minority of cases, it certainly can. The authorities of information all throughout history have been wrong in one way or another, no matter how much they happened to get right. It's faulty to think things are fundamentally any different now. When people start trusting random people to tell the truth of things because of their credentials, they fail to realize that people the who awarded these credentials to them are just as human and just as fallible. At least most scientists have to physically test samples to validate their ideas. Many experts of other kinds have nothing but the agreement of other humans to validate them. Appeal to Ridicule: The artificial media allows us to take virtually anything, cut it down to something that seems ridiculous, then make fun of it. This becomes easier when other forms of propaganda have already made people believe false generalizations about what is being ridiculed. In many cases, if all a person is exposed to is a witty rant about an outof-context clip and one does not care to investiagte further, one probably develops a negative perception of that which is being ridiculed. It's true because it's funny is what many people presume. In

reality, a comedic segment can be hilarious, but the belief which it supposes can be completely false. For the people who normally care little about politics, getting a brief picture of how a certain party seems ridiculous is enough to make them presume to be just as they are depicted. Shows that use this tactic and in effect change peoples' political beliefs include political comedy, stand-up comedy and news-based comedy, but this tactic can be used in many different mediums. Blaming issues on false causes: When people see a crisis but know very little about how it came about, it becomes easy to blame it on the very things that would have prevented it in the first place. In our legislature and in many academic universities, it was argued that a lack of government regulation caused our recent economic crisis. In reality, it was government intervention in the housing market over the years, including but not beginning with George W. Bush's plan to remove certain requirements for people who want to purchase homes. Some of the most basic things that can be observed from the perspective of someone who is not informed by a constant stream of television media and internet propaganda but looks at facts are still hotly-debated issues politically because the propaganda in this country is so strong and so rampant. You could easily Google the issue I just mentioned and read numerous articles that try to argue that a lack of regulation, rather than regulation in the first place, caused our issues; it is this type of spinning in media companies which perpetuates our problems and deceives the population into a false conception of the causes of our issues and perpetually voting to have our woes renewed. The only way to validate or invalidate a claim in any form of media is to research it more until you understand the ins and outs of what is actually going on not

through the opinions of anchors, article-writers or "experts," but the basic real-life facts which are supposed to inform those people. The experts said the econmic crisis was due to deregulation. The experts also supported a stimulus package that was projected to help the economy but did nothing but slow our recovery from the deficit and cause trouble down the road. Those experts are never automatically right or wrong because they say something, but because of the reasoning behind their claims and the accuracy and completeness of the set of evidence they are using as premises. The amount of tiny assumptions we make daily is staggering when you step back and think about it. A particular president may be in office at a certain time, but does that mean anything is necessarily the president's fault? Not unless it actually is the president's fault, but it is always easy to take advantage of peoples' tendencies to make assumptions. Conditioning Without Explanation: War is bad. Don't take my word for it; look at these grisly videos of people getting their heads blown off and women and children crying as they are caught in the crossfire. Look at all these disabled veterans, servicemen with arms blown off and bodies disfigured. Let's oppose all war. That's a fair idea, right? What if the consequences for not acting in a war would be far worse than the unfortunate things that happen on the battlefield? It doesn't matter. Just overexpose people to the negative effects of something without exposing them to any of the positive effects, and they will begin to oppose and hate it. This applies not only to war, but to anything that can seem bad without explanation as to why it must be. Appeal to the Majority:

The whole world can be wrong. Nevertheless, our brains impel us to think that the majority of people around us are always correct. We have to fight that urge, but it becomes a lot more difficult when outlets of propaganda take advantage of this part of human psychology. The majority may not believe something, but a news program can slip in the idea that it does, and lo and behold, the majority actually begins believing that thing. Mirror Accusation: What is the best possible way to distract from a truth about you or the things you do that must be kept hidden? As it turns out, the last thing many people will expect is that you are guilty of the very things you accuse your opponents of. Imagine a politician accusing another politician of infedility; one would not jump to the conclusion that that politicician would have the sheer audacity to be cheating on her husband herself, let alone falsely accuse another person in order to distract from the issue and cover it up, which makes it a very effective strategy to distract from such issues. For this reason, those who control propaganda and are intentionally lying tend to accuse the other side of the exact same type of ignorance they are purposefully instilling in their audience. Their opponents, they may say, are devoid of logic and reason, living in denial of facts and hard details. The reality may very well be that actually examining those details reveals the accusers are guilty of their own accusations, but because this strategy is so effective, fewer people would smell such a conspiracy than otherwise. Appeal to Bias: Look at that guy. He's running for senate. He's got a good record. He has good intentions... but he's black. That's just a no-go. That argument might have worked a long time ago, but it

certainly wouldn't now. However, where old biases in our society have faded, new ones have cropped up. Most are just as oblivious to them as the majority was oblivious to the wrongness of racism a century or two ago. Are our biases founded in logic? It may be that we are conditioned to have them in the first place, and then those biases are exploited to make us further destructive causes. Appeal to Sympathy: Giving blankets to poor people is generally good. Imagine, however, that for some reason, those blankets actually harmed this country as a whole more than it helped those poor people. People with good intentions oppose giving the poor blankets. People on the other side argue that those heartless politicians are actually willing to let the poor freeze and die because they don't have blankets. This is an excellent way to make a good proposition unpopular. Of course, an appeal to sympathy could turn out to be true; it might be that a proposition would cause more harm than good. It depends entirely on the effects of any particular action, its costs and benefits, not what any particular person has to say about it. Oversimplification: Oversimplification is the omission of inconvenient details to reach a conclusion that would be obviously false if those details were included. You can quite effectively get people to oppose something by making an argument like the following: You are going to buy a big hunk of metal that is not only going to cost you thousands of dollars, but it will require you to pay money over and over again to fuel and refuel. If you accidentally move the wrong way, you will cause the whole thing to collide with objects and you will probably die. Someone can steal it. There are so many moving parts involved that, if one fails, you are out of luck and might very well be

stranded. Just don't buy it. This is ridiculous! The above is an argument against buying a car. The omitted detail is that, in this particular case, a vehicle is the only reliable way to move around to the proper locations quickly enough to live one's life. You can tell someone all of a proposition's faults and make them oppose it even though it has more benefits than faults. You can tell someone all of a group of people's sins and none of their virtues and make them hate them, even though it may be that the general population has no fewer sins than that group. The above are just some of the propaganda tactics that can be used to make people believe things. Obviously, there are more, but you get the point: none of those are logical arguments. Not only are these psychological tactics used by propagandists, but they are used on such a large scale in such a concerted effort that one would presume that there is a movement that has been coordinated through propaganda to make voters believe fallacies that seem true. The specific means of exploiting these vulnerabilities will be futher explored in the next chapter. It's not "wrong" that these things are being used on television; it's "wrong" that people doubtlessly allow them to instill opinions into their minds. It's not that the government should make propaganda illegal; it is that the awareness of the tactics of propaganda should spread like a pandemic so people take comedy for comedy and expert's opinion for expert's opinion and don't try to illogically go about finding the truth in a logic-based world. What makes someone think that a media outlet cannot lie? Someone might say "if they spread lies, someone would call them out on it," but who would call them out on it if the public had no way of knowing if they were spreading lies? What makes people believe the experts, even if they are wrong? In reality, we are all conditioned to

trust certain things, whether it be the opinions of news articles or the interpretive statements in textbooks. That in itself is perhaps the biggest fallacy of them all: the belief that mankind has a tendency to be infallibly right. There is a common assumption which says that both sides of an issue tend to have legitimate points and viable ways of looking at a problem. It's easy to think that way, but when you realize that one side of an issue is engineered by propaganda and the other is not, one side involves reality and the other basesless and disproven speculation that poses as reality, it's also easy to see the right thing in many partisan issues being clear-cut. That does not mean that we should not have respect for other peoples' opinions, especially since there are plenty of Democrats who have good intentions. However, it simply means that we use logic and not some vague rule of remaining "centristic": after all, why would someone want to believe things halfway between a truth and a lie? There is, of course, nothing wrong with being "centristic" when the logical conclusion is to be centristic on an issue, but trying to position yourself between whatever prevailing political ideologies there may be is quite silly because the point between two artificial ideas is irrelevant to the point which represents reality. If reality impelled me to be a Socialist, that's what I would be. If the real world were as it was described in the Communist Manifesto, I would be a Marxist. If both sides actually brought legitimate ideas to the table on both issues, I'd be a CNN-watching moderate. If Noam Chomsky's propositions were in line with the real world, I'd be a syndaclist. If I believed that our values are all completely personal, I'd be a Gary Johnson-voting Libertarian. If the actual evidence pointed to it, I'd be a right-wing conservative. The question is simply what positions reality impels us to take; this whole idea of being biased toward a particular political ideology is a fallacy if you know the actual

reasons why you believe what you believe and why it is correct. No matter how well someone is informed, they will always believe lies if they do not attempt to break claims they hear down to the base evidence and construe logical conclusions from there. Logical fallacies and gut reactions will not avail anyone, but relying on thorough investigation and logical thinking, rather than the propaganda one is exposed to from early life onward, is the only way to actually see the truth of things in this society. The greatest doom in this life, whether it be in our personal life or our voting life, is to abandon logic, even if it is to accept something which claims to be logical and reasonable.

III. The Economy of the United States


What's with the fuss regarding the "middle class" and the difference between various "economic plans"? While many Americans have at least a layman's idea about basic partisan issues, most people do not know that much about economics. I was in that position myself at one time, so I know how confusing the issue can be. The simple reality is that, if you are to expect poverty in this nation to be low and prosperity to be high, you as a voter must know how reality tells us to vote on this issue, not what any politician or propagandist says. In order to understand how our economy works and what economic measures do and do not work in the real world, we first need to look at the two prevailing schools of modern economic thought. Austrian Econmics is the ideology that a government should be run with minimal intervention in its free market. Keynsian Economics, on the other hand, supports a hybrid model of regular government intervention in our free market. The question is not "which ideology

sounds the best" or "which policy seems to have the best intentions," but "which policy works?" To answer that, we need only look at history, but first, let's briefly discuss what a free market is. A free market is basically like an ecosystem of economics. Someone who needs a pen for their child in middle school purchases it at a supermarket, paying money that supports the lives of the people who stock the shelves, clean the aisles and operate the cash register at that store. The chain of economic benefit does not end there by a long shot: the suppliers who supplied the store, the people who transported the items to the store, the original manufacturers who made the pens, the people who brought the materials to the manufacturers, the people gathered the materials, the people who own the land the materials are gathered on, the people who provide cars and tools and clothes and food to the gatherers, all benefit as services and good are exchanged for money. It's an incredibly complex chain that, contrary to popular conception (especially contrary to Karl Marx's leaps of logic) benefits everyone. In that way, it is comparable to an ecosystem of many sizes and shapes of animals who all ultimately get the nutrition they need to live for a while and reproduce before they die and enrich the soil and the cycle continues. Of course, we live in a world that many people wouldn't consider ideal. People get sick, animals die, earthquakes destroy cities and there are occasionally people with guns or bombs who'd like to kill you. Just like the suffering, disease and death that goes on in an ecosystem, people naturally get laid off from their jobs as employers fine-tune their company's assets. Just like new animals are born, new people get to be hired in those situations. And just as species occasionally go extinct without human intervention, some companies have to close or go bankrupt. To prevent extinction, you'd have to

micromanage the animal world. Micromanaging the animal world is impossible; if you tried, you'd just screw it up. As it turns out, the same logic can basically be applied to our economy. Early in its history, the United States enjoyed a mostly freemarket economy. The private sector operated independently of government intervention in most areas. Of course, there were basic rules in place, most notably things like taxes and illegalization of drugs, but compared to today, it was very free-market based. And here is one of the most important things you will ever hear concerning the economy: there were numerous recessions, and all of those recessions were eventually healed automatically by the natural chain of events in a free market. These include the Panic of 1797, the 18021804 recession, the 1812 recession, the 18221823 recession, the 18251826 recession which was also the result of a stock market crash, and the 183334 recession. Every single one of these recessions happened for one reason or another but were recovered from naturally due to our free market trucking on until the wound healed over. As a nation, we were experiencing smooth sailing with a little inevitable turbulence every once in a while until one recession in which the government decided to step in and intervene: the event that would become the beginning of the Great Depression. Prior to the stock market crash that "officially" began the Depression, unemployment was at 3.2% on average in 1928. On January 10, 1929, the stock market crashed. The following year, on January 1, 1930, unemployment rose to 8.9% because of that crash. Much as one would expect, the free market working over time caused the unemployment rate to decrease gradually until it reached 6.3% in early June 1930. That means that, if the government had not intervened, this would have been yet another success of non-

interventionalism that the history books tend to omit as as propagandists continue to push their agendas of economic policies that do not work. This time, however, Herbert Hoover decided to try something new. On June 17, 1930, the natural recovery of our economy was interrupted and the real trouble began. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was passed despite widespread warnings and protest, a bill of government intervention proposed with the intention of protecting the American economy from foreign competition, thus reducing unemployment. It was a tariff on imported goods, but Mr. Hoover failed to realize that other countries would also pass tarriffs on goods imported from the United States in retaliation. Not only did it not serve its intended purpose, but it became the catalyst for a worldwide economic castastrophe. Rather than helping unemployment here in the United States, it caused it to shoot up to 24.1% on average for the year 1931. Although the Smoot-Hawley Tariff catalyzed the beginning of the Great Depression, it was far from the only thing that perpetuated it. Natural recovery from the depression even after the tariff should have ocurred long before World War II, but to most academics, there is a "mysterious" reason why the depression continued for nearly a decade. Near the beginning of this long stretch, Franklin Delano Roosevelt as elected preseident and he passed a series of legislation and executive orders called the New Deal. President Roosevelt was ironically under the impression that our free market competition had caused the Great Depression, rather than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff multiplying the damage done by the stock market crash. The intellectuals surrounding him saw in this crisis a chance to impliment visions of government intervention they had no opportunity to bring to life prior. The New Deal would be a classic example of how trying to artificially mess with something as complex

as our free-market trade backfires significantly, like removing a single card from a house of cards because it's ugly and looking suprised when the entire structure comes crashing down. The New Deal involved many interventions in the free market to help out the little guy and attempt to heal the nation's economic wounds. After the bill was passed, there is a very gradual decrease in unemployment, so it is easy to spin the evidence as if the New Deal actually helped things. The reality, however, is the New Deal did nothing but drastically slow the recovery the free market would have caused anyway. One of the main effects of the New Deal, according to a 2004 study by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, was to increase wages by 25% in 11 key industries. As a result, unemployment was 25% higher than it was projected to have been otherwise based on productivity. That's an exact correlation, and the same logic applies to this day: laws which artifically raise wages force employers to hire employees with more skill value and experience to compensate for the costs of running their business. These interventions into our market sound good on paper because they are intended to help people out, but in reality, they were and are quite dangerous; according to Cole and Ohanian's findings, high wages and high prices served to slow the automatic healing mechanisms of our free market, effectively making the Depression to drag on for seven long years, giving the Nazi Party amunition to propagandize an anti-capitalism platform that allowed them to take power in Germany. In reality, it was not capitalism but the ill-advised manipulation of the free market under both presidents that caused the entire world significant economic trouble. Even though it did nothing but slow our recovery from it significantly, the New Deal has been used as an excuse for government intervention in our free market in academia for decades.

To this very day, people are in power in Washington and probably will be in power in the future for no other reason than the fact that the statistics have been distorted to try to demonstrate that the New Deal helped us. The New Deal is vilified as one of our greatest achievements in some circles, Fraklin Delano Roosevelt an economic savior, and ironically, such a distortion was one of the main reasons both Roosevelt and the Democrats in Congress incurred great political success throughout the Depression. The man was a hero in the eyes of the American people for this reason and a few others, and the sugar-coated but cancerous policies he instituted and signed are ultimately the reason why we continue to deal with a huge, evergrowing national defecit today, as will be discussed in a later chapter. The reality is that, no matter what a measure is intended to do, what matters is what the process it sets in motion actually does. In the case of the New Deal, it was thought to help out America's poor and disenfranchised. It actually harmed them, but they were largely obvlivious to it, and when FDR talked passionately about it in his speeches, the population felt that passion right along with him. The 181521 depression is an example of what we think of when we view the modern housing crisis: a stock market crash. Rather than the federal government intervening, a process largely innovated by Hoover and especially Rosevelt, the crash healed naturally because of our free market mechanism. Of course, there were plenty of job losses and foreclosures, but that is the nature of the beast, a preferable alternative to a disaster like the Great Depression that began with a stock market crash, was catalyzed with a ridiculous tarriff and was perpetuated by popular but completely unfounded and experimental acts that failed their intended purpose. Our free-market machinery works to fix itself in situations like depressions; it is only because of our culture and current perception of

history that we even entertain the wild idea of the government going in and trying to micromanage the proverbial ecosystem that is our economy. In an ideal world, yes, you can prevent people from losing their jobs with occasional intervention, but doing so in reality is severly counterproductive in the sense that it ultimately undermines the system and makes problems worse while creating new ones. Our economy works like a complex and self-perpetuating gearwork; going in with government and trying to manipulate it is akin to going in and cutting the grooves off one gear in a cluster of them and not expecting that machine to work differently. It may seem to have an immediate benefit, but doing so destabilizes the natural system of so many moving parts so that it ultimately causes instability. This was what occurred recently, when the federal government spent years manipulating the housing market while investors continued to invest until the disaster that was predicted by some free-market economists finally occured and the stock market that so many people relied upon crashed. The fact that the issue is debated and the fallacious claim that a lack of intervention caused this issue only continues to perpetuate confusion and misinformation among the American populace while those who know what is really going on watch in horror. It's akin to a debate between Austrians who want to give people proper medication for a disease and Keynsians who want people to drink mercury in a society that is almost totally ignorant of proper medicinal practises. Combine that with how easily government intervention can be painted as something intended to help our people, a form of mercury that looks and smells really, really appealing, and the issue reaches its boiling point in our society. The only thing that keeps a large part of the public supporting these failed policies of government intervention is the high amount of

misinformation that is intentionally and unintentionally spread through propaganda. Keynsian Economist Ben Bernake, currently the head of our Federal Reserve, dismissed and downplayed the possiblity of a recession before our recent economic crisis ocurred. Austrian Economist Peter Schiff predicted it on many different occasions and was often jeered and laughed at by other "experts" on national television. As it turns out, Peter Schiff was correct and a recession occured, while Ben Bernanke was totally wrong in his dismissals of the possibilities of a recession. How did liberal economics even survive this event? Simple: "experts" and media outlets blamed the entire crisis on a lack of regulation. Although it is laughably false, the public knew no different. This long campaign of misinformation can only end if we educate our fellow Americans about the free market and do not rely on the media, the "experts" or our educational institutions to do so. The power to fight back is solely in our hands, and the alternative is doing nothing and continuing to allow sweet-sounding lies to prevail and harm our economy while deepening our national debt. Imagine your father gives you $5000 and tells you to start a small business. You are going to need to employ other people. $5000 is a lot of money, but if you are serious about succeeding, you need to divy it out in a very precise manner so you get the most bang for your buck. You need to employ people who you believe will not wrong you or be undependable, but giving an unproven person a little money at first, rather than a lot of money, is a lot wiser investment of your resources than just throwing out large sums of money to someone who might leave you high and dry. You need to weigh the costs and benefits of each expendature of that $5000 budget, whether that expendature is buying equipment, advertisements on the Internet or paying an employee over time.

Who doesn't want to be paid more money at their job? The idea of "minimum wage," that the lowest positions should give people more money, seems like a great idea to fight poverty at first. At least, it seems like that when it's described that way in propaganda. Unfortunately, there's one key factor the propagation of minimum wage leaves out. Minimum wage is built around an assumption that does not hold up in reality. Employing people with certain backgrounds in certain positions is a business decision that mainly has to do with money. People are given "raises" in order to encourage better performance on the job; how much more money they should be given is calculated based on a cost/benefit analysis considering the business's budget. What types of people a business employs depends upon what characteristics they show in the hiring process; most businesses look for appropriate skills for the job, work experience and various other factors that show a person's effectiveness and dependibility. The business is investing part of its profits toward the bottom line of continuing to operate effectively and make money, so expendatures such as wages and raises are, from its perspective, a re-investment of its profits that must be wise in order for the business to prosper. Let's name our fictional grocery store "Eunix." Entry-level buisnesses like Eunix might employ someone who has never worked before to bag groceries for $5 an hour. If the person turns out to be a flop, as many people who have not proven themselves yet do, it's not that much of an investment lost, therefore Eunix can afford to hire plenty of fresh people with few skills and little prior work experience to become baggers. $5 an hour is not enough to feed a family, but Eunix also wisely allocates money so workers do well on the job, which translates into a pay increase if they perform well. In other words, because of how the free market works, the business serves its interest by hiring people and those people serve their interest by working hard

so they get increasing amounts of money. However, what happens when the government steps in and says to Eunix "every person you hire must be paid $10 or more an hour"? The cost/benefit analysis totally changes; Eunix can risk hiring unskilled workers for $5 an hour, but if they are forced to pay $10 an hour, that may be way too much of a risk. Instead, they are forced to hire fewer baggers with more qualifications, skills and prior work experience to compensate for the fact that a larger portion of the company's money is forced to be allocated to these positions. In other words, because the government forced them to pay people more money, they employed fewer people who were not likely to be a bad investment. People who support minimum wage think that forcing an employer to pay at least $x an hour for entry positions will give lots more money to the low-income people who work those positions. However, in reality, it more or less causes anyone who would not be paid $x without the minimum wage law to face the possiblity of losing their position. It makes employers much more demanding concerning the skills of the workers they employ in these positions. In essence, by far the most significant effect of minimum wage is to make it much harder to find a job. If you need experience to get a job but you need a job to get experience and you are going for entry-level positions, you are are more than likely a victim of the minimum wage effect. "How can we be sure that these workers will be paid enough for their work in the first place?" you may ask. After all, if the government does not ensure a remotely fair wage, what prevents employers who are just acting in their own economic interest from employing people for thirty cents an hour? The answer is "competition." If McDonalds is willing to pay Susy and people with her qualifications $4 an hour, Wendy's would likely feel the need to raise their wage for the same

position to $4.05 an hour so they can continue employing new people when the other guy is paying more. But, oh wait, now Burger King is offering $4.10 for the same position. Wages are driven up because these places are competing to hire people like Susy. Of course, the race gets a lot tighter at a certain point based on the cost/benefit analyses of the businesses, meaning it will certainly not shoot up to infinity, but this basic mechanism of the free market ensures that people at least have a realistic starting wage from which they can continue to advance until they have enough money to live independently or support a family with. As a bagger continues to perform more efficiently and reliably, their wage continually gets bumped up, and they are eventually offered new positions that do indeed pay enough for them to feed a family. The whole idea that any job should be forced to pay someone enough to sustain a family is an arbitrary assumption that needs to be questioned; a person might have that low-paying job for a while, but it is in their natural power in this system to continue to advance through excellent work until they get a high-paying job, and in the process, there are a lot of happy customers with their items bagged quickly and effectively. It's a win for the business, the worker, the customers and the suppliers of the products, but not for politicians who want to be elected or re-elected by pandering to people with rhetoric of minimum wage, or for politicians who legitimately believe it helps peoples' situations when, in reality, it does not. Most people who advocate minimum wage interview low-income people who complain about how they can't feed their family when paid such low wages and include sad footage of their family at home. Barring the fact that raising the minimum wage would probably result in such a person being laid off (so much for actual sympathy), they are trying to re-define what a "job" is in their quest for economic justice. A

job is just a job, and it is not obligated to magically cater to one's needs. The woman who is trying to support three kids at home is not given a different job than anyone else of any other walk of life in the same position. A person could get a job for a variety of reasons, only one of which is supporting a family, so trying to force all jobs to conform to that one situation does not only not work but it doesn't make sense. How can one use this system, however, to support a family? The ideal situation for the type of person who doesn't want to go to college or a university is to start working at a low-paying position before they need to live independently or support a family and use that system of advancement to climb up further and further until they become a responsible wage-earning adult. Of course, it doesn't always work like that; some people have kids. People should love their kids enough to do whatever is necessary, such as working as hard as humanly possible in order to advance at work so they won't starve or be forced into a situation of parental bankruptcy. The natural system allows one to do that, or work moderately hard and stay at a lower position if one so chooses. In the wilderness, parents had to work significantly hard each day to be able to feed their family; this is only the modern equivalent of this in an amazingly effective economic model that helps all parties involved except for propagandists who cultivate an attitude of helplessness and politicans who work intentionally or unintentionally to prevent most people from getting a chance to start in the first place because of minimum wage. The rules of the free market are beautifully consistent. Many more bananas will be sold at $3 than at $7. Entry-level wages work the same way. Higher minimum wage means a lower amount of jobs. Lower minimum wage means a higher amount of jobs. The constant is money. The more low-paying jobs are created, the more each individual has a chance to work their way up the ladder out of poverty.

The higher the minimum wage, the closer to impossible it becomes to see improvement in those statistics of poverty we see. The mere existence of minimum wage is a huge contributing factor to our current situation with poverty. It's not the fact that the companies at the top don't want to "share the wealth," as the misguided idea goes, it's that the government makes it economic suicide for them to share that wealth in the form of paying jobs for people who haven't proven themselves in the workplace yet by passing minimum wage laws. Without that artificial minimum wage, companies would take more risks and poor people would get more opportunities. After that point, the harder working poor people would become middle-class people. Why on Earth would the public be so minsinformed about this issue? The answer is that many of those with the tools and resources to inform the public choose instead to popularize a law that keeps poor people poor so they will keep voting in their "economic interest" election after election. The problem is, the positions that are supposed to be in the "economic interest" of the poor or middle class, minimum wage being just one example, are often counterproductive to fighting poverty or unemployment. Those who rightfully argue against minimum wage, of whom there are many, hardly ever get their message out to a large number of people. If you are reading this and agree, you have a mouth and hopefully a desire to help out the poor. You can help change that. In June 2012, the unemployment rate for black teenagers in America from ages 16 to 19 jumped to an alarming 39.3%. That would indicate that the minimum wage is not working to help equality of income in America, despite the fact that it's often pushed as such, and we can see the effects of the continual support of the minimum wage law in our current predicament. As long as people try to save a burning building via use of a flamethrower, the problem will not get better. The main problem with black unemployment is that men and

women who have not been in the workforce much or at all, were born into low-income families and do not yet have the skills they would get through experience at work have great difficulty finding a job because of the minimum wage effect. If history is any clue, the history in which black Americans became literate after slavery at an extremely rapid pace, they as a culture would immediately excel and start to bridge the income gap if given the opportunity. This opportunity can only come through the repeal of the minimum wage law, not by lyingly implying that the law fights poverty and giving checks to people without jobs. Minimum wage sounds nice on paper, with that pesky element of how the market reactively makes unemployment higher because of it omitted. It's a brilliant fallacy. It seems to me that some people have a lot to gain by keeping people unemployed so they become disenfranchised and support certain causes, the very same which keep them unemployed in the first place, so the cycle repeats and a certain party remains in power. It's a brilliant fallacy, but for the people, most famously low-income blacks who simply need those entry-level positions to start moving up the ladder and bridging the poverty cap, the following phrase Walter E. Williams used as an article title is quite appropriate: Minimum wage, maximum folly. What about the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries? Surely, banning or limiting outsourcing would force more jobs to spring up here in the United States, correct? The problem with that line of thinking is that it contains an essential omission: if restrictions are passed on our own outsourcing to other countries, the retaliation by those countries would no doubt be restricting their outsourcing of jobs to the United States. Outsourcing is not a one-way street, and we stand to lose many more American jobs than we would

gain if we forced these countries to return our outsourcing restrictions. Just a few examples of foreign countries that outsource to the United States are Toyota, Nokia, Honda, POSCO and BT Group. The stronger the clamp we place on outsourcing, the more our workers in companies such as these will be laid off. It's ironic that the Democratic party is principially against xenophobia yet it would attempt to throttle a practice that helps other countries to the point that retaliation by those countries would, just as with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, be necessary to try to force the United States to reverse the anti-outsourcing measure. It was the reaction to this tarriff by other countries, mind you, that transformed the Great Depression from a recession into one of the worst economic disasters in history as countries mirrored the United States's restrictions on imports, causing an overall stagnation of world trade. Outsourcing is world trade in action. It's so easy to spin it as "shipping jobs overseas" without speaking of the countries that outsource to us that it has become a false issue given lip-service not only by Democrats but by many ignorant Republicans. Another common argument against lack of regulation in the economy is the idea that, if the government does not place restrictions on corparations, the corparations can in no way be trusted to place the right restrictions on themselves. Once again, we have an essential omission: government regulation makes it the economic interest of those big, wealthy corparations to pay for lobbyists in order to "persuade" congressmen to enact regulations that benefit them. As will gradually become clearer as this document continues, we are already in the midst of a war of propaganda because the American people have the power to elect officials in their government. The last thing we need to do is add a new, powerful faction into the mix that seeks to use its excessive funds to propagandize Americans into supporting whichever party would pass regulations to help their

corparations entirely because they are trying to seek power for their own businesses. Although it is supported by many intellectuals who live inside the walls of universities, the policy of government intervention in the private sector just does not work. Christina Romer is a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley who served as an advisor to Barack Obama in developing his "Stimulus" plan. Along with Jared Bernstein, she charted out the projection that the Stimulus plan would cause unemployment to be about 5.5% by quarter 3 in 2011, but without a recovery plan, it would be 6%. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate is 6.8%. Immediately after the Stimulus plan went into action, the actual unemployment rate began to shoot up beyond the projection for no intervention at all, the very thing which Romer was attempting to avoid in the first place, and it has continued to consistently be from approximately 1% to 2.5% higher than the projected rate for the stimulus package since mid-first quarter 2009. This is because, while free markets are a thing of the real world, playing God with the economy typically only works in peoples' heads. (Although it may not seem like much, 1% in terms of our unemployment is huge both in terms of the amount of Americans it includes and its significance in unemployment figures.) Despite what might have been a very honest effort by some of the people on Obama's economic team and much analysis and the application of years of learning Keynsian economic theory, the projected benefit of the stimulus was just as much in the imagination of people as the benefit of government intervention almost always is. When one becomes detatched from real-world evidence and common sense and instead tries to apply convoluted man-made theoretical frameworks to the real world, one often comes up short.

The Great Depression proved this. Our recent crisis proved this. Because of convoluted communication of economics to the American public, people just do not learn from these events. University degrees and media approval and academic heirarchy make many Americans assume the "experts" always know the best course of action to help micromanage the economy. God willing, this document will help change that.

IV. The Hidden Cancer of Propaganda


A hundred years ago, we had a society that could vote. They relied on newspapers and the words of politicans for information, so if you believed in a particular agenda, you could influence them through those mediums, but that was about it. Today, we still have a society that can vote and we have television, the Internet, schools, universities, and various other things that feed people information. Our enemies with military power have tried before to take over this nation and have failed miserably. However, that proves that there are people in this world who would like to severely manipulate our country for their own benefit, and although force of arms is out of the question, that is far from the only way you can dismantle a country. After all, this has been true for all great empires; if any person could find a way to conquer Rome, they would surely do it. Since the power of governance is in the hand of the American people, all of these new developments allow those with power and funds to access the minds and shape the opinions of the population using artificial media. Thus, they are able to forward their agenda by new means of deception, and with these new technologies, those means are frequently trusted by the victims of propaganda. If you are born into such a world of propaganda, you would not become aware of it until you purposefully took a step back and,

contrary to your ease and comfort with this world you've lived in your whole life and the media outlets you enjoy, began to logically consider things. Once you do and you are given the glaring details which propaganda omits, you begin to realize how faulty the economic arguments for liberalism are. As far as social arguments go, that falls to rationality, which will be explained as this document continues. One of the most common phrases people hear is the "liberal media." It often comes from Fox News broadcasters like Bill O'rielly who people are conditioned to hate, so they resent the term. However, this criticism does have some basis in reality. When you consider that these policies (take the economic ones which have already been explained) make no sense in the real world, the question becomes why people would be so energized to spread or give credibility those causes on such a large scale to the point that these ideas have unprecidentedly dominated both television and the Internet. News programs like MSNBC, publications like the New York Times and most popular universities all spread the same types of ideas that work as far as information is concerned but do not work in real life or at least cause more harm than good. Is this phenomenon because, for example, news anchors and producers who skew the interpretations of events to support certain liberal causes are evil? In many cases, I don't think this is true. Take Peter Hitchens, for example, a man who in his early years explicitly became a journalist because he was a Marxist revolutionary and wanted to forward the cause of his political movement the only way he knew would be effective: by selectively relaying information to the public in a way that would make them support the Marxist cause. Keep in mind that he was not trying to get the public to believe something he himself did not; he was just using rather shady means to do it. That certainly isn't right because it is dishonest and supported an

ideology that could only cause harm if acted on, but it is also a far cry from the idea of an evil reporter who is intentionally skewing the news to cause chaos or destruction. In most cases, I think professors and media workers who relate these ideas to people legitimately believe that they are serving the common good; it is the people who work behind the scenes in certain positions who employ people with these desires and influence them to further their own agenda. MSNBC is a news outlet that is obviously liberal in almost everything it puts out. If it were the instrument of an agenda, it would be a good example to demonstrate to people, but is there any actual evidence that propagandists are working behind the scene in some kind of conspiratorial cause? Cenk Uygur of "The Young Turks" is a liberal who legitimately believes what he says. Although I may not agree with him, he does speak his mind and tell what he sees to be the honest truth of things. Cenk posted a video about a year ago explaining why he left MSNBC. According to his own words, he was once pulled aside by MSNBC officials who gave him some bizarre requests. Despite the fact that his segments got consistently good ratings, he was repeatedly given directions that did not entirely make sense. According to Cenk's paraphrasing, he was pulled aside by his friend, a producer and given this speech: "You know, Cenk, there are two audiences. There's the audience that you're trying to appeal to, that's the viewers, and there's the audience that is management. And management is kind of like 'the club.' And they want to make sure that you're cool, and you know... you can basically play ball to be in the club." After that, Cenk started getting notes from MSNBC officials that seemed to imply that there were problems with his delivery, but gave

odd and seemingly random suggestions on how to fix it. He was told to "act more like a senator," to use his arms while speaking differently, and various things that seem to actually be a distortion from what the true issue was. In reality, Cenk was critical of Barack Obama on many occasions because of his own outspoken political views. If you are MSNBC officials, you cannot explicitly tell Cenk "stop criticizing Obama so much; we're trying to make him popular with the public" without exposing yourself to a man who honestly believes what in what he is doing to the point he may blow your cover. For that reason, you can only give him very indirect hints and hope he catches on, but if he does not, you have to move him away from the core programming hours so he stops influencing people to dislike Barack Obama. Eventually, according to Cenk's paraphrasing, the head of MSNBC pulled him aside and gave him one more message: "Hey listen, I was just in Washington, and people in Washington told me they were concerned about your tone... Hey, listen, Cenk. I'd love to be an outsider. Outsiders are cool. But we're not. We're insiders. We are the establishment." People in Washington?! What? Cenk was just a journalist. Now, that's just strange. It seemed just as surprising to him as anyone else listening to the story. Then he was given more direct commands: turning down his tone and inviting more Republicans, for example. Obviously that would help MSNBC's credibility and image, but the core issue still remained unspoken. He chose to let out more of his own personality and ratings improved dramatically, but once again, he was contacted by officials and told there was an issue. He asked them if he performed everything they wanted him to, and they said yes, but they said there was a "better role for him" that was not at 6 o'clock. In

reality, Cenk had to be moved to a position where fewer people watched him because of the network's objectives of supporting Barack Obama and the actual election of Democratic officials. MSNBC was willing to pay more money to Cenk to keep him confined to a minor role, but he turned it down out of principle. I'm certain Cenk would probably not agree with the conclusion that there is some type of conspiracy going on. In fact, if this document became popular enough, he'd probably tear the whole thing apart on his show. However, the fact remains that the accounts he has given to the public can be used to get a glimpse into what is going on in the American media. It was hearing Cenk speak so explicitly about these goings-on that finally confirmed the strong suspicions I had previously had, suspicious that most may still ridicule despite the evidence. This whole idea that there is a group of people influencing the media to put out these ideas to intentionally affect the public to vote for Democrats is not just some conspiracy theory; it is a reality that works behind the scenes even as we speak. If you've been watching MSNBC lately, you would probably notice that the programming is directly geared toward getting Barack Obama re-elected as president. Whether you agree or disagree with liberal politics, there's no question about that; stories that point to the exact opposite conclusions are interpreted by anchors as things such as "yet another reason to support Barack Obama as president." Does this mean that the individuals who are not like Cenk, who intentionally construct their messages to support Obama and please the establishment are totally evil and manipulative and don't believe in their own cause? Not at all. Here is a direct quote from MSNBC personality Chris Matthews: "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work... this new presidency work. Yeah, that is my job. My job is to help this

country." Keep in mind Chris Matthews is a relayer of information and ideas to the public, and he says his "job" is to support this presidency. That can mean nothing less than intentionally relaying information in a way that makes the public support Barack Obama more than they would otherwise. Although Chris had to choose his words carefully, it is obvious what is going on here. Just as Peter Hitchens was willing to use his journalistic position to support the cause he believed in at the time, Marxism, Chris Matthews is using it to "help his country," as far as he is concerned. Unlike Cenk, Chris feels that the best course of action is to spin stories in a way that benefit the President because he feels it is legitimately better for us to have Barack Obama in office than a Republican. What even Chris Matthews probably does not realize is that his own willingness to comply and personal goals are being used by those who put him in such a position for an agenda that does not help this country. People who work in television and written news are not the only people influenced by these "Conductors." These "people in Washington" who evidently fine-tune what type of programming is aired on MSNBC, or at least their associates, have influence in many different forms of media. If you think about it, movies are an excellent way to cause people to succumb to an idea or support a cause for moral reasons. Imagine if you had no scruples and you could pay someone to come up with a fantastic emotional story that makes audiences cry which also plants ideas in their head about how certain conservative causes are evil or bigoted. It would make no sense not to take advantage of an opportunity like that, and that is what Hollywood has demonstrably done over the years by producing movies that have specific content

that emotionally impresses opinions and values on people that are meant to influence them to vote Democrat. Many of these movies are beloved by people, but then again, that gives us a look into how effective they really are. Aside from movies themselves, celebrities also seem to be a prime tool of this group of conspirators. As was seen in the recent Republican convention, some celebrities such as Clint Eastwood speak out for conservative causes out of their own accord. Besides those individuals and their equivalent for liberal causes, we see a surprisingly large excess number of spokespersons and endorsers for Democratic or leftist politics. Celebrities such as Justin Timberlake and Jessica Alba and Lady Gaga and many, many, many more tend to come out and plainly state what their views are and how they directly support Democrats. In the recent Democratic convention, Scarlett Johansson gave an impactful speech in support of Barack Obama that was in the wake of her role in the highly successful Marvel film, "The Avengers." Why does Hollywood and the entertainment industry have such a skew toward a certain end of the political spectrum? As it turns out, if you make six or seven figures a year and live secludedly, you are not going to suffer very much if there is an economic recession. Many Hollywood celbrities especially live isolated from the outside world; after all, if they value their privacy at all they not only have to seclude themselves but must often shield their eyes or faces in public. They also make absurdly huge amounts of money. There might be several explanations as to why Hollywood celebrities are so collectively liberal: their isolation from the outside world means that they usually get their political opinions from propaganda rather than common sense and base data, they want to be popular with the masses by supporting things that seem altruistic, or perhaps many are just paid off. I'm convinced that the third option is true in many cases, but why?

The reason why a person would fork out an incredible amount of money to have a celebrity publically endorse a candidate is because a person who works in the entertainment business has a strong emotional connection with his or her fans. Movies can be beautiful stories that make the audience cry or have them on the edge of their seat. Because our minds are not structured with the existence of movies in mind, we tend to develop emotional connections with the actors we see on screen. For some people, this goes to extremes, with celebrities being exposed as woman-beating misogynists, drug users or attempted murderers while their fans almost totally overlook their moral character simply because of their talent and prior connection to them. The American people have an entirely seperate way of dealing with celebirites both in the positive and negative sense compared to other people; the illusion that they are anything more than humans like is is one of the strongest unspoken fallacies held in society. When an actor that the masses see as morally virtuous for reasons totally unrelated to morality endorses a candidate, many fans simply trust their decision. This is not to say that every hollywood actor who supports liberal causes is being "paid off" or does not believe in what they are endorsing. Scarlett Johansson may have been being completely earnest as she described her ascent from a low-paying restaurant job to actress as her sisters struggled in New York and how she feels that Democratic policies work to help the "little people." As for whether they actually do or not, this document should contain evidence that answers that question. However, beyond mere individuals, it is obvious that the overall trend in Hollywood celebrities to endorse Democratic candidates has been manufactured with a specific cause in mind: if the truth is not on your side, you have to support your cause from many different angles. Those angles include working to appeal specifically to women, every

minority population, every Internet-exposed young person, every union worker, et cetera. What is "education"? I'm certainly not arguing for its abolition, but it is nothing more than one group of beings indoctrinating another. Particularly in our current system, people are fed facts but are not taught to think for themselves or dig deeper to see the basic evidence that informs the interpretations of facts in their study material. As public and private schooling increased in popularity in our country, so has the impetus to exploit this window into peoples' minds for political purposes. Regardless of political opinions, independent thinkers tend to recognize this: as Matt Damon said on the Piers Morgan show, we are indeed "training them, not teaching them." As the North American Academic Study Survey reported in 1999, approximately 50% of college faculty in the United States identified as "Democrat," whereas only 11% identified as Republicans. 72% of faculty described themselves as "to the left of center." To anyone who has been to a university or knows a good deal of university students, it comes as no surprise that most college students, and indeed most young people in the United States, seem to be liberal. When a large number of educators who are viewed by the population as people with deep and enlightened knowlege are liberal and even our own textbooks that are supposed to be an accurate representation of history support liberal economic policies, the paradox we are faced with becomes evident. Educational systems, particularly universities, are viewed as the place where one acquires verified, authoritative and necessary knowlege for life, but if they teach liberal ideas and support the policies of Democrats, how does one expect young people to see the world for how it truly is? Moreover, if it is the case that a disinformation network extends to these univeristies, how would the Conductors influence professors on such a large scale?

As it turns out, information works differently than other fields. In Ancient Greece, the climate of intellectualism was such that ideas, rather than facts that are verifiable with evidence, prevailed in public opinion. Universities were innovated as a place where ideas as varied as advanced mathematics and complete pseudoscience were taught under the same roof. Isolation from the real world creates a petri dish for bizarre ideas; in this case, within the walls of universities, committees talk with each other and pat each other on the back and have riveting conversations, but there is very little to tether political opinion back to basic real-world evidence and common sense. Rather, such an environment makes manipulation of faculty all the easier, and thus the manipulation of students by proxy is accomplished to at least a considerable degree. Within the sealed-off walls of many universities, the intellectual and social climate is such that any individual who vaguely associates themselves directly or indirectly with the "corparate devil" or antiprogressive movements is considered an errant soul at best. In the words of TMZ founder Harvey Levin, openly voting for a Republican in the isolated community of Hollywood celebrities makes someone's reputation be held in the same esteem as a child molestor. Exactly how hyperbolic those words are, I don't know for sure, but it's clear that, whether the specifics involve a facility of ideas and indoctrination rather than immediately testable facts or being in a rich, gated community of privacy-seeking public figures, isolation from the real world causes exposure and vulnerability to the world that mankind creates in the form of videos, articles, curicculms, lectures, news programs, books, images and websites. All of those things are made by the hands of human beings and do not necessarily reflect actual reality one way or the other. We trust our brains to accomplish more than they actually can. They do have failsafes, but when those failsafes are artificially

exploited by situations in which we trust the artificial media and a large group of people are deceived together in a closed-off environment from reality, there is usually nothing to jar people into realizing what is actually happening until it is too late. That is the main reason why this document exists. What if there is an agenda to put forward a lie When actress Stacey Dash endorsed Mitt Romney on Twitter, many of her followers erupted in an outrage which included both racial epithets and death threats. Of course, I don't think most people are serious why they anonymously say these things on the Internet, but then again, I've never gone that far so I don't know. A video of a Republican speaking, regardless of who that Republican is, tends to get a huge fraction of down-votes on YouTube, often greater than the purportion of likes, and many of the most popular comments there flay conservatives as if they were the scum of the earth. Tumblr, perhaps the grand-daddy of them all, seems to have the collective mindset that Mitt Romney is one of the worst individuals you could possibly imagine. Why does the Internet have such a strong and passionate liberal base? Well, here is one answer: imagine that, rather than the Internet existing, a representation of everything that is reported in Internet propaganda happened before your very eyes. Every time details are omitted to make it appear Mitt Romney carelessly abused his dog, he actually carelessly abuses his dog. Every time it is said that Paul Ryan is working a conspiracy to serve rich people, he actually steals your money and gives it to a billionaire. Every time it is said Mitt Romney is campaigning against women, he literally runs a Salem witch trial. You'd absolutely dispise Mitt Romney, wouldn't you? If we are conditioned to trust propaganda posts and articles and so forth in their interpretation of actual events and not investigate the issue any further, then we take away any level of doubt or hesitation.

Our brains are designed to react to the natural world, not the artificial; every time an Internet-goer is convinced by propaganda that the Republicans truly are as collectively evil as they are painted as being, it's almost as if they were personally assaulted by them in the real world, at least in terms of conditioning them to dislike Republicans. Once enough people have this disdain, peer pressure and the media all combine together to create a hotbed of resentment in this artificial world in which nary a voice is there to stop conservatives from being painted as closed-minded bigots when, in reality, only a minority of them are. We see evidence in education, the media, the Internet, Hollywood and various other aspects of society that these mediums have intentionally been milked for all they're worth in order to influence people toward one specific agenda: political and social leftism. It was a rather genius move on the part of the Conductors to jump on the bandwagon as soon as these new mediums of movies and the World Wide Web became popular, but their domination of these mediums shows that their mindset was originally to exploit whatever is available to advance their cause. All this can be derived simply by looking at the current state of these mediums, from popular movies to recent web articles by key publications, and the methodology of key individuals who push the largest buttons in society. If people were wary of the use of artificial media for political gain, they would simply take a step back, not trust what they read but do the research to uncover the base facts and draw their own conclusions. That's what I'm advocating: although this document contains a justifaction for conservative ideas, whatever you come up with on your own is completely fine by me, so long as these propagandists are deprived of their tools to impose ideas on you. We know that propaganda is pervasive, but why exactly is it dangerous? Why is it pressing, specifically in terms of our quality of

life, that forces us to fight it if we are to survive as a nation? The following two chapters should shed some light on the damage that can be done in purely systemic terms.

V. Us vs. Them
A scapegoat is a certain party, be it a class of people or an individual person, upon which blame and negative accusations for a wide range of things falls. In terms of propaganda, using a scapegoat creates the false image of an enemy in peoples' minds, and it can be in a propagandist's interest to form a movement in opposition to this imaginary scapegoat. This happened in Nazi Germany when Germany's problems were blamed on capitalism and all the Jews. It is much easier to create a scapegoat if certain facts can be manipulated to make it seem like the scapegoat is actually guilty. In recent years, the income gap between brackets of rich and poor Americans has grown significantly. A pivotal speech was given by Democratic congressman Bernie Sanders in 2010, which implicated rich people as a mostly evil class which caused American citizens great harm: Mr. President, there is a war going on in this country, and I'm not referring to the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. I'm talking about a war being waged by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this country against the working families of the United States of America, against the disappearing and shrinking middle class of our country. The reality is, many of the nation's billionaires are on the war-path. They want more, more, more. Their greed has no end, and apparently there is very little concern for our country or for the people of this country if it gets in the way of the accumulation of more and more wealth and more and more power. Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income

earners in the United States made 23 1/2 percent of all income. The top 1 percent earned 23 1/2 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent. And today, as the middle class collapses, the top 1 percent earns 23 1/2 percent of all income--more than the bottom 50 percent. Today, if you can believe it, the top one-tenth of 1 percent earns about 12 cents of every dollar earned in America. Bernie Sanders used a lot of statistics. Those are factual. However, his interpretation that the top 1% are intentionally working against the lower classes and causing this income gap because they want to hoard money is a leap of logic; those statistics do not allow us to make such an assumption. The real killer to this top 1% theory, it turns out, is that the top 1% is not a constant group of individuals at all. Looking at the statistics, we make the unspoken assumption that the top 1% of income-earners refers to a specific group of people. It doesn't; it refers to whomever was in that income bracket in those specific years. As it turns out, people regularly move in and out of the top 1%. Rather than being a constant group of evil rich people, most who are in that category make it big for a short while and then dip out while new people go in. Therefore, the idea that this top 1% is intentionally hoarding this wealth with diabolical schemes largely falls flat, because if they are, they're not doing a very good job doing it. The gap of income we talk about is between income brackets, not necessarily individuals. There certainly is an issue there, but the idea that there should be some type of wealth redistribution system to fix it is bankrupt of any knowledge about how our economy works. Arbitrarily trying to move this income around from the companies that re-invest income to make their income in the first place would cause the whole system to collapse in a matter of time because the means

by which wealth is created would be thrown out of whack; it would literally be like redistributing the populations of animals in an ecosystem in a way that throws off the natural balance but is supposed to give everyone a fair share of meat, only all the prey are virtually extinct by the next generation. Wealth redistribution by government does not work in large countries. In reality, our free market allows people to advance naturally; the numerous and varied interventions into the businesses of the free market by government action have prevented this advancement and caused a good deal of the income inequality in America. Using rich people or the oppressive upper class as a scapegoat is nothing new to propagandists or the Conductors. In Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, the exact same ideology was proposed, that the rich bourgeois were oppressing the workers, or the proletariat and the working class was systematically enslaved by the capitalist system. It should have been obvious from the living conditions of places like the Soviet Union and Communist China that Marx's basic ideas implemented in reality don't work because they never represented reality in the first place. The same is true for the modern hatred that is hurtled toward rich people. The population is oppressed, but rather than going after their specific oppressors, they have been deceived to blindly target those people who make a lot of money or work on Wall Street. In certain areas of politics, this paranoia that the rich capitalists are attempting to sway politics for their exclusive benefit is especially dangerous. For now, let's turn to a simple idea, the idea of tax the rich more. Rich people in the United States get a ton of money. They obviously don't need all those excess funds to live. Raising their taxes so the government gets more revenue, especially as we face a huge defecit, makes perfect sense. Why would anyone support tax cuts on the rich? There are two common answers to this question from most people: either "I have no idea" or "the Republicans are intentionally serving the interests of the rich for their own benefit."

However, the above assumption that the rich being taxed more equals more revenue than otherwise misses the mark of reality because of one simple fact: a high tax on rich people gives those rich people an incentive to avoid the tax. Many of them use tax reserves, and no matter what means these wealthy entities use, history tells us resoundingly over and over again that a higher tax on the rich causes lower revenue for our government from the rich. The New York times reported in 2006 that, following the Bush tax cuts, "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year." Why was it "unexpected" to the New York Times? Because the majority of people who write articles and brainstorm for the publication view the world in a completely different light, and while a very explainable phenomenon was occurring, they themselves were at a loss to call it anything but an anomaly. It is simply part of the current liberal worldview that higher taxes on the wealthy means more revenue and lower taxes on the wealthy means the middle class has to suffer, which has nothing to do with the actual reality of the effects of tax policies but is emotionally appealing to the masses. At the turn of the 20th century, millions of dollars represented a monstrous amount of money to most people, and it only made sense to some people that the government should heavily tax all such incomes in order to benefit from them. The War Revenue Act of 1917 taxes all income above 2 million dollars at 67%, and the following year, that number was basically raised to 73% by the Revenue Act of 1918 and the tax now applied to all incomes above 1 million dollars. In the following decade, the tax rate was then lowered to 58%, then to 25%. As tax rates went down, revenue went up, and it became apparent that the government got a lot more money by applying lower tax rates to high income brackets than high tax rates to America's

weathiest. Like most good things, this improvement was contested and later repealed because of false beliefs and lack of communication of facts. In 1932, the tax rate for the wealthiest was once again raised, this time to 63%. Guess what happened to the government's revenue from that bracket? Excluding government enterprises, total Federal revenue decreased by about 30 million dollars between 1931 and 1932. That number meant a lot more at the time: because the government had such a huge drop in revenue, the funding for numerous facets of our government had to be cut drastically. Of course, it is easy to spin that number to blame it all on the Great Depression, but not if we take all other eras of history into account. The following graphic from Forbes.com demonstrates an overwhelmingly obvious trend: as taxation percentages for the wealthiest go up, government revenue from that bracket goes down. The more the tax is cut, the more money the government gets from those brackets.

The red line is the tax percentage for America's wealthiest, and the blue line represents "federal recipts," meaning the amount of

money the Federal government receives from that bracket. Propaganda says the rich should help out our defecit by the means of a tax increases. History unsullied by the hands of men says otherwise. That chart is abundantly clear: it's not just erroneous to say that the rich should "pay their fair share" as the government increases tax percentages on them to help out with the defecit. It is absolutely crazy, because the exact opposite thing happens; the government gets less money from them, so the entire purpose is defeated because the people who enact and support these policies are ignorant of history. President Obama's most frequent argument is that rich people need to "pay their fair share" in order to help us out of the defecit. But, if higher tax rates mean less revenue from that bracket, that would mean that rich people will actually be providing less money to help us out of the defecit, effectively making the problem worse rather than better. How does such an argument even hold up? Because it's easy to make the public think "higher taxes on the rich means more money from those who get a lot of money." If you spin it a certain way, it just seems to be common sense. This is an excellent example of the danger that propaganda poses in terms of the destructive policies that it ultimately sets in place. President Obama might believe what he is saying is true and the people who support him may as well, but reality will always trump belief when you manipulate the world based on an outright lie. When people like Barack Obama stand on a stage spreading these toxic ideas about the economy and making them appeal to poor people, we suffer as a nation unless people like you take initiative to go out and inform people. The myth of the rich being a bunch of money-hungry, greedy individuals trying to protect their own assets through the Republican Party does absolutely NOTHING but serve the agenda of the government getting less revenue to fight the defecit,

regardless of what concepts of it exist in peoples' minds and regardless of the folk myths that have been engineered by the Conductors to dismantle this nation. Contrary to popular myth, the tax increase on the richest of Americans in President Clinton's first term did not cause a massive increase in government revenue. It is the tax reduction that was a part of Clinton's re-election platform for 1996 which helped cause a massive increase in revenue (approximately $143 billion a year) by cutting the tax rate for the rich down from 28% to 20%. Bill Clinton of all people should have known the benefits of increased revenue by lowering taxes on the rich, but the difference is he did what was politically convenient at that time and is doing what is politically convenient for his party now as President Obama is campaigning for re-election. Keep in mind that this debate wages generation after generation and people are never the wiser until the population recognizes the strains of these policies and causes new policies to be set in place, only for another generation to come into power and rant about how those greedy rich people need to pay more taxes. It's seems like a never ending process, and it will never end until American voters step up in spite of propaganda and let their voices be heard, both to politicians and their fellow man. We need to not only stop this ridiculous charrade of taxing those "darn rich people" more, but we need to take a stand loud enough for all future generations to hear, because otherwise, we will be doomed to repeat this ridiculous game without end. Our own academic institutions are major perpetuators of the richtax myth, just as they are with other liberal economic policies that do not work in the real world. For example, here is a quote from the popular textbook "The American Pageant," referring to Treasury

Andrew W. Mellon's ideas about taxing the rich less: "Mellons spare-the-rich policies thus shifted much of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-income groups." The question becomes "how did it shift that tax burden to the middle class?" The answer is "it obviously didn't," but then the question becomes "why would such a false analysis be stated as an outright fact in a textbook?" Most people view education in general as teaching high and important truths to those who wish to learn, but they forget the fact that it is fundamentally a group of human beings indoctrinating another group of people. All it takes is a deceived committee or group of authors, or even those who wish to intentionally deceive, to produce textbooks that are untrue, and then students read them, regard them as fact and vote accordingly. It's a rather vicious reality, and it will always be this way until people are willing to take a step back and use logic to determine whether or not they believe things, rather than accepting that which "seems" to be true or logical based on our ideas of education. Several indepentent agencies have calculated that Romney's plan of a lower tax on the rich than Obama's would force Romney to increase taxes on the middle class to compensate. The question is not what their findings are, but how they calculated them. In this case, it's quite obvious why they came to this conclusion: they are merely using mathematical formulas and assuming constants that are not constant in the real world. Of course, if you assume that the actions of wealthy Americans remain the same regardless of tax percentages, the government would have more revenue if we increased them. The problem is they don't, and while that is obvious in the real world, when you are punching numbers into a computer, that human element remains unaccounted for. That is what causes this confusion regarding pro-

Obama officials saying Romney will increase taxes on the middle class while Romney says he will not. It is nothing more than the convenient use of calculations that exist in a computer but do not represent reality with human behavior considered. Bill Clinton knows exactly what the ill effects of cutting taxes on the wealthy are. He knows exactly why those findings don't work out in reality. So, why was he in a video entitled "President Clinton Explains Mitt Romney's $5 Trillion Tax Cut" in which he supported those findings and batted for the team that wants to repeat his past mistakes? His exact quote is "it hasn't worked before and it won't work this time" when he used the same principle and it worked for him in his second term. Why is Bill Clinton's wife Hillary officially calling for a GLOBAL tax on the rich when the policy itself doesn't work here? I'm not here to dwell on those questions, because the morality of those people are their concern and not mine, but what I am attempting to do is counter the propaganda that they have put out and people like them will continue to put out in stark opposition to actual historical data. History tells us that increasing those taxes decreases our revenue. Fairy tales tell us the opposite. Believing a lot of fairy tales when you are managing the funds of a national government can bring be deadly, but as long as we elect people who believe these fairy tales because propaganda deceives us to, we will continue to harm our own nation in effect. Since wealthy people provide about 70% of our tax revenue and tax heights on that bracket would impel them to put their money in tax reserves, increasing taxes on them would severely undercut the amount of revenue we take in. On the other hand, it doesn't take a bunch of paragraphs but a few sentences and a stern voice to convince many Americans through propaganda that taxes should be increased on those people so they pay their "fair share." There is a

simplified reality that is designed by the Conductors to dig us deeper into debt and there is a true reality that is not as appealing and can easily be spinned to seem like a conspiracy to help rich people. I'm not telling you which you should believe, but if enough people do not begin to wake up to the true reality, we are in grave danger. It has been demonstrated over and over again throughout history that raising taxes for the wealthy above a certain level causes government revenue to go down, not up, and conversely, keeping those taxes low increases the revenue the government will get. Why, then, would anyone support increasing taxes on the wealthy? Either they are ignorant and have agreed with a false assumption or they want to institute a policy that will both appeal to Americans and secretly cause significantly more debt than otherwise. You be the judge on that one. Bill Clinton pleaded with people to go out and warn others of what he called "trickle-down economics," telling them to believe in "arithmetic over illuison." I am pleading with you to go out and counter this hogwash if you want future generations of Americans to actually have a stable nation to live in, because if this propaganda continues without opposition, there is nothing that will save them from walking blindly into the trap the media outlets and university curriculums they trust forge and the policians they are propgandized to vote for set in place.

VI. The Trojan Horse


If you have been watching television in the past few years, you've probably heard about the national debt crisis. We have gone from a relatively low deficit at the turn of the century to an approximate 16 trillion dollars in debt. Many things in our government are accomplished by spending other countries' money with no real

possibility of paying it back because every time something is cut someone in Washington complains about it and attempts to block it, usually for erroneous reasons. As it stands, when you have to spend other peoples' money to buy things, you need to stop buying so much. That's common sense, but it has not donned on the people who support certain programs within our government. What happens if our debt reaches critical levels? When I use the word "bankruptcy" when referring to our nation, I obviously mean it in a figurative way. Some people contend that nothing happens; the number just goes up forever, but borrowing money from other nations and not repaying it perpetually is unnacceptable at least on moral grounds; it makes America into a financial leech on the world's lenders. However, moving that point forward, we see our main issue; regardless of the economic effects of the defecit, the human element is this: other nations will eventually stop forking out trillions of dollars they will never get back, and at that point, our government as we know it will no longer have enough money to function and we will be indebted to foreign nations forever. It's as if our government is a teenager with a credit card who purchases all kinds of unnecessary crap and drives itself further and further into debt. Government protects peoples' safety and prevents what the population sees as totally morally unacceptable with laws, period, but in a democracy, you can add more and more unsustainable programs out of sympathy whose costs eventually come back to haunt you. There is a reason why people have recently ranted about "big government." Governments that overextend their purpose and try to do too much often end up facing the consequences. In our case, we began with a government that was rather minimalist and have packed on piles of extrenous stuff over the years from the suggestions of lobbyists who support their individual interests over that of the nation and politicians creating programs to send checks to people, many of

whom have good intentions, others of who just want to get re-elected. Now that we've spoken in vague terms, let's get into specifics: what can we do to reverse our debt into a surplus and fix this entire issue? If there is a solution, the nature of that solution is obvious: something both Democrats and Repubicans have been afraid to do, which is why we have this crisis in the first place. The solution to this problem is quite obvious on a pie chart, which is why you don't see the following information very often in the media:

(Note that all percentages for both graphs rounded to the nearest whole number.)

There is one big correlation between these two graphs: our deficit and our entitlement spending are, as an oversimplification, the same thing. As you can see, we could not pay for 43% of the things our government bought in 2011. 61% of the things our government bought are what we call "entitlement programs": things such as Medicare, Social Security and various retirement programs. By comparing the two pie graphs, one thing becomes abundantly clear: our deficit and our entitlement spending are almost complete mirrors of each other. There has been a lot of talk about medicare recently, but in reality, all the tip-toeing around the issue is infantile compared to the actual problem we face: the government giving out checks to people on such a large scale was just a bad idea to begin with, and we face two options: either gradually and severely cutting those entitlement programs now or waiting for the system to collapse by itself. Throughout history, social welfare programs have made the people who support them insanely popular. After all, what could be more overtly selfless than giving money out to the poor, who were looked on as wretches in times past? In the Roman Empire, Emperor Trajan's own "Social Security"-type program brought him much praise. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gained much popularity because he instituted entitlement programs of this nature. The problem with the entire concept is, when applied in such to such a large scale as it is now, it creates an unsustainable model that will collapse eventually. Social Security will never be a day late in payments until there is nothing more to give, and although the American public has been promised these benefits and it is currently illegal to cut them by law, if the laws do not change, the collapse we will face will force them to be changed anyway. Thus, the only choice we have is to bite the bullet

now and spare some of the consequences or just sit idly by and take the full blow in the near future. Either we deal with this debt now or our quality of life can take a major nose dive in the future. We are literally operating on borrowed time. At any moment, foreign lenders can say "enough is enough," and rightfully so, since you would probably not keep lending to someone who was totally irresponsible never paid you back. This is regardless of whether or not we raise our "debt ceiling." The speculation that those who we will owe an unpayable amount to will force our government to bend to their whim to some extent in order to keep receiving money may seem outlandish, but it does make perfect sense. If you don't want to cut entitlement programs, I won't judge you. You might just want to start learning Chinese. Here is the automatic counter-argument, and instead of stating that argument, I will give tips to propagandists. Show some images of old men and women looking pitifully at the screen while sad music plays, show some impoverished people with a full family feeling the strain as benefits cut off, and have a narrator sternly say that the Republicans want to cut off entitlement programs. In reality, the entire system will collapse anyway unless we cut them, but the fundamental roadblock we have to face is obvious: as long as Americans are propagandized to this extent, it will be incredibly unpopular to avert this crisis while we still have time. When a large group of people become dependent on government handouts, they are almost forced to vote for the party that promotes and maintains their handouts. If they are given entitlements for being in poverty, their poverty is perpetuated because of their economic incentive not to work and their votes are essentially already cast. This is how the entire system works, and it is at this level that we realize it to be yet another brilliant scheme which feeds into the

Democratic voting-base by design. The Democratic Party campaigns on sympathy for poor people, gives them money to stay poor, rinses and repeats. This is not saying that all or even most politicians and people in that party are evil, but that many of their obviously good intentions are being exploited by hidden hands who create such obviously incedious situations in our society in order to put and keep Democratic policies in place. Pointing fingers should not detract from the principle issue here, which is the perpetuation of poverty. The condition for "welfare" money is being low-income or jobless. Paying the poor to stay poor is like ensuring the diseased stay sick. I know firsthand, since the moderately poor family I grew up in had to intentionally keep its income low so it would not stop receiving government aid. Yes, I have benefitted from many of the programs I am criticizing here; the fact that it put clothes on my back as a child makes no difference as to whether or not it is good for this nation as a whole. As far as the individual is concerned, giving people money to not work is contrary to the entire system of advancement and incentive in our capitalist system. Though I don't advocate this, a far more effective strategy would actually be sending people a lump sum of money as a reward for getting a job, thereby motivating them more rather than less to find some way to claw their way out of poverty. There is no form of medicine that prevents people from flatlinng but also prevents their heart from beating at full capacity, but if there were, it would make an excellent comparison to welfare. Why have welfare programs existed in varying degrees for so long? Because it's far easier to argue for them than to write all these paragraphs exploring how they are wrong and bereaving of a person's dignity. All you have to say is "the poor need help; have some sympathy." Period. That's the end of the discussion. That's how

propaganda works to put destructive policies in place, whether it is blaming all the Jews for Germany's troubles or saying minimum wage and welfare will help the poor. As long as people are single-minded and obstinant on this issue, we will continue to enable this scheme of keeping people in poverty by giving them money. If you go on Wikipedia right now (as of this writing) and go to the "Social Security (United States)" article, you will read this: "Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40 percent of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.[7]" Do you believe it because it's espoused on Wikipedia? If you do, then you have missed the entire point of this document. Wikipedia is nothing more than a synthesis of information from publications like articles and papers and books, all written by men and women who could be right or wrong or somewhere in-between. That "[7]" at the end directs you to a source. It is how that source comes to this conclusion, not what conclusion it came to, that must be considered. This is the entire issue of propaganda in our society in a nutshell. It may be true that a large number of seniors benefit from social security, but what if social security never existed? Obviously, they would have to save money for their own retirement. That is simply what everyone will have to do once entitlement programs are gone. As for the current generation of seniors, the gradual cuts in entitlement programs should take effect in a certain way so that those who live off of such things and are too old to take other options get to die off with the basic benefits intact but the next generation is reformed from our dependencies on entitlements. I am all for the retention of one entitlement program that will take care of the physically and mentally handicapped who are totally unable to get a job. However, as it currently stands, entitlement plans

are a gross overextension of what government can reliably do and literally cause our national debt crisis to a large degree. They are the biggest example of a cancer that slowly kills our nation, the thing which the intellectuals surrounding FDR were waiting for a good crisis to impliment in. The difficulties that many Americans will temporarily face is obvious, but the difficulties that all Americans will eventually face if we do not drastically cut these programs is far, far worse. If we are unwilling to take a stand for a position that will be very unpopular, we are willing to throw ourselves to the ground and do nothing as our national government collapses, our taxes go up dramatically and many government programs are instantly cut, or we are forced to "compromise" with our overseas lenders. If enough people are properly informed, we will elect people who will change laws and fix this problem on our behalf. What are the obstacles? Misguided sympathy among people who don't realize we'll lose all this anyway if we don't change it. Propaganda. The media. The usual drill. How do we defeat them? If the ideas of this document are spread, even just the core theme of independent thinking in spite of the wool they wish to pull over the public's eyes, we don't need to defeat them; they are already defeated. Another excellent option proposed is defaulting on parts of our debt, which is actually telling the truth: that the politicians we have elected have acted incompetently and have foolishly instituted programs that force them to borrow money they cannot pay back. However, when we default, people will become even more hesitant to lend to us. That is not a bad thing in one respect, but it certainly is in another: we need to at least remove our dependency on other nations' lending if we are to sustain our government, regardless of whether or not we default and to what extent.

It is true that numerous Americans have already paid into entitlement programs. Broken word. Broken promises. Broken system in the very first place. But if Americans are unwilling to compromise on this issue, then their entire nation will go under due to exponentially high debt. We can politicians' promises to the American people for a while until the entire system collapses or do something to fulfill our promises to the countries we borrowed from. This is the choice you get to make; either literally campaign against the very programs you may have benefitted from in the past, as I certainly have, or have a part in a national crisis which will be far worse than you vigorously looking for a good job. Hopefully, if God smiles on us and this issue is resolved, the government will learn to not impliment dangerous policies it cannot maintain and promise people it will. You could very well oppose such measures on humanitarian grounds, but if enough people do that, it will be obvious how easily crying babies sink ships that took a lot of hard work to build. Barack Obama's former chief of staff once said this: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Those words could not possibly be more applicable to our current situation. The crisis of the Great Depression was used by the intellectuals who surrounded FDR to impliment programs that they were waiting for an opportunity to try. Now that those programs are a cancer eating at our country each year, it has become increasingly obvious to me that there will be another crisis created if this pattern is not stopped. What will that final "crisis" be used for? Personally, I don't want to find out, but although this opinion seems outlandish, this series of events fits exactly what a group of people would do to destroy a superpower that is a democracy from within.

America has military power unlike any other nation in this world. America as we know it cannot be taken militarily, but just as with Troy, there are other ways to go about such an agenda if one has the money and the patience. Entitlement programs work each year to bring us closer to governmental financial meltdown and to create a class of people that will continually vote for them. They appear outwardly to be something altruistic and helpful, but in reality, they are the instrument of the destruction of this system as we know it. This process more than anything else has led me to believe that the American People have been propagandized to accept a Trojan Horse.

VIII. New Values


Imagine a burglar breaking into your home. You try to stop him because his actions pose a threat to the people you love and care about. There is a certain foundation to your actions that is not logical; it's something much more deep and innate. You try to stop that burglar because it is "right" to do so. Although logic can be a tool to get toward a goal, whether that goal be the preservation of your own life or the acquistition of property, your goal is entirely subjective. Some people might presume that, because we can't use logic to come to these values, they're meaningless. It's actually quite the contrary: they are the things that we truly care about, that by their own definition mean more than anything else. The core values of love for other people and our family guide us as human beings; I am writing this document because of that love. However, since we cannot use strict logic to get to an idea like the value of human life, why do we belive in such things? One thing is for certain: our values are not logical. But that one detail brings us to an infinitely more exciting point of thought. Try to imagine an electron. Not what color it is, not what shape it

is, because those are just our visual ideas of an electron. Imagine that electron, not the sight of it, the sound of it or even the idea of it. Imagine nothing but an electron. You can't. What's interesting is that, while we have all these representations and perceptions of things in the physical world in our mind, we cannot possibly imagine the physical world as it actually is. The physical world is objective, but our consciousness by which we perceive things is subjective; we do not perceive an electron because it is, just like logic itself, something that we assume the existence of based on our perceptions. Everything in this universe is governed by logic. Matter and energy and various fields all interact in a way that we could understand perfectly if we knew everything about our universe. Every avalanche is caused by some kind of movement, and the factors which caused that movement also have a cause. All objects seem to be mechanistic: all physical processes can be described as variables being run through a mathematical formula; that's why we even have formulas such as "e=mc^2." That's all well and good, but considering the above, it poses a problem. If our values are not "logical," nor are our perceptions, then why would they exist in the first place? What are you, really? Not your body, not your brain, not your identity, but that little point of perception behind your two eyes? What is that "thing"? Where did it come from? That's an interesting question. Without it, you might presume your body would have peformed every action it ever did as people from the outside see, but from your perspective, nothing would have ever happened. You would not have perceived the goings-on of that particular brain in that particular body. There would be no "you," even though the world outside would know no different. This "thing" is called your "consciousness." Some people argue that our own "being," or consciousness, may have arisen as a physical survival adaptation in the brain. It is true that

it helps us survive, but it makes no sense to say that a color or a sight or a sound or a thought could have arisen from a purely objective, logical universe. 1+1 can never equal "red." 20+20 can never equate to an idea. The existence of our "selves" and all subjective perceptions and concepts cannot arise from a purely logical world; that would be the biggest paradox of them all. Science can never measure our consciousness precisely because it can only measure physical processes. We have the most direct proof of our consciousness because it is what we observe constantly, but because it is not a physical object, we cannot prove that we are conscious to other people; they just have to assume so. Why would subjective phenomena exist, if all things that come from the physical world are mechanistic and logical and incomprehensible in their actual state by our subjective selves? Since the logical cannot by means of logic produce the subjective, the only answer is that our "selves" originate from something "outside" this logical world. Furthermore, what could exist in the abscence of space, time, our own universe or any form of physical reality as we know it? Based on that line of thinking, only a subjective being could. Such a being would not be limited by a brain in that universe, and it in itself would be the foundation of all that "exists," or "is." Since it exists outside logic, it would not need a logical cause; it would simply exist because it exists. That's a thought experiment by which you may come to the existence of a God. Some people say they require logical evidence for God just as we do for scientific theories, but if a route of thought experiment that goes beyond logic is necessary, then the difficulty and confusion around that issue become obvious. Our culture has developed a value that says "science is the high authority of knowlege," and science relies on logical evidence, therefore many people tend to believe things only if they have that type of physical

evidence to verify them. That is only one trick a shift in perspective can play. If the primary unit of existence is a being, if the subjective is more primitive and overarching than the objective, then we may see the following two ideas that are unsubstantiated without the prior knowledge of the existence of a God as viable: there is an overarching code of morality, and our morals are more important than logic itself. Of course, it does not logically establish those ideas, but it certain provides more evidence for them than one could possibly compile without recognizing the existence of a God. If our morals are just as important as they feel to us, however, then why is it that people from different areas of the world have radically different ideas? In most situations, moral ideas (or "values") are passed down from parents to their children. If the values of parents change for some reason, the values they pass down to their children will also change. If this happens on a large scale, the values of a society will change. Thus, if society hypothetically was mostly correct in its morals ten generations ago, it can have gone through significant "moral decay" during that time. The only way to refresh such values in a flawed world would be to have a "re-awakening" or a deliverance of some kind periodically so that a society could re-orient itself with what is actually right. However, "cleaning the slate" so to speak would require some reliable record of morality and the willingness of the population to believe it. Naturally, some people do not have parents. To oversimplify a bit, it is clear that in most societies across human populations on this planet, the male or "father figure" tends to discipline a child, whereas a female or "mother figure" acts in a nurturing manner. Both human males and females are inclined toward these basic roles because of their biology; females, for example, literally provide milk to their

offspring and are hormonally encouraged to love and nurture their children. However, what happens if this system is broken? Children are naturally inclined to be impressionable in their early years, which is the reason why they are receptive to values being passed down from the parents whom they trust. If parents are not in the picture, this impressionability does not go away. We can see strong evidence for this in cases of cultural fatherlessness, for example, low-income African American and Latino males who are born into what we would describe a "ghetto culture" without a father. Without the watchful discipline of a father figure, many children born into such conditions see music videos of the genre which is popular in that culture, namely rap, from an early age, and when exposed to certain cultural items and behavior patterns present in the rappers they idolize, they are actually conditioned to emulate them; in other words, the values implied in rap music are passed down to a new generaton in much the same way the values of a parent would have. The above may sound strange, but the evidence for it abounds. Take a look, for instance, at the clothing patterns of "ghetto culture." The phenomenon of young men wearing their pants low and exposing their underwear, or "sagging," can be traced to music videos of rap musicians who were depicted as being inmates in jail, since jails do not provide belts to inmates for safety reasons. Once this fashion caught on, it obviously became engrained into a subculture individuals are born into, so people began to do it just to fit in and it became much more widespread, but the influence of the rap music industry can be seen in far more than just fashion sense. Why is black-on-black crime such a phenomenon in the United States? As it turns out, it was a reality in certain areas such as Compton and a bunch of young men decided to produce music about what was going on in their lives. That music was picked up by large

record labels and was then exposed as something positive to lots of individuals who also happened to be fatherless. For many people, father figures are the stern bulwark when kids see glorification of combat and heroic banditry and think "I want to try that!" For those without fathers who are instead exposed to nothing more than emotional glorification of violence and heroic criminals, those individuals tend to be a lot less hesitant to join in activities that are destructive but they are conditioned to see as something positive. Numerous cultural developments in the "ghetto" community, from the popularization of drugs to specific piercing fads to the glorification of gang violence can be traced to popular rap music. This is an extreme example of humankind's artificial media having an effect on people who lack parental guidance, but what about those individuals who do have both parents but are nevertheless still impressionable children? Since education, the media and so forth are exposed to young children, these things represent a critical opportunity for people to instill new artificial values in the next generation if it would benefit their cause; they would simply need to do so in what seems to be a completely innocent manner. What does "diversity" really mean? I'm speaking of the "diversity" dream that is illustrated in those stock photos of 5 different people of 5 different skin colors together at a workplace in order to advertise that a particular business is "diverse." I don't think anyone would assume anything different about any business than what is being advertised, which is basically "I hire blacks, Latinos, whites, Arabs, Asians and Native Americans." Every business in our modern age should be expected not to discriminate based on race, but one would think that we would be beyond fixating on that particular aspect of people called "skin color" to the extent that we would advertise our businesses with it. If you step back and think about it, the desire to artificially create a rainbow of skin-colors in a group just to feel good about it is a bit odd,

isn't it? We are expected to treat everyone with courtesy and respect and not look at other races as inferior, but even though it is significantly less hateful, it seems equally as irrational to have a strong fetish of different races and ethnicities based on their differences mixing in one situation. The most common visual representations of this concept are people of different skin colors coexisting happily, but the obsession with "diversity" is more directly tied to culture and religion. Dinesh D'Souza remarks on the reactions of white liberal college students when he came to the United States due to a rotary exchange program and began attending Dartmouth College, an Ivy League school. When he told people he was from India, people tended to react with orgasmic enthusiasm, espousing vague ideas of how India is such an "escape" and so "liberating." Yet when D'Souza asked people what specifically was so superior about India, they kept giving vague answers. To him, the actual reality was quite obvious: the United States was a country that had far more opportunities and far better living conditions than his home. To the students around him, the United States was all they had ever known and they were in the midst of a cultural movement that made them fetishize other countries and cultures and religions without even considering their merits in the first place. Why does this value exist? "Diversity" might be instilled through a contrarian response to racial segregation. The Jim Crow laws are a thing of the past, but they are not when they are being taught to young children who are just learning about these things and have no earthly idea why anyone would do such a thing. Opposed to the shocking nature of racism without the societal explanations for why it happened, they are offered a value of defiance: diversity. You see representations of it on posters all over Kindergarden classrooms: hands of many different colors joined together around a globe, for example.

Countries and ethnic/cultural/religious identities have always been tight knit together. You don't see a dedication to "multiculturalism" in China, which is full of East Asian fellows who have had a couple of predominant religious identities throughout history. Up until recent times, you did not see it in the United Kingdom, either. It's quite nice to go out of one's way to be respectful of differences, but the obsession with diversity is particularly odd in terms of human history because it is an artificial moral that has been engineered instilled by human beings. It might be odd, but what's the difficulty caused by diversity? Multiculturalism is a value that encourages people of various backgrounds to immigrate and maintain their own cultural and religious values and integrate into public life. Values are what people care about, so if people from radically different parts of the world come together, they are going to care about radically different things but not be able to talk about them casually in public, because hardly anyone would relate. Once you have a country in which everyone cares about different things deep down inside but just buy and sell and do common things, then those notions of "right" and "wrong" that everyone disagrees upon become muddled down socially. Morality becomes less of a conversational topic because everyone comes from different cultures, so everyone disagrees... until the next generation is raised in a multicultural society, which will be less inclined to have any particular opinion about religon or morality. The more our cultural, moral and religious identity is eroded by an obsession with diversity, the less our government will reflect those values and the less support any party that strongly represents those values (i.e., the Republicans) will get. If certain values are not passed down to the next generation, that generation will have no flipping idea why politicians are campaigning based on them and just see it as odd. However, the party which represents our new fundamental values like "diversity" will make sense to them.

Is the above to say that we should deport people or outlaw immigration? Certainly not. What it is to point out is that diversity has had the opposite effect from what those who truly believe in it have anticipated. People from various cultures are not often talking about their unique values and debating morals in casual conversations; they just shut up because it's more socially convenient not to have a potential conflict, and once the new generation comes along, we have a society that is more ambivalent about such issues than it would be otherwise. What is the solution? Just as with any other issue of values, it is to let people know these things are happening so they can take a step back and take a good, long look at why they believe what they believe.

IIX. The Threat of Force and the Death Penalty


Murder is killing another person. Capital punishment is the government killing a murderer. That in effect means the state is lowering itself to the level of the murderer when it takes a human life, right? Let's explore that issue. What is a "state of nature"? Well, imagine what things would be like if we had no government. People would be impelled to act in their own self-interest, which means families warring with each other to the death over valueables, things we call crime being commonplace, and an environment in which one has to watch out for one's own saftey in a world of constant danger. In a state of nature, the things we occupy ourselves with in our current safety, like listening to music on an iPod or playing video games or watching television, become needless distractions when there are much more pressing things at hand. A person in a state of nature would not be fighting bandits in The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim video game; they'd probably have to be vigilant all day long so they don't get decapitated by real bandits.

For centuries, human beings took their safety for granted and largely didn't take a step back to imagine why we have government in the first place, which is mainly to keep us from such a barbaric and dangerous situation. The philosopher John Locke thought extensively on this "back to basics" issue, and his thoughts inspired a movement that heavily informed how the United States government was initially structured. It was a fresh start, and partially because of it, our system has proven to be exceptionally effective up to this present day. However, which aspect of our governmental system prevents these would-be bandits from cutting one's head off and raping one's spouse? This variable is call the "threat of force." In an ideal situation, people would not steal or cheat others or murder or rape because none of those things are the right thing to do. That description fits me, and I hope it fits you. However, the reality is that all the people of a society can in no way be expected to b way without a bit of disciplinary threat from higher powers. In order to prevent someone from, for example, stealing a gentleman's car, a rule has to be in place that a carjacker can be arrested, put in prison, fined, et cetera. This rule is designed to make people who would do so otherwise afraid to jack cars. This "threat of force" works as a preventitive because of the "threat." There is much opposition to the threat of force by philosophers and idealists. The reality, however, is that nothing else works to create order in a society. Although we who are protected by other people are not often put in a situation of "kill or be killed," that phrase certainly describes our position on this planet in the large scale. Our military personnel have to kill people on occasion, otherwise, our country would be taken over and our citizens would be endangered. Police officers have to be ready and willing to kill a gunman before he dispatches ten innocent people. There are situations where one is forced to kill to defend one's family from attackers. Although avoiding

violence is ideal, there are few things more unnatural and dangerous than making pacifism into a fetish. As we look at societies both modern and historical, we see that the threat of force is directly linked to the prevention of crimes. This is especially clear in extreme examples: Vlad the Impaler instituted a rule that theives and other criminals would be impaled and left to suffer horribly until their last breath, significantly decreasing crime rates. Although Islamic countries get much criticism from the West, many people would be surprised to know that crime rates are especially low in some areas because theives get their hands amputated. I'm not advocating that theives get their hands cut off here, but I am saying that history consistently proves that such threats of force produce low crime rates. It makes perfect sense from a personal perspective: just think of how many time the thought of going to jail or facing federal fines or arrest has scared you. That is an entirely good type of fear, the deterrent fear of consequences that prevents crime and creates a more stable society. People who hate our law enforcement agencies are people who feel entitled to the enforcement of their natural rights. If someone's family were raped and killed in a tribal war in Africa, they might reconsider their negative perceptions about having a police force who can throw an errant individual down on the ground or pepper spray them. It's most assuredly that type of threat that prevents one from going out in the street and getting mugged or beaten up or shot or raped a thousand times more often than they actually occur with the security measures set in place. Human beings must be encouraged to be moral but forced to obey the law. Does this mean that police officers who operate outside their bounds should not be held accountable or reprimanded? Absolutely not. There are plenty of police officers who are generally irresponsible

people, such as those who do not wear their seatbelts or who pass red lights in illegal circumstances or those who engage in police brutality. However, not every video that is posted on the Internet from someone's phone is a legitimate case of police brutality; each inividual case must be weighed carefully considering the evidence, and videos such as those sometimes become propaganda for anti-authoritarian or radical anti-police ideologies when the circumstances warrented the happenings of the video in the first place. Although police brutality does happen, stigmatizing all police officers for the actions of some is foolhardy, considering they are the people who put their lives on the line so we can be safe. One idea that is particularly dangerous is the idea that our prison system should be replaced with something exclusively rehabilitative for criminals, treating them more as mentally ill people largely unresponsible for their actions and making the experience of incarceration more comfortable. Why is this dangerous? It is arbitrarily picking one part of our societal system, the threat of force that deters many people from performing criminal actions, and replaces it with something less threatening. Though the people who call for such things may have good intentions, going in and trying to make the jail experience not frightening and implimenting arbitrary man-made processes which people THINK will turn criminals around is taking that essential part of our societal mechanism, a gear, if you will, out and replacing it with something totally different, causing the entire machine to go awry because we focused only on one aspect of it. We have legitimately scary threats for a reason, and making them less frightening means more crimes get committed. Appealing to sympathy in this case is doing so at the cost of the innocent victims of crimes. Our police are forced to threaten people with guns and possible death in order to keep order in extreme situations. Our military is forced to kill attackers in order to protect us. The question is not

whether or not the state has the authority to kill, but in what situations it is humane to use such force. Some people say that killing a murderer is justified, but other people say it is lowering ourselves to the exact same thing the murderer did makes no sense. This position is based on a fundamentally different value that has been artificially instilled in young people, an unspoken shift in morality that can be summarized as this: the idea that "killing is bad." "Killing is bad." "War is bad." "Just don't kill people." It's a completely different way of looking at the world than the way our people have for centuries in Europe; it is a modern invention that is so superficially similar to the older value it has replaced that few people notice this sneaky transition. Most of our historical or mythical tales of heroes involve killing people in order to save innocents: the valiant knight, King Arthur, William Wallace, King David, stories of war generals and tales of fantastic legend. Though the modern idea is "killing is bad," the original idea, the one which the Bible itself when translated properly communicates well, is that "murder is bad." But what is the difference? Well, the original idea was that killing is much like anything else: it is a force that can be used either for good or for evil. An example of obvious evil would be premeditatedly planning to kill a boss you despise or even random people. That is the killing of an innocent; that is murder. On the other hand, an example of killing for good would be slaying a murderer to prevent him from harming your family, slaying an enemy who is attacking your village, or any number of things in which a blade through your opponent's body counted as a force for good, rather than evil. Today, however, the oversimplified value present in many of our minds is that a blade through anyone's body is universally evil. It is by observing human nature that we see that moral does not represent reality: if beligerant people are not killed in certain situations, then innocents will die. Why, then, do so many young

people see a world in which killing, a tool which can be used for good or evil, is evil by nature? I think the most pressing explanation is this: we, particularly the education system, bombard young people with images of war and killing of criminals and they fail to explain why these things are necessary. One of the innocent fundamental questions a child asks is "why is hurting anyone okay or necessary?," and when they are given a total lack of an answer, they see the bloodshed and the harshness and assume it is never justified or necessary. It is because of these developments in our culture that the following sentence is even offputting to me: killing in many specific situations is the right thing to do, and we have failed to communicate that with our children. The difference is, in my opinion, the education system has failed to do this by design. On the other hand, religious movements may ironically have played a part in more of an appeal to pacifistic sympathy in Europe. In the King James Bible, there were multiple translation teams who took on various parts of the Bible. In some cases, Hebrew or Greek words that explicitly meant "murder," or "criminal homicide," were instead translated "kill." Although the context might have made the meaning obvious for some people, for those who do not realize that many death penalties and endorsements of some warfare existed in the Old Testament, it became easy to use religion to further a shift in culture which made it easier for propaganda to make new generations equally aghast to all forms of bloodshed. One of the most common questions children ask is "why is war necessary?" The real answer is that, as long as we do not engage in unjust wars or unjust actions, we must defend ourselves from the evil men who would attack us unjustly and render justice while acting entirely in our own defense. Yet this idea that righteousness and love

can be manifest in ways that are not pacifistic or sensually pleasing, even the broader and much more important idea of "tough love," has largely not been passed down to a new generation of people. It is this failure that results in so many young people having the altruistic but out-of-perspective ideas of total pacifism, which ultimately proves wrong when a threat by belligerent people must be averted by killing belligerent people. As a kid, I had no earthly idea why there would be crowds around a crimial as an executioner placed a noose around his neck and let him fall to his death through asphyxiation while women and children watched. I was certainly shown images in school of this practice, but I was never given any proper explanation for it, so I began to detest it a with a bit of concerned confusion. I had a teacher in grade school who briefly shared her personal beliefs, that "if you kill someone else you should be killed yourself," but it was so oversimplified and explained in such brevity that I often resented that opinion as a child. Sex to the uninformed and unattracted is disgusting, the killing of wild animals to those who do not recognize our natural need for meat appaling, and the killing of criminals to those who are not explained the meaning of such actions totally barbaric. Just as with war, it is by conditioning that our public schools indirectly indoctrinate children to detest the death penalty. In reality, this artificial value, that unspoken drive for absolute pacifism, has worked a greviously sore stain into the world our children are born into. Several of my best friends and immediate family were raped at an early age, often by family members, and not a single one of those rapists has been brought to justice. After all, it is almost impossible for a child to deal with these situations, to get their parents to believe them, and when they are older, there is no way to prove their case and the statute of limitations has often expired. Women and children who are unguarded within our busy, populated

areas are often accosted and raped to no avail of justice; an approximate 5% of rapes resulted in a federal conviction in 20022006, meaning that you could round the amount of rapes that result in no justice to an approximate 100%. A good deal has to be said regarding the sheer destruction this crime of rape causes in the victim's life, both immediately and in the long-term. I have dealt with people who have lived with the psychological scars of physical and sexual abuse every single day of their life, including my own father. I've talked about many things in this document, often with strong words, but there are no words strong enough for me to express how much I have wanted to somehow erase the Hell these people have gone through, the constant pain of memories and the sheer ravaging of their own minds and bodies during the actual event. I have never been raped, but a particular woman I debated the issue alongside was abundantly clear: the feeling is absolutely worse than death. These things happen continually in our cities and towns, even as we speak. Why on Earth do we continue to tolerate this? On the flipside, the question has to be asked why on Earth any man would sink to the inhuman low of forcing himself on another person sexually is perhaps a lot more important. On an individual basis, I cannot answer that question. However, I can say this: rape is a forceful act that is totally sickening and inhuman, and the most effective and morally just way to counteract it is with an extreme threat of force. It is true that it is highly immoral to blame rape victims as inviting the crime based on the clothing they wore or the lack thereof, but it is also a distraction from the core issue, just like some of our popular ideas of "rape culture." Indeed, we obviously live in a "rape culture," but too many feminist groups focus on indirectly connected ideas that have little or no evidence of contributing to rape. There are

misogynistic characteristics of our popular culture, but the main culprit is obviously a far more fundamental one: we do not raise our children with the most vehement pressure not to rape and we do not make the perceived consequences for rape harsh enough to make them fear the act; in fact, the vast majority of rapists receive no legal consequences at all. When criminals were hanged in front of a crowd, this was the message they all received: "if you commit this crime in our society, this is what the consequences will be." They needed to see the harshness of a man dying, of his neck snapping as the breath left his body and his neck was stretched, because everyone having a momentarily uncomfortable sight before them was far preferrable to the crimes of the hanged criminal harming more innocent people. It was precisely because murderers were hanged that people became afraid to murder. This idea of "tough love," that you must singe deterrants in the minds of your people with such negativity, is frowned at by some people, but it is a mere fact of life that causes far more hardship if ignored. Today, we live in a society where rapists and murderers are no longer nearly as afraid to commit the act as they were in ages past because we have become so relaxed and "humanitarian" that strict discipline of this nature has been abandoned. This is what previous generations called cowardace but modern people call an escape from our barbarous and bloody past. Imagine a man has a gun to your mother's head. Would you want to kill that man? Of course you would. Imagine a man killed your mother and escaped. It's not lawful to go bounty hunting with intent to kill, but would you be tempted at least in imagination to do so out of love for your own mother who raised you from a suckling onward, whose brains were blasted out by the pistol of a man who intentionally and malicously pulled the trigger? Of course you would. Of course everyone else, save a miniscule amount of people, would. Then why

would someone be hypocrites in the issue of the death penalty? That question does not have to be rherotical; we are this way because of artificial and not natural values, because otherwise, we would value that natural impulse that rings far truer than almost anything else we can feel. Every human being knows that this desire for justice is more innate than any law, just as innate to the human condition as our love for our parents and our desire for success. It is a primal value not engineered by man, and any propaganda-bred idea like "all killing is equally bad" is clearly rendered false by the deepness and obviousness of this basic human moral, no matter how many ideas made by humans stand in opposition to it. If public executions would deter crime and render true justice, then what is stopping us? Obviously, some provisions have to be made regarding conviction. It would have to be a clear-cut case; although the arguments on what defines such a thing can be endless, it's actually quite simple. If a killer was caught on tape, seen by multiple witnesses, admitted to the crime, was arrested at the crime scene or anything of that nature, we have just a few examples of a case of no doubt that he is guilty. In a case where there is doubt, then naturally, the killer would get life imprisonment. What about rape? In 2008, our Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Kennedy v. Louisiana that it was cruel and unjust punishment to kill individuals for raping children. I think anyone who has had a child who has been raped would differ with that judgement, but this judgement was made on the basis of nothing but subjective values and the opinions of judges. It certainly would be beneficial to preventing these types of crimes if a pedophile were executed on camera to send a message to our whole society that this is what happens if you do this, but for some reason, a rapist was treated with some type of

decency by our highest office in the land, as if his crime was not worthy of death. Based on history, there is no question that publically broadcasted executions of murderers and rapists would curtail murder and rape and save an immense amount of innocent suffering. However, because of such a movement of propagated compassion and resistance, a divided America has fought fictionary concepts like "barbarism" more than it prevents these crimes from befalling our friends, family and children. It's tough to take a man, no matter what he has done, strap him to a chair and lethally inject him. Life is tough, and the alternative, which is feeling better about ourselves while many more women scream as men mount them and ravage their genitals or slit their throats, is the fruit of cowardace. Our modern appeals process is as pointlessly back-and-forth as a parent trying to pull a child's tooth. It is because the state is so hesitant to take an individual's life that cold-blooded murderers languish on death row for decades and cost more money to deal with than they would if they were imprisoned for their entire life. In order to reform how we deal with the death penalty, we need to also reform the appeals process, otherwise our efforts would be wasted. If we push hard enough to inform people about these two things, the necessity of the death penalty and the amendment of the appeals process, we stand a chance and preventing many more men and women and children from dying or being raped. The resistance of the media will likely be strong. That's just what one would expect, considering the media has served the agenda of fighting the death penalty in the first place. The harder they fight, the more they reveal such an agenda when one considers the blatantly obvious benefit of saving innocent lives at the cost of the lives of murderers. The opposition to this movement comes from many different angles. It

is sometimes instigated by celebrities or humanitarian organizations. It may also involve religion. In the case of a religion of Buddhism, opposition to the death penalty makes perfect sense, but those Christians who oppose the death penalty are as ignorant of their own religious principles as keynsian economists are ignorant of reality: Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Deuteronomy 22:25-26 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: In fact, as a further appeal to my fellow Christians, the death penalty is repeatedly referred to as a way to "put evil out from among" us in the Bible. In other words, it is the same concept of prevention due to fear of extreme punishment which pervades this chapter and has proven itself as effective throughout history. The cowards who continually enable the rapes and murders in our cities by fighting the death penalty have blood on their hands, but if you truly care about doing what is right and not what is popular, if you are not afraid to take a stand in this harsh world, then you can spread this information and these moral ideas so that, one day far or near, we will have a more stable society. There certainly are modern engineered values of going toward rehabilitation, but as far as a monster goes, it is far more beneficial to take that individual's life as a warning to any others like him.

IX. Myths and Fantasies


Since propaganda has largely bereaved American youth of the

religion of their ancestors, that makes it free reign to talk about here. Are you a non-Christian? That's excellent. You may hate the following chapter or find it interesting, but here is a bit of perspective from a person who happens to be a Christian. What's the world like to a whacko follower of these Bronze Age myths, you may wonder? Is this entire document's credibility undermined by such a repugnantly personal topic when it is supposed to talk about politics and not religion? Has the author reached new levels of insanity and exposed himself as a blatant puppet of the delusional Christian right-wing agenda? Of course, I wouldn't expect all non-believers to ask questions like that, but here is my response to that general attitude: I'm writing this chapter because I care about you. No matter how often you may get sick of these "religious nuts," no matter how you may disdain their spreading of what you view as dogmas that should go the way of Greek Mythology, the reality is that while some evangelists are participating in a money-scheme, many people both on and off television also have your best interest in mind when they try to share the faith that you personally don't agree with. In the majority of cases, these people are convinced that if you believe their message, you will live forever and enjoy Eternity with them and the God that created humans. Imagine yourself in their shoes: if you did not at least do something to spread what you believed could give other people eternal life because you are afraid of being ridiculed or looked down upon, you would be a selfish individual indeed. The question is not how emotionally impactful Christianity is or how good the intentions of its spreaders are, but whether or not it is true. As it turns out, you have an opportunity to determine for certain whether it is true or not, but let me be specific: men handle religion, but the true interpretation of the "Word of God," or the Bible, would hold in itself the truths which may or may not have been preserved in

2000 years of religious tradition. There are so many religions that call themselves Christian that it's obvious that some of them are rather far departed from the faith that God intended. In many peoples' minds, believing Christianity and believing in God are synonymous. That's not entirely true; there are plenty of philosophers who one way or another came to the conclusion that God exists but see no way to take the issue much further. Paul of Tarsus addressed this on Mars Hill when speaking to the Greeks, remarking that he saw an alter with the inscription "to the Unknown God." This is the God of Aristotle, the God of Deists, the God of those who postulate that this universe must have a creator but that there is no logical way to continue such a theory into any kind of a religion. A large part of Atheism is the rejection of a deity, but once the possibility of such a deity has been explained as discussed in the prior chapter, the next step is to offer a certain proposition. Deuteronomy 4:29-31 (King James Version) But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. This idea is consistent with many other Biblical passages such as Psalms 14, which say that those who believe that there is no God (i.e., Atheists) have made the principle error of not seeking God. If the thought experiment in the previous article resonated with you, then perhaps you consider the idea that there is a God more viable than any other random claim someone might make. If so, then the Bible is abundantly clear: if you seek God with all your intentions, mind,

strength and endurance, you will find God. If this claim is not true, then the Bible will be tested and proven false, but you must first be willing to expend all of your strength in a search for a loving God who hears your thoughts and maintains all that is, that is, every single bit of it. If it is true, then you can certainly discover that the true nature of reality isn't quite the way one would assume it to be. Why would seeking God be a moral imperitive? Well, you, your parents, your immediate family, all your friends and all your fellow human beings are going to die one day. Their brains will cease firing neurons and their hearts will stop. If Christianity is true, the natural system dictates only way to "make it out alive," so to speak, is to seek and find God, thereby recognizing the associated facts with the guarentee that you will live forever in happiness after death. If there is no God in existence to help you, then the love you feel is mere anomaly of biological processes that were passed on as genes because they helped individuals survive, and you as with everyone else may very well blink into nothingness in time, having had a brief moment of paradise in a world whose only end is death. Does this mean that one should believe God blindly? No; it means one should seek God with all of one's strength and heart and mind so that the necessary evidence, whatever it be for that individual, may be found. This stance is considerably different when compared to most arguments made to people that are meant to establish a fact. In most cases, the evidence is provided, rather than telling people to go seek it out for themselves. However, although we are conditioned by scientific arguments and media that spoon-feed us evidence and information and facts, the same cannot be done for the very purpose for which we are on Earth. If you were God, would you design things to become so much easier once someone could write up a report with

evidence that everyone would believe? In reality, our lives are difficult and seeking God is so indirect-seeming because this is a short amount of time that has implications on an infinite amount of time. If Christianity is true, then the truth of God is revealed only to those who "seek God with all their heart." Science, however, works on a completely different standard: scientists measure data from findings, log that data, and then try to interpret an overarching explanation for that data that they feel explains the world. In the case of explaining phenomena like the diversity of life without a need for a God to explain it, they would need to reverse engineer data (read: the fossil record) to develop a theoretical model that describes how things . Even if an individual scientist sought God in his or her own heart and even if they discovered certain facts that point toward that, there would be no way to conclusively demonstrate that alternate viewpoint in the same way evolution is demonstrated, because those prevailing theories are contrary to it and it is easy enough to use ad-hoc explanations to "explain away" any evidence to the contrary. The exact details of Jesus Christ's crucifixion, including the nails in his hands and feet, his garments being gambled over and his bones being broken were predicted many centuries beforehand in Psalm 22. The Garden Tomb, considered a likely location of Jesus's tomb based on Biblical accounts, contains the remnants of a broken metal seal that purportedly date to around 2000 BC. Perhaps you find these statements interesting, or perhaps you feel the opposite. If the latter is true and you are already coming up with an ad-hoc argument to the contrary, then you now know why I would not write a whole book on this. In reality, I cannot establish your verification for Christianity's truth; you can. I wouldn't try to, because no matter what argument I wrote for you, I could not force you to seek God. And I would not want

to; the beauty all men and women have been dealt is that they can choose one path or the other on their own. This is, however, why there is so much confusion between Christians and non-Christians, why there is no logical argument that ever makes the Atheists feel that there might be a God as if it were some type of fact like all other facts. If God is actually real, then why do righteous people suffer? Why are children born with a cleft lip or even deformities that render their entire bodies painful and useless? Why would be in on the arms of a spiral galaxy amidst millions of others? Why would God allow Satan to exist? Why would half of the things the Bible condemns as are morally wrong be wrong? Why must our esophagus and wind pipe be so close together, if we are designed to be efficient? There are a million "what ifs. If you seek God, you will find the answers yourself. If you don't care, then that is also your choice. Here is one basic question that most people would have, however: how could Christianity be true in a world which has considerable evidence for evolution? The answer begins with this: our culture impels us to appeal to science, but logically, we actually face one of two possibilities. If the secularists were correct, there would be evidence for evolution. If the Bible were correct, there would be evidence for both evolution and God, provided one seeks God. Why would that be? Well, science is a man-made institution largely innovated in recent times that people have grown to trust. The Bible does not paint Satan as red monster who pokes people in Hell, but a force that is active in the world in manipulation. If such a vulnerability existed that could be exploited, if people began to trust science as an absolute and infallible indicator of truth, that would be an opportunity in which Satan could strike. It makes things difficult, certainly. So does everything else in life; I'm force to think this difficulty is here for a reason.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul mentions something called the mystery of iniquity. He also remarked that there were people back then, as there would be in the latter days, who would have seducing docrines that compell people to believe things that are not true. Why is that? That's a question for you to answer, however, here is an answer to how that could be, as in, how the scientific community could have been convinced of evolution through conspiracy.

The above represents a number of fossilized creatures. Going left to right, we see a gradual change in each species's physical characteristics. Species B is more similar to Species A than Species D, for example, so overall, if evolution were true, Species A would likely gradually descend from right to left through these various species. The key variable here, which is yet undemonstrated, is "if evolution were true, the descent of evolution would go from Species A to the right." Now, imagine the following diagram represents various layers of rock, with each layer given a rough approximation of the age of fossils it is thought to contain.

In order to cement the idea that evolution represents reality, we would need a situation that generally fits the following: A fossil of species A is found in the bottom layer. Species B is found in the layer above it. Species C is found in the layer above that, and the same goes for Species D. In other words, Species A is the oldest fossil with Species D being the youngest, supporting the idea from another angle that there was a gradual transition over many years from the Species A to Species D. This what was presented to the scientific community initially to finally convince it after much opposition that evolution is true: not only is there a fossil record, but there are older fossils of what seem to be older ancestors and continually changing specimens as time goes on. It was this type of fossil data that finally won the great debate over evolution among scientists, but how could such a thing be falsified? Simple; it could be that there are fossils of every species in every layer of rock; you'd simply need to selectively pick the fossils

from the right layers to show the right order of descent and disregard the other fossils. Once the scientific consensus is altered enough, the fossils in odd layers found by new scientists can be explained as anaomalies or something of that nature. Does the above argument prove that evolution is false? No; it proves that it can be falsified if it so happens that there are supernatural forces at work in the world that would create a motive to do so. Those two views are so very divergent, but this is how reality works. Reading the Bible is, as many people say, the best way to become an Atheist under one condition, and that is that one is already presuming to cast doubt on the faith. If the amount of evidence one finds for God is proportional to the amount by which one seeks God because of God's own moral imperitive, then based on peoples' preconceptions, a quick read through the King James can be one of the most unrealistic things one has ever seen. I know that I as a Christian have face many, many passages which I had no idea how to interpret or reconcile with reality upon first reading; the difference between me and a person who becomes an atheist was that I simply waited and prayed for an answer and researched and got one in every single instance in which I encountered a sticking point. That's in line with James 1, which puts forth the idea that the "trying of our faith worketh patience." Instant gratification is never a good presumption to have if the God who authored that statement is the God of this reality. In Western European society, Christianity was the cornerstone of religious and moral culture for centuries. This became even truer in America, a place which was largely settled by those seeking religious freedom. Now, we have a new generation of people who hardly see a reason to be religious, some of whom are militantly set against it but most of whom are relatively apathetic about it. Because the idea of "seeking God" is alien to such a world, because so many of the things mentioned in this chapter would seem like blatant dodges of reality to

so many people, it may be that we are on a track toward societal secularism just as Western Europe has been for so long. But perhaps we are not. In a world where political issues increasingly diverge based on whether or not you believe certain things, it is nevertheless essential that people get a chance to re-examine their ideas about Christianity that have been instilled through the same propaganda, largely from the very same sources as several other fallacies that attack our societal beliefs as we speak. 1 John 4:8 says that God is "love." That would mean that the deep feeling of true love we feel for our closest relatives and our spouses is indicative of the very nature of God. That is what the Bible portends, ultimately, a God who created a race of fellow beings to love them and be loved by them. The questions that lie between someone totally berift of any knowledge of God from coming close to becoming a Christian are numerous, but not a single one of them will stand if an individual would be willing to seek the God of their fathers, to consider that all humans up to this point have not been delusional fools to such a degree and to at least act for the chance of returning to the open arms of the deity who is mentioned everywhere in our culture and in our very Consitution but ridiculed as nothing more than a fading myth in most circles of artificial media.

X. The Third Liberation


In our recent history as a nation, there have been two great "liberations" of oppressed American populations: first women were granted the right to vote and then black men and women were granted the civil rights that they were unlawfully denied. Now, gay rights groups claim that the same sort of institutional and societal bias is why they cannot get married like heterosexuals can. They imply that there must be a "third liberation" of one final minority group, those of various sexualities who are attracted to the same sex, after what they see as

many centuries of a society which has unrightfully oppressed them. The fundamental difference between this liberation and those prior is one of religious ideas. Martin Luther King, a key figure who inspired a nation to peacefully protest so black people could get their civil rights, quoted from a book that also advocated the stoning of men who had sex with other men in Ancient Israel quite often in his speeches. Of course, as far as I am aware, Dr. King never quoted from those specific parts, but if we are to be true to ourselves, we cannot pick and choose which religious principles are real and which are not based on what best suit us. If the Christian God truly advocated the stoning of those men in that ancient society, it would either have to be with good reason or the Christian God would not exist. This poses a question in our society that must be answered by those who oppose gay marriage: what is wrong with homosexuality in the first place? It simply amounts to two consenting adults of the same gender having sexual relations, something that many people find difficulty finding fault with. Exploration of this issue has to begin with a discussion of what homosexuality is and from whence it arises. When speaking of "homosexuality" in this chapter, it might be called a term of convenience. In most cases, it in context can be exchanged with any of two other sexualities in this discussion. "Homosexuality" is the involuntary attraction to the same gender much in the same way heterosexuals are involuntarily attracted to the opposite gender. "Bisexuality" is attraction to both genders, and "pansexuality" is attraction to all people irregardless of their sexual identity. Note that we are discussing people who are attracted to the same gender, not people who simply choose to have sex with the same gender for physical reasons, of whom there have been many throughout history, such as in Ancient Greece.

The first question that has to be asked in learning about homosexuality from a perspective that is void of propaganda is to ask what "homosexuality" is and where the phenomenon actually originates. A very common argument is that people are genetically "born gay," but try as they might, researchers have never identified a single gene that can explain the phenomeon. Even psychologists are forced to come up with ad-hoc explanations for it, since they realize that no single physical process known hitherto can explain why people are attracted to the same gender in the way most people are attracted to the opposite gender. At the same time, while it very possible that homosexuals are not "born gay," we do know that many develop this trait relatively early in their life. For the majority of people who identify as such, it's obvious that they are not simply "choosing" to have sex with the same gender as many people throughout history have, but they feel an involuntary sexual attraction to them in the same way heterosexuals are sexually attracted to the opposite gender. Over the course of about a year, I've communicated with ten women who identify as homosexual, bisexual or pansexual. None of them know each other or have any communications with each other to my knowlege. I share my findings here because I feel they are pertinent to this issue in a way that individuals can simply ask around and verify for themselves, but I have omitted their personal details out of respect for them and their privacy. That means that I have no way to prove this data is not falsified, but at the same time, I know it isn't a lie, so I am not afraid of misleading people by suggesting these things. Eight of them became a Christian at an early age but gave up the religion for a variety of reasons. For example, two of them simply phased it out of their life as they got older, two of them gave up the religion in response to a traumatic event they expected God to protect

or deliver them from, one of them gave up the religion because her mother was a lesbian and she felt Christianity was unduly oppressive against her, and one of them had a very bad experience in her church due to a misogynistic priest and forsook the religion entirely. Finally, one of them has chosen to experiment to find another religion that is "best for her." As for the two remaining, one of them still identifies as a Christian but does not literally recognize many parts of the Bible and admittedly clings to her faith because she "does not want to go to Hell" with no remarks about how she felt about a God. Another one simply implied that she was never Christian, although I only spoke with her briefly. She represents an anaomaly, and the reader can draw his or her own conclusions, but I will not omit details that do not serve my cause. Why am I bringing all this up? Well, there is an astounding correlation between these women that I began to notice: in the vast majority of cases, they had given up the position of God and God's commandments in their mind, most often in the form of no longer being Christian. What's astounding is that none of them did so because they felt homosexual attraction to the same gender and presumed the religion must be opressive or untrue because of it. It's just the opposite: it was not until they disregarded God/Christianity that they began to develop their sexuality. That's quite an odd and seemingly inexplicable detail. The correlation was so strong that I was able to communicate with two of those women who identified as homosexual with the presumption that they were religious at an early age, and I was correct both times as they described how they were Christian and then fell out of the faith and realized they were homosexual later on. This led me to come to an observation: in the vast majority of cases I've

encountered, a person becomes gay if they were once a Godworshiping Christian but downgraded or severed their relationship with God for some reason, whether it be circumstances in their life they thought were too unfair or something else. When I read that James Randi, a person raised initially as a Christian who has now become one of the most vocal advocates of atheism and dismantlers of religion, was gay, I was not surprised in the least. The proposition that the act of shifting one's religious priorities causes homosexuality probably sounds bizarre to anyone who is not a Christian, but it does match up with reality to a significant degree. The assumption that the only reason why the population of homosexuals has exploded in recent years is because people are now less afraid to "come out" cannot possibly be true; if such a large minority of homosexuals existed from the beginning of our civilization, they would likely not have been marginalized to that degree in the first place and such a population would be history's best kep secret. As secularism in the United States becomes more widespread and more teenagers and children turn away from the Christian religion, we see more cases of changes in peoples' sexuality. This also answers the long-standing conundrum of why women marry, have children and then "become" lesbians: they choose to change their religious thoughts because of their marital troubles and so we see a shift in sexuality in them that goes totally against the view that gay people are "born that way." There are countries on this planet which have a minority gay population, like the United Kingdom and the United States and various European countries, and there are also places which deny the very existence of the phenomenon. We see that in highly Christianized countries such as Uganda, there are high populations of gay people because in any such society there would be plenty of people who choose to turn away from the religion. On the other hand, a purely

Muslim country like Iran strangely denies that there are any homosexuals within their borders. The more of a Christian population any area has, the more homosexuals the area should have in general in order to support this theory. What does this all mean? It certainly is not the argument that these people all choose to have a certain sexuality as a mere "lifestyle choice," since they obviously feel attracted to the same gender in the same way we heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender. It is also not an argument that they are born with the genetic predisposition to be that way, since we have not identified any conclusive evidence that points to a genetic cause for homosexuality. Rather, it is a different argument entirely, one which is completely alien to the current debate and will probably be given a convenient name by those who wish to demean it. What is interesting about this argument, which will now be explored further, is that no matter how the media may paint the issue, you can test it out for yourself. Romans 1:21-25 (King James Version) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even

their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Notice that the bottom selection makes a clear reference to homosexual attraction between women and the same phenomenon in men. The key phrase in the bottom passage is "for this cause." In other words, according to the Christian Bible, the cause for being given over to feel attraction toward the same gender in the same way one would normally feel attraction toward the opposite gender is in the selection above. What does the selection above describe? It says that, when a person knows God and ceases glorifying Him as God, in other words, when God is suddenly relegated into a subordinate position in someone's mind or disregarded altogether, the qualification for the selection below is met. God's prior image is replaced with something inferior, and the consequences for this shift in priorities regarding God, as the passage says, is a shift in priorities in one's own sexual attraction. In short, this passage says that bisexuality/homosexuality/pansexuality is simply the supernaturally decreed result of no longer loving God with all one's heart. Now, why is this being quoted in a political manifesto? For one thing, it offers an explanation to something that baffles many people in this modern age, the question of if Christianity is true and a valid set of morals why God would make anyone gay. Secondarily, it's actually quite a testable proposition. From what I've seen, it's completely accurate, so I have no inhibitions in suggesting you politely ask around and see whether or not it's true. It's quite easy to investigate, no matter how odd it may seem.

The incidence of a queer person meeting this qualification is so astoundingly common that it cannot be a coincidence. There are typically three ways the queer phenomenon manifests: either a person was once a Christian and becomes atheist/agnostic, they convert to another religion, or they still identify as a Christian but have a dramatic shift in priorities in their mind such as only staying with the faith because they "don't want to go to Hell" or something of that nature. This claim must sound ludicrous and bizarre to many people reading this, but I only say it because I have communicated with many queer people and have noticed this same detail in many, many different cases. If one only takes the time to investigate this phenomenon, the results are astounding. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. When their serotonin counts were artificially lowered in an experiment, mice became hypersexual and their sexual preference became indiscriminant of gender for a time. That may be the explanation for "homosexual" behavior in many animals, and for all I know, chemical reasons can also trigger forms of same-sex attraction in humans. At the same time, there are no doubt individuals who identify as gay or bisexual simply because they enjoy the stimulation of anal or lesbian sex enough to take on the identity, and those individuals do not necessarily feel the same involuntary attraction to the same gender that most queer people do. Of course, if this document becomes absurdly popular, for all I know it might become popular to not mention the facts of how one's ideas of God changed prior to one showing homosexual tendencies, but any movement that makes such a repression of facts popular is even surer proof of the above claim. No matter what situational exceptions there might be, the fact remains that predominantly, if you immediatley ask around after this document is published, you would get stories from many queer people about how they were "practising" Christians at an early age but

ceased being so to the extent that it cannot be a coincidence. Indeed, the facts make sense once one realizes that this phenomenon takes place: as secularism is increasingly on the rise in the United States, so is the rate of homosexuality and bisexuality. If forsaking God becomes more popular, rates of homosexuality will continue to increase. If there is some sort of large-scale Christian revival, rates of homosexuality would decrease. If you are homosexual or bisexual or pansexual person reading this, does your life not fit that bill? What about the lives of your friends who are also not heterosexual? The more you ask around among different queer people from different areas, the more astounding this correlation becomes. Where do our values come from? As far as Western culture goes, our morality has its roots entirely in Christianity and it is that cultural tradition that has been passed down generation after generation. Atheists say that they can be moral people, and they certainly have a point; they tend to follow about half of the Ten Commandments, but the other half which deals with one's relationship with God makes no sense to them. In reality, whether it is opposition to bestiality or opposition to theft, these moral attitudes that have pervaded our culture have always been religiously originated and, in most cases, only those which deal directly with God are removed from peoples' values when they become Atheists in western society. In recent years, homosexuality became the exception. It used to be that, just as with bestiality, the religiously-originated resentment of acts of same-sex intercourse was present as a value even among Atheists and Agnostics; this can be seen by reading the works of Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, for example. This remains true in foreign countries with little history of the Abrahamic religions such as India and Vietnam; though it can certainly be suppressed, there is a certain aversion to homosexuality in many human societies across eras and geogrpahical areas. Now, that value in Western society has simply

been stigmatized as "homophobia" and phased out of several levels of society using propaganda. Most people call certain ideas "backward" and a "relic of ages past." In reality, what is right never changes. Either something has always been right or it was never right. Racism and misogyny were never right. Today, the harassment of homosexuals is not right, but the idea that there is nothing wrong with the whole scenario of homosexuality has something fishy around it that most are not willing to talk about. As a young child, I was given this proposition: "why would you oppose homosexuality if people are naturally like that and they're not hurting anyone?" I could not answer that question, so much like most children who are interviewed to support the causes of gay rights, I developed the same resentment of the anti-status-quo prohomosexual that most people do. The problem is, there is something wrong with needing a "logical" reason here because there exists none, just as you cannot use strict logic to come to the value of human property or of the family or of human life. We can, however, closely examine our values regarding sex to patch up this hole in sexual tabboo which has been made using propaganda. We all know that murder of another human being (that is, attacking an innocent person premeditatedly and killing them violently without their permission) is morally wrong. Why is murder wrong? Because it violates the value of human life by ending a life in progress, it severely impacts the person's friends and family, and it is an act of violence toward a person who has not committed sufficient evil to deserve such a fate. All those things are subjective, because if they were "objective," they would not involve the 'subjects' of right and wrong at all; they would be mere mathematical equations or a code or something of that nature. Thus, although it is common to all people,

one can only argue against murder logically if pre-existing subjective values such as the value for human life are already present in one's opponents' minds, and we are at a loss if we try to argue conventionally to establish subjective values in other people. Imagine trying to logically debate law with a person who did not believe human life should be a high priority; while the logic of getting to a value is objective, the value itself is subjective and cannot be argued for with logic. We live by subjective values, we love and take care of our family because of subjective values, and we are forced to kill on occasion (for instance, if our territory is attacked) because of our subjective values, but if no absolute subjective values exist, we as human beings are invariably rendered killers because of opinion, or for those whose opinions would have them sit idly by as their family is slaughtered, forsakers of that which we love because of opinion. In order for our laws and society to be anything more than a facade, there have to be innate moral values implicit to the human condition, because otherwise, we are one of the two things above, and we who protect our families are no better or worse than those who murder for extreme ideological reasons. Although we cannot argue logically to establish our values, we can take a close look at the human condition to see if there is a common set of morals innate to our being that many of us thereafter deviate from. We have the subjective value of ownership, because otherwise, anyone could steal our items, making survival impossible and our hard work invalidated. There also seems to be a certain structure regarding those whom we love in a familial sense: how we meet them and what their role is toward us. Attacking a person for no cause other than malice or personal gain is invariably contrary to how someone would want to be treated

themselves, making the entire system fall apart if one allows one's self to assault others in that manner. In fact, that's a rather strong clue toward finding a common standard of morality: treating others the way we want to be treated works. Why exactly do we want to be treated the way we want to be treated in the first place? Because we have basic human needs: the ability to sustain ourselves through work, the ability to express ourselves, the ability to live free of injustice, the ability to impact the world around us, but most of all, the ability to love and be loved. Why is a mother having sex with her son wrong? The answer can be derived by making two obeservations and then comparing them. First of all, a mother's relationship with her son is one of deep natural love and affection, but the role of the relationship is that of a mentoring, protecting, nurturing adult raising a small, weak and developing being that came from her own body. Conversely, a woman's relationship with a mate is one of interacting with another being who has the innate quality of "attraction," gaining a lover that they previously did not have and was not part of their family unit, and coming together with that person to form a union. If you've been blessed to have experienced both, compare your close relationship with your mother or father to your relationship with your mate (or how you feel about people of the opposite gender in general, if you are heterosexual). It's quite obvious how the two are not compatible, not necessarily in a way that can fully be explained by words, but by what you feel; the fatherly or motherly relationship would be utterly violated if you were to have sex with your mother or father. This is just one aspect of a natural familial dynamic that establishes human relations in sex, romance, and the immediate family. Like other subjective values, however, it is impossible to argue

the specifics of this dynamic with purely logical debate, just as it is impossible to argue to someone who steals about why people "own" things. Why does it feel so "wrong" to violate the human relationship dynamic in a case such as incest? Because we as human beings are all proneand naturally obligated to care about certain things. We are naturally impelled to love our parents, one of the biggest stabilizers of our early lives, and our love to our parents is expressed within certain boundaries. Crossing those boundaries (especially in the act of sex, which is also an action which does not fit into natural interactions between parents and children, as sex produced the child, but the nurturing of the child has no place for sex with it) is to violate that general pattern of love that we care so dearly about. It is to replace interpersonal love in its fixed natural expression, the only thing that makes life truly worth living, entirely with a carnal action for sensual enjoyment. It is akin to taking something which has more meaning than almost anything else. In another example, it would be having one's own father give his life for his child who he loved dearly, but only for the child to unjustly hate the father's memory and urinate on his grave for no other reason than for sensual gain. It is a dynamic that involves love, that most sacred of emotions and experiences, that has been traded for something that is, in comparison, meaningless. The father is not alive, so he is not a victim, but there is "something" there that is invariably violated and perverted about such an act. Two people of the same gender having sex also violates this pattern, sacrificing the natural love between male and female partners for the sake of something else. But why would they have such an inclination in the first place? If it were not "natural," then why would they involuntarily see the same gender as attractive?

Though many people fail to admit it, the basic values passed down through our culture all the way from Europe to here were originally infomred with religious Christian morals, which can be seen by contrasting our society with countries that have very little Christian heritage. It's obvious that, throughout the Middle Ages, throughout the Enlightenment, throughout the New World expansion, all throughout our history, we have had religious moral motivations and a strong presence of Christianity within our culture. What does all this mean? It means that most Western secularists have simply inherited a philosophy that is somewhat similar to the Christian ideas of our past, only with certain morals regarding God arbitrarily cut out. These recent developments, however, are the first time a moral sexual tabboo has become mainstream and accepted, with perhaps the exception of premarital sex. Gay rights activists say that gay marriage will provide gay people with "equal rights." In reality, the actual institution of marriage provides little but numerous government restrictions and a license for a couple that wishes to engage in such a contract. Marriage has always had a strongly Christian identity in our society (in fact, it exists because of Christianity), but all of these inconsistencies pale in comparison to one thing: homosexuals are desperate not only for tolerance but for a stamp of approval for their own relationship that can be secured by our government. They have the right to vote and can effectively engage in long-term relationships as they please, but it is by gaining the foothold of having legislation that essentially endorses homosexuality and removes our prior morality from centuries past on this issue that the validation that is deeply desired by the gay community can be reached. All individuals have a desire for validation when society looks down on them, whether this looking down is justified tough love or contemptable irrational hatred, of which homosexuals get a good deal of both.

Many people think that separation of church and state means voters cannot enact laws that are informed by the morality of their faith. This is false; a Christian voter can vote to fight theft because they value personal property due to Biblical commandments, they can vote to toughen penalties for perjury because they value a resistance against bearing false witness because of their Christianity and they can vote to maintain what they believe in regards of marriage. Their values are no more or less subjective than anyone else's, regardless of whether they come from religion or any other source. It is only when a majority in this country no longer has the chance to see this issue as it did centuries ago becauese propaganda has advanced so far in a society that gay marriage tends to become legal. In Canada and the Netherlands, a good deal of people cannot see anything wrong with two naturally attracted and consenting men having sex. Could the same be said for a mother and son having sex with a condom? That imagery is tabboo for reasons that are no different than homosexual sex being tabboo in the past.

XI. The Excluded and the Doomed


Many women's rights group argue that it should be a basic human right for women to have abortions because the child is developing in their own body and, if women do not have juristiction over their own body, they have no rights at all. Indeed, the propaganda that has directly targeted women in a rather sustained campaign says that the Republicans in congress who mean to legislate what they can and cannot do with their own bodies are being misogynistic and controlling. Among certain groups on the Internet, even saying that abortion's illegality should be discussed creates resentment from those women who have been convinced that other people are trying to control their bodies and restrict their natural rights.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in abortion, what does a group of politicians fighting against abortion because they honestly feel it is the destruction of human lives have to do with misogynism? Absolutley nothing, but the fact that the above argument has become so pervasive and widespread serves to show how all sorts of convoluted ideas have wrapped around this issue of abortion. People call it a "tough topic," say it shouldn't happen in the last few months, say it's fine, say it's the right of a woman to choose, say it's murder and say it is only acceptable in specific circumstances. Beyond the convolution, where does reality stand on this? Well, it is a "women's rights" issue of a completely different shade than the one depicted. There is one only one way to solve this partisan issue of abortion...

This is Gianna Jessen. A 'collection of cells' underwent an attempted saline abortion at 30 weeks, and if it would have been successful, she would have died. (Source:http://www.salon.com/2012/04/05/are_you_an_abortion_survi vor/)

This is Claire Culwell. Her mother attempted to get a surgical abortion, but she miraculously survived. Once again, the flesh-and-blood human being you see in this picture would be just as dead as if you shot her in the head right now if that abortion were successful. (Source: http://www.catholic.com/profiles/claire-culwell)

This is Melissa Ohden. She happened to come alive in a woman's womb at the wrong time, so that woman chose to attempt to have her aborted. At as stage in her life in which she was not called a "child" or a "human being," but a "fetus," so this was completely justified, was it not? Why don't you tell that to her face, the face of a living, breathing, speaking, thinking human being who would be dead if the abortion

were successful? (Source: http://www.melissaohden.com/bio) Beyond all the pointless rhetoric and back-and-forth words and claims that embryos and fetuses and zygotes are "less than human," the fact remains that they are just the opposite: developing human beings. It is ignorance of this undeniable fact that continues to perpetuate a hotlydebated partisan issue when, in any sane and reasonable society, there is no debate. People do not have the right to kill other people, regardless of what stage of development that person's body is in. This is not an issue of "pro-life" or "pro-choice." This is not something that we can sit around and discuss in some kind of academic circlejerk while throwing around politically correct BS terms such as those; these are the lives of innocent human beings who are being killed daily. The fact that these individuals have fully developed means that every single fetus or embryo that is aborted and discarded would have been one of these people smiling at you, but because they were killed before they developed anything that was socially valuable, that evidently isn't enough for most people. When you see these faces staring back at you, the fallacy of abortion finally becomes obvious, but when you are exposed to the propaganda of embryos and fetuses being nothing more than a "collection of cells," it becomes much easier to support offing that tiny little thing while you have the chance. It is the same strategy that is used by all forms of murder or institutional euthenasia or homicide of humans: in order to justify one's actions in one's own mind, one usually has to de-humanize one's victim. In the case of those still in the womb, that task became incredibly easy for propagandists. Democrats say that women should have a right to their own body. I say that women should have a right to not have their body exterminated before it fully develops. I say that it is far less invasive to

tell women they can't kill their own children than to allow them to fill a womb with saline and kill an prenatal human being just because it's inconvenient to them. We cannot continue as a moral society if we knock off human beings who are on the cusp of life just to benefit those who are currently living. Some people bring up science in the essential argument as to whether or not abortion should be legal. Of course, science cannot determine when something is a "human being" or has a "soul." Arguments like this result from a loss of perspective over what "science" is; how would one expect someone to measure a cell under a microsope for levels of "human being" or "soul"? Science is useful in uncovering objective facts, but in this case, it can't offer any useful input. Those "masses of cells" growing inside the womb are developing human beings, and abortion is killing them. All the politeness and partisanship and debate and feminist resentment regarding this issue perpetuates just about as many female deaths as it does male deaths, and the ridiculous idea that those who oppose abortion do so because they have misogynist tendencies is yet another intentional ploy to divide people and fool them into allowing about a million innocent deaths every year. There are two arguments that are often thrown up for abortion to sway those who do not feel strongly about the issue: "what about when the mother would die if the baby were delivered?" and "what if the pregnancy is a result of rape?" They sound compelling on paper, but let's strip away the rhetoric and look at actual facts. Risk of death has, throughout human history, always been the natural consequence of bringing a child into the world. Before modern medical advancements, it's estimated that the chance of death when giving birth to a child was 1%. The risk of death during delivery was considered an unfortunate fact of life, and most people would not think

of killing their children to prevent it. As it stands currently, according to the World Health Organization, the risk of death during childbirth is about 0.011% in the United States. What happens if a child's life would be saved but a woman's would not during childbirth? Are we to let life take its natural course, or are we to intervene and kill an innocent baby to save an adult, just because the adult has more of a social status? The whole issue can also be framed a different way: would you kill a baby to save an adult's life? Of course not; the adult dying is unfortunate, but it is far beyond any person's right to kill someone who has not even seen a second of life to save an adult. What about rape? Plenty of men and women have a great deal of trouble dealing with the fact that they are a product of rape, let alone the added emotional trip that their mother would have killed them if she were given the chance. Someone being raped and impregnated during the act means they were given a baby against their will, but to go around and murder another human being after being raped is to double the amount of victims and turn an unfortunate situation into a fiasco. "Cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger" is just a defensive tactic used to perpetuate the partisanship surrounding abortion, that is, the euthenasia of human beings who are still in the womb. Finally, what about incest? Would you kill an inbred child? Nope? Good. There are many people who would read this section and grow increasingly angry at the inflammatory things said here. The problem is, for anyone who actually realizes the full gravity of what killing a fetus or zygote means, there can be no compromise on this issue.

There can be no ground given to the people who actually want to kill a million innocent humans each year. I don't know what the best way to explain this is or the best way to navigate past the perception that this stance is oppressive to women. I don't know if it's possible, but I would rather be hated by the whole world than consent to so many deaths that we turn a blind eye to just as Nazi officials did when the killed those "worthless" Jews. You can sit back and destroy the country with liberal economic policies all you want, but when it comes to enabling a million people a year to be killed, there is no more humanitarian respect that can be granted to such a platform. Of course, some studies show that abortions are performed when abortions are illegal, but the point of this document is not to change the law. It is to change the ideas of people regarding abortion, to utterly stigmatize such a cold and heartless murder of those who are of little value to us, which will in turn inspire the electorate to vote on legislation that will illegalize abortion. This war of information is not just one of policy. It has casualties, far more casualties each day than I am willing to sit idly by and continue to allow. This calls for action of the highest degree; not violence or targeting abortion clinics as some have in the past, but actually taking a stand on an issue for the sake of the millions of lives that are lost to this deception and madness. Using the term pro-choice is like calling a Nazi an anti-Jewish conspiracy person. The people who support abortion are proprenatal homicide. There is no middle ground, but there is the possibility of waking people up.

XII. Blind Decline: A Thesis


We live in an age of information. Those who dominate the

information dominate the age when the power rests in the hands of a country's population and that population is exploited psychologically through the technological windows of media transmission and the institutions of education that people rely on. The destruction of the social, religious, moral, cultural and economic identity of Western European nations has been in effect for many years now, and in that region of the world, we begin to see the dangers of such deception. Economies are collapsing, nations are giving up their sovereignty, the perspectives and rationality and morality of many people have been skewed entirely by propaganda and the previous worldviews of these nations have almost totally been eclipsed by a new culture engineered by the men with the means and the resources to do so. If a group could conquer Rome, they would do it. The same goes for most countries of power throughout world history, and in the case of Western Europe, the process is in a rather late stage. If America could were faced with a huge economic crisis, it might be ripe to be acquired by other powers as its only alternative to chaos. If it were bereaved of its moral, cultural and religious identity, then the resistance to such an insulting proposition would be significantly less than it would have been 100 years ago, when people believed strongly in patriotism and a sense of national morality and pride. America and parts of Western Europe have been pioneers of democracy. In order to subvert a democracy from within, you must subvert the minds of a country's population. Already, secularism has swept over that part of the continent and progressivism and multiculturalism have strongly taken root. Already, the European Union has formed. Already, economies are collapsing in that region. People say it is natural progress, but it is instigated through artificial means: through propaganda: through movies, television, academia and the

Internet. The same thing is happening here, and the people who resist it are called intolerant over-religious backward bigots who live in their own illusionary world. In reality, the illusionary world is created by instruments of illusion such as the screens of montiors and televisions and the words of men, and it is that illusionary world that is placed over the eyes of the masses in order to cause dramatic changes in the face of the Western world to some other entity's benefit and our obvious expense. Once a population becomes sheltered and assumes of the benefits that its government and society are constant no matter what, it may feel free to change its government and society at a whim. They merely need a force to instigate that whim and the barriers of artificial distractions to prevent them from seeing what is going on until it is too late. "Blind decline" is the eating away at a democratic country's population's minds, causing them to forward causes that subvert their nation while they are blind to their ill effects. Spain, for example, has been in "blind decline" for quite some time, having been propagandized to elect literal Socialists and suffering from very high unemployment, ironically causing a significant awakening in the population recently when a new party was elected in a landslide after unemployment reached nearly 25%. Because this process of instituting liberal economic ideas also involves liberal social ideas, the opposition to these movements tends to be from those with resolute Christian values in churches that have not been subverted with modern liberalism, but this causes Christianity to be relegated to a minor "personal choice" rather than the moral backbone of a nation as new propaganda paints believers as irrational, ignorant and uneducated buffoons. This does not mean that Christianity is wiped out, but liberal forms of it which are further and further from the message of the Biblical texts are applied as policies that directly contradict these nations' historical religions are put in place and supported by the progressive opinions of the propagandized public.

When a country is in a state of blind decline, some people are born into a position in which they see voting for the Democrats in the United States or the Labor Party in Britain or the socialist parties in various other countries as totally virtuous. This social movement of liberalism which pervades these countries overtly teaches tolerance, diversity, accepting of alternate lifestyles, helping out the poor and the advocation of oppressed minorities, but all of these core values are reactions to the status quo, and when the status quo no longer exists, it becomes evident that the core values of a nation have been stripped away for a convoluted set of ideals that, when fetishized to such a degree, do not represent the human condition in its purest form. The methods of propagation are many, but the Internet provides an excellent example of an ideal environment to be exploited by the Conductors. Any artificial world that is sealed off from reality becomes a petri dish for believing lies, and as people unwary of propaganda rely on certain outlets on the Internet, they are transitioned into a mindset that fails to realize that the values, views and opinions being oposed on them do not represent reality. On Youtube.com, the effects of propaganda can be seen in literal death threats and extremely degrading comments being hurtled at most conservative speakers and Republicans. It seems that every time people listen to these individuals, they feel the internal stress of something that violates their worldview, when in fact, that worldview has largely been imposed upon them by propaganda specifically meant to appeal to them. As a video website, YouTube has the capibility to spread documentaries that reference facts for credibility but offer no sound interpretations that nevertheless are accepted by the masses as true. On Reddit.com, pro-Democrat links and posts tend to get tons of upvotes, with the front page as it currently stands having links to articles such as "Obama Goes To Red Cross To Thank Them. Romney Tells Red Cross To Break Their Rules For His Campaign," which is

propaganda attempting to paint Obama's disaster relief efforts as genuniely motivated but Romney's donations to the Sandy campaign as politically motivated. In reality, it's obvious that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's actions are motivated by both factors, especially since the media would have heavily criticized Mitt Romney if he did nothing while Obama did everything to help these people. Instead, they attempt to call Mitt Romney's donations completely "useless" and an obvious political ploy, while they call Barack Obama's actions those of a person who does everything for legitimate motivations when Obama is on record as a man who has restrained himself from doing controversial things with other countries because it would hurt his reelection attempts: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but its important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. ... This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." -Barack Obama, to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Not to mention, Barack Obama has suspended further investigation into the Benghazi incident until after his re-election. It is only consistent with Barack Obama's previous character to act as soon as possible when a disaster hits right before an election in order to use this opportunity to increase public opinion of him. He'd be a fool not to. Of course, Barack Obama's compassion for his fellow human beings also played a big part in his response. Of course, Mitt Romney's actions and speeches and word choice and manneurisms have all had political motivations at times. The problem is the sheer hypocracy of calling Obama's actions saint-like and natural and Mitt Romney's harmful and totally for personal gain when he has a long record of donating to charitable causes and the Conductor-influenced media would have criticized him if he did nothing anyway, because it is obvious that these character attacks are not meant to expose hidden truths but are part of a concerted effort to get Barack Obama re-elected, period. If you have been watching MSNBC lately, you

certainly would have caught on to that. Those who thumb up articles with distorted interpretations of facts as well as articles that are mostly truthful but look at inconequential details that all point toward the re-election of Barack Obama have innate reasons to do so. Why? Because, if something comes up that supports your beliefs and the things you care about, you will want to support it. Once the idea that the GOP is a corrupt party of rich people who are secretly evil and the Democratic party is fighting that corruption was propagated by the artificial media and that idea dominated the artificial world of the Internet, people became inclined to take little steps like that to fight what they perceive to be the enemy of the American people. The problem is that, upon closer investigation, it is obvious that the new medium of the Internet was specifically exploited by those who had the long-standing agenda of dominating public opinion through information, and combined with all other factors including articles that are believed at face-value without breaking them down to actual facts, this agenda continues to dominate the collective majority opinion of most Internet-goers. On Tumblr.com, one sees the most flagrant exposes of Republican politicians consisting of bulleted lists of one misinterpretation of hards facts after another that appeal to the liberal ideology and GIF sets of propagandists like Jon Stewart using "appeal to ridicule" to make the politically ambivalent youth dislike Republicans by making them seem stupid and baseless in their ideas using selective video clips and oversimplified jokes. Tumblr is also the epicenter of some of the most far-left ideas regarding fluid gender identities and social justice that actually offset some Democrats but make perfect sense in the closed-off-from-reality life people who are addicted to Tumblr tend to live. The more you are staring at a screen, the less you are naturally inclined to react to the real world and the more you are inclined to react to a world that mankind has created to

influence you. I know firsthand, because I spend a lot of time staring at screens and I have spent a good deal of my time fighting such delusions. Although its users are probably none the wiser, Tumblr has become one of the most efficient engines of propaganda I've ever seen. Picture this: you hit the "follow" button on blogs related to things you like, such as your favorite anime or TV show or book series. Since that blog is run by an individual with a personality and opinions who also likes the things you like, you begin to talk to them and develop an emotional connection with them. Because they have no reason to doubt it, when they see a picture of President Obama hugging some children in a propaganda post designed to enhance his reputatation or a post full of distortions of actual facts regarding Mitt Romney that paint him as a bigot and potential nation-destroyer or an instigator of World War III, they reblog it. When they reblog it, you see it posted on your friend's blog, you trust it because you trust your friend and the information sounds valid, and you are so shocked that you reblog it yourself and pass it on to your followers. For this reason, Tumblr has become a self-sustained epicenter for the gay-rights movement, secularism, fetishism of marijuana, separation of sex and gender identity, promiscuous sex and drugs, and though I sound like a concerned and uptight person in the 1980's when I say these things, I'm dead serious when I say I've seen hundreds of examples of those precise things right in front of me. As far as people are concerned, Tumblr is a blogging site where you share the things you care about. In reality, it becomes a massive hivemind of propaganda in which such posts get tens of thousands of notes, increasing their influence each time, and which constantly exposes users of the site to political ideas designed to condition them into an ideology that will get them to vote in Democrats. Our brains are not acclimated to view a man-made "world" as anything different

than a natural world, so when these things are exposed to people constantly in the virtual realm, they essentially react as if Mitt Romney were they worst enemy in the real world, and the numerous death threats that politicians get on Tumblr prove that. I honestly do not know if all this is intentional or it just worked out that way, but if it was intentional, it is one of the most genius constructs I have ever seen. The news media can control how people feel about particular issues, whether it is painting them as brutal when they are necessary or painting them as docile when they are dangerous. For that reason, some people might ask why they don't just go overboard and character-assassinate every Republican president until everyone wants to stone every person with an elephant badge. The answer is that they must walk a very tight line to protect their credibility and not blow their cover; an example of this was the Conductors informing Cenk Uygur that he needed to tone down and talk to more Republicans. The news media is extremely careful about how and when they attack, but if they get an opportunity to strike, they will take it. That is what happened with President Bush during the Katrina fiasco; the local officials needed to request help from the government before it could intervene, but they refrained from doing so, so the media used the opportunity to heavily assassinate President Bush's character and place the blame on him. In reality, it was the responsibility of the governor of Louisana, but President Bush was caught between a rock and a hard place because he could not cause strife by calling out or implicating the governor, so he was caught in a catch 22. This was the perfect opportunity to assassinate Bush's character, which proved an effective strategy as the entire nation began hating the man enough to elect a Democrat in 2008. If Mitt Romney is elected, the media will certainly take their first

opportunity to strike at him. It should come to no one's surprise, but we must warn people to be wary and look at facts to see what amount of the blame reality and not character attacks place on the president. Regardless of the means by which these ideas are propagated, it is clear that the propagandization of Western Europe is nearly complete, Great Britain is teetering on falling toward the same shadow, and the United States takes a final stand against the world in its overwhelmingly conservative stance. A recent poll by the BBC World Service indicates that the UK, Spain, France, Poland and Germany all prefer Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. This is not because they support his policies for largely factual or rational reasons, but because he appeals the most to their worldview, which is one of the artificial morals of diversity and pacifism and humanitarianism and egalitarianism coming into full play. The United States stands alone as a country that is currently divided as for who the next president should be, and the weight of the entire world now bears down on our shoulders. If the next generation is not warned of this propaganda, our ideas and culture and resistance to this agenda will fall just like everyone else's.

XIII. Barack Obama Must Be Remembered


To many people, Barack Obama is an inspiring figure. He is a well-educated and articulate orator, the first black president, a symbol of democracy and hope and collective emotion in America. Across the world, he is viewed as a man who acts to bridge previous gaps of xenophobia and embraces many of the more progressive morals of liberals while still being polite and well-mannered to all of his opponents most of the time. Beyond the outer surface, however, what does Barack Obama truly stand for? What causes are he truly a spokesperson for? More importantly, what types of policies are he supporting and implementing as President of the United States?

Well, let's begin with basic economic policies, just as this document began. How good does Barack Obama have his facts? "It was the labor movement that helped secure so much of what we take for granted today. The 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, family leave, health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, retirement plans. The cornerstones of the middle-class security all bear the union label. -Barack Obama Well, that's... strange. The minimum wage laws prevent people from being employed. Social Security, Medicare and retirement programs are unsustainable programs that are bankrupting our government. Why would Barack Obama be talking about those things in such a light? I'm sure people would be listening to those inspiring speeches of his and perhaps be a little misled. It soon becomes clear that Obama seems to be completely ignorant about how raising the minimum wage causes the most impoverished people to no longer get jobs if you consider it was part of his original election platform to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Thank God that didn't happen, but it does nothing to inform the public about how the minimum wage is harmful. In fact, it does just the opposite, as the proposition for this action on change.gov stated: Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full-time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing -things so many people take for granted. It's a little unfortunate that two people who claim to fight poverty

would even support a policy that perpetuates it. What's the most ironic part of this statement? It's in a section titled Agenda: Poverty. That title still works, oddly, but it's construed the wrong way around. Anyway, let's continue right along with more quotes from our current Commander in Chief that the American People elected in 2008. Here is a quote from Barack Obama's first presidential debate with Mitt Romney: I want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas, but also the energy sources of the future. Yes, I want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending that we dont need, but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more so that we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st century economy. As commander in chief, I will maintain the strongest military in the world, keep faith with our troops and go after those who would do us harm. But after a decade of war, I think we all recognize we got to do some nation building here at home, rebuilding our roads, our bridges and especially caring for our veterans whove sacrificed so much for our freedom. Barack Obama implies that he wants to raise taxes on the top income bracket so we get more income to fund res... wait. Raising taxes on the top income bracket decreases revenue because they put their money in tax shelters. It's happened every single time we've done that. How does he expect to have more money for doing something that generates less money? It's like stabbing a person so they stop bleeding. I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesuss teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required. That is what Barack Obama says about the rich being taxed more. He still seems to be ignorant of the fact that, you know, higher taxes on the rich means less revenue, therefore more debt. I'm pretty

sure Jesus would be calling out the people who are in Barack Obama's ears, trying to get him to relay this twisted economic policy to the public. In reality, Barack Obama is not going to relent on these ideas of increasing taxes on those millionaires, and even though if he is reelected the implementations of these policies would spell disaster for our revenue when we are trying to increase it, even though history resoundingly says that these liberal economic policies Barack Obama has tried out and experienced failure with don't work, he still campaigns with them. By analyzing Barack Obama's speeches, one can see how he uses rhetoric to maneuver around disastrous issues in the most convenient way possible. He doesn't just come out and say that he's going to cut our defense spending and build a bunch of roads and bridges for some strange reason; he says he's going to maintain the strongest military in the world, keep faith in our troops entirely to make the contrast that he's going to focus less on our defense budget. This tactic of Obama's is nothing new, such as when he is asked about abortion. Well, you know... I think that when you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay-grade. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, it's one that families struggle with all the time, and that in wrestling with those issues I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions. I think the better answerand this was reflected in the Democratic party platformis to figure out how do we make sure that young mothers or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child. The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take

that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day and I think they are in a better position to make these decisions, ultimately, than members of congress or our President of the United States, in consultation with their family, with their doctors, with their clergy... And here is what Barack Obama actually meant in these exchanges: I think women should have the right to kill their children and taxpayer money should be used to help pay for it. Too many people confuse intention with reality. When Barack Obama convincingly laid out plans that were supposed to create numerous jobs when barely any were created in reality, people hardly noticed. When his constant New Deal-type intervention in our free market that is pushing to help the middle class gets air time and nobody calls him out on the fallaciousness of his economic ideas, it becomes clear what is truly going on behind the scenes in many of America's largest media outlets. Barack Obama was a man who had accomplished nothing but giving good speeches and inspiring people, and he was given the reigns of a nation for reasons totally unrelated to the details of his policies or the harmful effects they would have on our economy, our national debt and our place in the world. Such a position puts peoples' lives on the line and potentially the welfare of the entire nation, but we gave it to a man who knows virtually nothing but bad economic policies, conflicted moral ideas and how to talk his way into peoples' hearts. Why? Because propaganda prevailed and ignorance prevailed where it didn't. We cannot allow this to continue. Barack Obama comes from a University culture which resents the stereotype of "blind" patriotism, the idea of American exceptionalism and the flag-and-eagle pride that many intellectuals see as annoyingly ignorant, and instead encourages people to see

themselves as "citizens of the world." Such attitudes prevail among many because most are not shown the reasons for patriotism but are impelled by society to join in, thus they resent it. Harvard, where Barack Obama studied law, was a center for propagating the Occupy movement and it is among the top echelon of universities that teach courses designed to turn the poltically ambivalent into moderate liberals who supply a Democratic vote when needed and those with an extremist streak into those who hate corparation-owners for not giving them free stuff and threaten to track down peoples' addresses and show up at their house if they say something "transphobic." When there is a new wave of propaganda hitting the Internet such as the proposition that illegalizing abortion would hurt women's rights, he immediatley starts spreading it himself. He has innumerable advisors in his ear, some of whom seem to be Conductors themselves, many of whom probably stress over and over to him justifications for the ideas exposed in this document as ineffective in the real world. It's not as if Barack Obama would would be hesitant to accepting those ideas in the first place: he was mentored as a young man by Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, and he for many years attended the church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, an apologist for socialism who often spoke out against the American government for being tyrannical in the conservative sense. That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean Barack Obama retained all their influence, but if you navigate past the layer of his smooth PR speeches and playing to both sides into the core ideas that would need to inform his actions, the impression left upon him by these people becomes obvious. It is no accident that this document is being released just one day before the 2012 presidental election. As this section will make clear, this election represents a pivotal moment in our history which may indicate a point of no return if we make the wrong decision. However, contrary to those who will try to paint this entire document as some elaborate brainwashing attempt to sway the election, it is by no means

our goal to get Mitt Romney elected. In fact, if this movement loses steam after Mitt Romney is elected, then the media will assassinate his character, another democratic president will be elected and the inevitable will simply have been postponed. This election is the beginning of an important process, but by examining what is at stake here, we can begin to realize the real-world ramifications of what could happen if the American people continue to be propgandized without waking up. Barack Obama must be remembered as nothing less than the culmination of many propagandic movements wrapped into one successful trojan horse. His policies do nothing but hurt this nation but the people like to hear him talk and believe what he says. He is emotion, public relations, oration. He is the perfect spokesperson for the Conductors, but he may also be their undoing: the top dog supporing all these movements under such a sugar-coated layer of deception takes a hit from the truth of exposure, and the entire movement may take a hit with him.

XIV. Defense, Drugs, Education and Various Fallacies


There are certain issues that are distorted to the degree that they require an entire chapter to address. This chapter, however, will attempt to take on several other pressing issues that are being fed by propaganda. Race/Gender Gaps in Income Black people are, on average, paid less than white people in the United States. Men are, on average, paid more than women. Is this discrimination? Many people automatically assume so because of our strong attitudes of discrimination-paranoia, but actually, these

differences are differences between lifestyles, cultures, skill-sets and other related factors. As far as the difference between blacks and whites are concerned, if you compare any two cultural/ethnic groups in the United States, you will find differences in income. In the free market, people compete not with their skin color, but with the output of their work; virtually any employer would care more about increasing profit than caring what the color of his employees' skin is. Under Aparteid in South Africa, institutions would get in trouble because too many black people had risen to high-paying and high-ranked positions in jobs because of their skills and hard work. As far as gender gaps go, the lifestyles of men and women have been different for hundreds of years. Some of that involves cultural misogyny, but a good deal of it also involves the fact that women get pregnant, nurse children, et cetera and men do not. Many women are inclined for both cultural and biological reasons to take different jobs than men, and so they do. Why, then, is it surprising that they have a different average income? If you compared groups of people in the exact same job position with the exact same skills and qualifications, et cetera, that would produce reliable evidence for discrimination. As it currently stands, despite the propagandists' spin on things, these disparities would be expected anyway to exist. We stand to lose a great deal if we try to fix what isn't broken impel our government to step in and legislate our economy over these non-issues. The Voucher System In our capitalist society, we've certainly learned one thing: competition is good. When companies have to compete for customers, they lower their prices, improve their service and do various other things to cater

to those customers so the customers pick them. In our public school system, however, there exists no such drive caused by competition. The state just pays a bunch of internal buerocrats and teachers to teach a curriculum to children; it's a stangnat process that allows for horrible schooling for many people, black teenagers who have been stuck in poverty for generations in particular. This does not mean that every school or teacher is bad, certainly, but it means that the bad schools are considerably difficult to improve and the good schools could potentially be a lot better. What if parents were given vouchers which they could use to send their children to any public or private school they chose? Instead of a half-motivated government run education system dominated by a Democratic teacher's union, we would have competition that would force our schools to get better and to cater to the learning needs of students in order to please parents. This would make various schools have to compete for funds and to appeal to parents, so the educational quality of schools would go up as they warred for customers. Since parents would be given these vouchers, rather than having to pay the tuition themselves, they would not have to worry about paying high prices for sending their children to private schools if they thought they would be better for them. As it currently stands, one of the saddest realities of our public school system is the fact that there is no incentive through competition to get rid of bad teachers and the cost of firing them is often much too inconvenient. The beurocracy might take a poorly performing teacher and move them around for a long period, but there's certainly nothing stopping a bad teacher from continuing to teach students who themselves live in poverty and are trying to work their way up into scholarships but have a great deal of difficulty doing so due to bad teachers. The competition caused by a voucher system would ultimately help low-income populations of Americans who are stuck in

poverty generation after generation to move up because, otherwise, there is a significantly more random luck of the draw as to whether or not any particular teacher will be rigorous and effective enough to bring out the full potential in students. What's the obstacle to the voucher system? This answer is quite interesting: the various local chapters NEA, or the US labor union of teachers which has ties to the Democratic Party. There have been many cases of frantic or even violent opposition to the notion of competition in schools. For example, in 1995, the Pepsi Corporation announced that it would give scholarships to low-income kids to go to private schools. Immediately, the local teacher's union threatened to boycott Pepsi and Pepsi vending machines around Jersey City were vandalized. Labor unions have also demonstrated behavior such as sending out "truth squads" to intimidate people to not support the cause of getting schooling vouchers on the ballot. Public schools and their effects on young minds are a vital tool for the Conductors, but this particular battle is far from won on their side. Defense Spending It's imperitive to save money by cutting our budget, but how costly is cutting defense spending? Some politicians point out that Mitt Romney's plan of not changing the projected spending on defense is unneccesary, implying that Mitt Romney is irrationally forking out more money than the Pentagon never even requested. While it is true that the Pentagon requested Obama's planned cuts, it's not as if the Pentagon had any other option given the circumstances. Even their officials were a bit hesitant (but in no way willing to criticize the president) as they laid our their modified military plans to the public. History tells us that increases in defense spending create important advantages that help us out when the unpredictable need for a war arises. The Gulf War turned out to be an effective conflict

with few casualties because of Ronald Reagan's prior defense funding which helped develop new technologies. On the other hand, we lost many good men at the beginning of World War II because of lax funding in previous decades. The fact is that we have no idea what military threats we will face in the future, and the same political party that wishes to cut our defense funding is the one which has inadvertently or advertently worked to dismantle this nation with the promotion of entitlement programs, minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich and other economic fallacies. I would not be particularly surprised if the Conductors would not want us to have a strong military. There is a reason why there were stern warnings about these cuts both from Congress and from the White House. There is a reason why 500 retired generals and admirals recently endorsed Mitt Romney, and I suspect it's not entirely political. They want to avoid casualties in the future, the same casualties which would be prevented if we kept our military budget instead of cutting it and using that money on infrastructure projects that are not called for for any logical reason. Student Loans Why is tuition rising so quickly in our universities? As it turns out, before the government tried to intervene to "help" people pay for college, tuition rates were extremely fair and manageable. In the 1800's, you could work for a couple of months at a factory job and pay for a year at an ivy league school. Today, tuition prices are so high that many people look to government loans as their only option to pay for them. As will be evident in a moment, that's more than a little ironic. When the government started giving people student loans, there was something that didn't change, and that was the amount of people who could get into universities. For this reason, students had to

compete with each other using the government's money to get spots in universities, bidding the prices up. In other words, the reason why people feel the need for government aid today is because government aid causes the cost of tuition to increase! Student loans are just one example of many "good things" that turn out to be cancerous in excecution because they dismantle our free market, because without them, our market would have successfully kept these prices at much more manageable levels. This process has continued since then and our government evidently has not learned, especially under the Obama administration. I find it so incredibly ironic that people are criticizing Mitt Romney for his lack of student loan support and his comments about "borrowing money from your parents," but Barack Obama, the hero of the college kids, is actually the one working to intensify the problem. "ObamaCare" Insurance is the periodic paying of money in exchange for getting help for an expensive crisis if one happens to occur. How can you destroy a system like that? Here's an excellent example. In the case of health insurance, healthy people tend to pay monthly to add to a pool of insurance that is then used to help out individuals who get a medical problem or illness. A lot of people pay a little so the few can get the help they need. The many are impelled to pay in because they don't know if they will get sick or not, but they want to be on the safe side. Before ObamaCare provisions take into effect, you cannot stop paying for insurance and then suddenly start paying again because you get sick. After all, it's fair, because you should not be able to stop paying into that pool of money and then jump right back on once you're sick; otherwise, everyone would jump on whenever they needed to and insurance companies would just go bankrupt.

The "ObamaCare" bill makes it so health insurance providers cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. That sounds like a nice, humanitarian thing when Barack Obama proudly tout it, but it makes the above system cease working because it means people can just wait until they get sick to pay for insurance, meaning they don't have to stick around and pay when they are healthy, meaning the business model for insurance companies crumbles and we will feel the effects of that if this bill remains in action. Insurance companies will run out of money, causing the entire buisness to go bankrupt. Since the penalty for not buying insurance is so small in comparison, that provision will not stop people from doing this. Once the insurance companies are bankrupt because of this bill, the only insurance left standing will be the goverment option. Thus, what was purported as something designed for "additional options" will become the only health insurance provider remaining, effectively making this all an elaborate scheme to create a socialized health care system with no competition in America. Since people will not pay the high premiums for this government-run health care service and will only jump on when they get sick, the money will have to come from the federal budget, meaning this whole thing is just a scheme that digs us deeper and deeper into debt and compounds with the other entitlement programs to effectively bankrupt the entire nation. Barack Obama promised this "ObamaCare" bill would not be a tax. It was tried in the Supreme Court and ruled constitutional on the grounds of it being a tax. It is billed as something that elimates preexisting conditions to help people out. It will actually just bankrupt our insurance industries, although that's only the beginning of the leech on our tax revenue it will be. Let's borrow an expression: this bill is a Satan Sandwich. Fighting Drugs

Every government that has undergone some type of drug war faces a significant challenge: it can try as it might to limit the amount of drugs coming in with force, but it will never eliminate them as long as the ill-advised demand for them is present. In reality, I think we should focus a lot less on trying to change the law and a lot more on restoring the ideas of personal decency that have fallen prey to the live and let live mindset that propaganda imposes. The soldiers in the war on drug cannot be the government; they have to be you and I. Unless people are willing to step out of their comfort zone to admonish the idea of drug-use and to reinforce tabboos for behaviors such as those that should be suppressed, use of narcotics will remain fairly prevalent in our society. On the other hand, the dream of severely limiting these things may indeed be possible from the bottom up, not the top down. Gun Control Burglary is a pretty safe occupation in Great Britain because it's impossible to shoot the people who illegally barge into your house in spite of the law. Luckily, that's different over here. The idea that guns should be regulated so criminals can't get them is fallacious. Criminals are criminals; they will just find illegal means to get what they could have gotten legally. On the other hand, lawabiding people will be gunless under such measures. Why is it necessary that people have guns in the first place? Our second amendment right was guarenteed in one respect because, if our government were taken over by a force that would turn on American citizens, we could fight back. Numerous tragedies have happened in countries in which the government massacred civlians who could not fight back because they are unarmed. Quite the contrary, if the United States government in the future for whatever

reason becomes corrupt, tyrranical and begins operating contrary to the interests of the American people, the Constitution is a contract that guarentees Americans the right to be armed and dangerous and ready for the next revolution. Of course, that will more than likely never happen, but the threat of it happening is a deterrant that keeps our government in line. Third Party Candidates It's common sense that, if you want to target and dismantle the voting power of a population that has an ideology would impel them to vote against your agenda, you create an ideological split within the base of the people who would vote against you in order to divide their votes as much as possible. For that reason, if you were a Conductor, you would most likely use your programming platform to enhance and popularize individuals who would split the vote for a voting sector that would be dangerous to your cause if united. It may be just be that, in the future, our two-party structure will be legitimately challenged and defeated after a large ideological shift in the electorate. Right now, however, we are faced with a scenario in which either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will be President of the United States. Mitt Romney may not be perfect, but avoiding the policies Barack Obama would put in place and the further slide toward national bankruptcy is worth chooosing the lesser of two evils. There are many appeals to use one's vote on a third-party candidate, and if you would like to do so, be my guest. However, it is clear at least to me personally that not only is it in the best interest of the American people for every person possible to work together to defeat Obama, but it is an obvious ploy by the Conductors to make people obsessed with certain values and fall to certain propaganda so their vote does not have as much impact as it would otherwise.

XVI. The Scientific Heretic


The idea of global warming (or the more scientifically correct term, "climate change") is that, because of the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels we use to power our modern technology, our atmosphere is being filled with excess carbon dioxide, which in turn causes more and more heat to be absorbed into our atmosphere. This, says many environmentalists, is a grave threat to our children who will inherit a world with an irreperably damaged climate. "The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It's comporable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom; indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching. No generation has a freehold on this earth! All we have is a lifetenancy with a with a full repairing lease! This government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full!" -Margaret Thatcher Since its introduction to the public eye, the idea of climate change has been supported with an ever-growing mountain of scientific figures, charts and information. The problem of climate change is looming in many peoples' minds, and large events such as Al Gore's many concerts and rallies and events. This idea has birthed numerous funds, institutions, activist groups and given a new identity to the environmentalism movement. In many circles, gobal warming is not only a fact but something dangerous and worthy of ridicule to question. However, I, just like many other people, have often found myself stumped as to what is going on here. If it is true that our very planet's climate will change irreparably in a century or two, then addressing climate change should not be a topic of political partisanship or

building a couple of air tubrines and instituting taxes on carbon emission. We are talking about an issue that would affect our planet permanently, making it more important than any other issue we currently face. The wars and instability in the Middle East, the national deficit, the debate over social issues like gay rights and abortion, all would pale in comparison to our ancestors being crispy critters because we failed to act on an impending disaster such as this. Why would even supporters of climate change be so complacent? Why would the entire world not be working around the clock to try to address this gravest of issues, if we are at the precipace of humankind potentially changing the planet permanently for the worse? Let's calm down for a moment and figure this out. One of the most important innovations in the past few centuries has been an explosion in scientific knowlege and a more uniform application of the scientific method by researchers. Virtually all of our medical technology has relied upon scientific observations of the human body and the effects on it. Our cars, airplanes, air conditioners, houses, refridgerators and televisions are all technology that has been forged with science's help, just to name a few. The innovations in medical science can extend the natural lives of human beings by decades and have prevented numerous diseases from assailing us that would otherwise and have saved the lives of human beings who have endured otherwise-fatal physical trauma. Before this modern epoch, we clung to uncertain and unrefined principles to derive much of our knowlege. Right now, there is no doubt that we are in a scientific golden age. However, how accurate is the perception that we in the modern era are an enlightened race of men and women who finally see the world as it actually is, that all prior human beings were barbaric and uneducated? As it turns out, the wonderful innovations we've seen

from science in terms of technology have a completely different level of accuracy and fact-checking than the formation of theoretical models. In the hands of an engineer, scientific principles have to be weighed along with creative designs, but ultimately, any technological impliment that does not work must be refined and redesigned until it does. Bad technology becomes good technology based on trial and error. In contrast, what we call a "theoretical model" is the opposite. The obstacle to technology is reality; the obstacles to a theoretical model are many, but in many cases, it is not directly reality. If you read a report that says "scientists now say," your ears probably perk up and you feel a great deal of truth value for what you are going to read before you read it. Scientists are people who test for the truth, but here's an interesting question. Our culture makes scientists into priests of true knowlege, but are they any less corrupt than any other group of people? Absolutely not. There are good scientists and there are bad scientists, like everyone else. The question is simply whether the measures in place, such as peer review, are enough to prevent corruption impacting their work. The answer is probably yes, unless the peers reviewing you have a common interest. But in what circumstances could such a thing be exploited to that degree? There is demand for a mechanic because, as long as there will be cars, there will be mechanical issues associated with them. There will always be demand for food because people need to eat in order to survive and enjoy eating nonetheless. However, if you are an "expert," how do you create a demand for your services? The answer is you predict a disaster which only your research could help avert. We view scientists as altruistic truth-seekers, but beyond the cultural image of them, they are people just like us. When research money depends on supporting particular conclusions, the scientists

will do everything they can to try to further research that supports those conclusions, even if they are not necessarily correct. This is true in many fields in which groups with specific goals give scientists research funds, and individual scientists who aren't involved in such schemes can tell you more about what goes on in situations such as this. Since scientists control the flow of scientific information, if it becomes in their overwhelming economic interest to support a disaster theory, many will continue to defend by any means necessary regardless of whether or not the theory represents reality and that theory will dominate large sectors of public opinion.

(Graphs in this section are from joannenova.com.au) Al Gore says that graphs like the above indicate that carbon dioxide causes an increase in temperature. As you can see, the yellow line (carbon dioxide) tends to correlate along the same lines as the temperature, represented as a dark-blue line. However, is that the only way to interpret this data? It is clear from ice core data that the temperature of Earth in Earth's history rises and falls along with carbon dioxide. This leads one to one of two conclusions: either CO2 causes warming or CO2 levels are affected by temperature. Looking

at a spaced-out graph, it is easy to use the data to support the former, as most films that support global warming do. However, close examination of the data shows that the warming predates the associated changing of levels of carbon dioxide by about 800 years.

Notice that temperature changes predate the first carbon dioxide data, which then curves along in a similar pattern to the temperature changes. The actual data is clear: temperature affects carbon dioxide, not vice-versa, because something from the future does not cause things in the past. This invalidates the entire idea of human-caused climate change because of carbon emissions, but even in Margaret Thatcher's time, it was in the interest of scientists to do whatever they could to not invalidate their findings so they continued getting research money. When a person has such motivaton and has the authority of information, it becomes abundantly easy to publish many reports that twist the data to support a cause, and various other factors compounded to force scientific opinion as the public sees it to overwhelmingly support the climate change model. As it turns out, global warming as it has been depicted over the years has been nothing short of rife with odd inconsistencies and quirky propagation tactics. Images of ice falling off of glaciers, which was previously understood to mean that the glaciers are expanding, abound in commercials meant to make people believe in this stuff. Alarming articles of how the ice at our north pole has reached

dangerously low levels, even reaching the front page of Wikipedia, contained the almost embarrasingly obvious omission that the Antarctic area on the other end of the world has been expanding. Because it puts food on the table, climate scientists have a vested interest in both defending their position and maintaining the dymanic that makes any opponents of climate change the target of boos and ridicule. Part of serving that interest is creating apologetics programs, just one example of which is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/. I like browsing that website. I presumed that, since it turns out that human beings only account for a small fraction of all carbon emissions, there would be an article with a long, convoluted justification for saying there's a threshold above which we are pushing it! And, when I looked it up, that's exactly what I found. The apologist response to the 800-year problem is, of course, that the warming is "kick-started" by a process 800 years earlier which only has to do with the beginning of climate cycles. That's invalidated by the fact that carbon dioxide trails temperature levels reactively far beyond the beginning of the cycle. Don't worry; if you are a Global Warming apologist, there will always be pages of new things you can write to justify your beliefs and perpetuate the flow of government funding you so have so desperately sacrificed your dignity for. I might be talking with a bit of confident humor here, but if I were to say these things at a university or perhaps in the government chamber of a country that spends a great deal of resources trying to deal with this stuff, I'd get booed out of the building and/or laughed at. The concept that someone is just a hard-headed detractor who is hampering our efforts to save the planet by going back to the original debate of whether or not global warming is real, which in many peoples' minds is a thing of the past, makes it so much easier for

those who do not believe in this dogma to be the heretic. If global warming were real, I wouldn't be hosting concerts and flipping off my light switch to stay green-conscious. I'd be demanding my government pour trillions of dollars into nuclear fusion technology so we get a fusion engine to immediately begin replacing fossil fuels and then threaten to invade China if they don't replace their technology and stop pumping so much smog until the air. I'd also have to round up most of the world's flatulating cattle and nuke them. Although plenty of people believe it, plenty of people get money because of it and laws are enacted because of it, global warming has not proven as valuable a false issue as the Conductors may have presumed it to be. Al Gore was not able to win an election based on the false disaster-remedy because, although it was enough to win the popular vote through liberal states, the appeal of the global warming phenomenon did not extend to enough geographical areas in the United States This entire ordeal of carbon dioxide being an evil pollutant has done nothing less than make oil and related fossil fuels look like the spawn of Satan as we learn about it in schools and watch documentaries on the subject. It's obviously proven and I'm obviously wrong, since it's in a textbook. If global warming were real, we are absolutely screwed if we don't do something drastic about this impending disaster. Thankfully, it isn't. However, even though it turns out we're all not going to burn alive in 100 years, we do have an obstacle: climate change that exists in peoples' heads and thus affects legislation. Of course, there are environmental concerns involved if you discount global warming, and I am not advocating ignoring those. It may

XVI. Propaganda in Response to this Document


What if this document causes a signficant stir? The fact that it threatens nearly every effort by those who would like to use the minds of Americans as a stepping stone to exert their will on international affairs means all stops would be pulled in propaganda to counter this document. I welcome it. You should, too. However, deconstructing my own document in the way a propagandist would in order to defame it could simultaneously teach people how propaganda works and it could give a bit of insight as to how well-founded its premises are. Let's imagine this scenario: this document becomes popular to the extent that it becomes a threat, therefore it needs to be ridiculed in order to be dismantled in the eyes of the public. There are few men more adept at doing such a thing than Bill Maher, and as his show comes on air, he begins unloading. Bill Maher: So have you heard about this thing on the Internet called the "Last Call of Reason"? (audience reaction) I'll tell you, it surprised me when I heard about it. At first, I was really split. Some people say it's intellecually compelling! Others say it's... just a bunch of sensationalist conspiracy theories. That's just nonsense! I decided I would read it for myself so I could be enlightened like all the people who are behind this thing. I was sure there was no hyperbole, no exaggeration, no scare-tactics whatsoever. Then I read the first line. "Imagine, if you would, every window shattering a month from now, every street running with blood and every high building collapsing as the world plunges into chaos and destruction." (stares at camera while audience bursts out in laughter) But, I mean, it's not all like that, right? To be fair, that's the last mention

of... that particular kind of extremism. But, on the other side of the coin... there's a section entirely devoted to why homosexuality is wrong and the majority can oppress gay people if they want to, and then there's that high-strung argument about how rich people should be taxed less that somehow causes MORE REVENUE... (audience laughter) It also says universities are bastions of propaganda, but if it claims that a lower tax percentage causes the government to somehow get more money, I'd suggest the author take a math class. (audience laughter) Hell, it even implies I'M a propagandist! As if I'M the one serving an agenda. (audience laughter, applause) And then, of course, there's that section which tries to deny global warming... like we haven't had enough of that... And homosexuality is somehow a result of turning away from God. You know, I used to be a Catholic myself. (audience laughter) All joking aside, I don't know about you guys, but to me, it's obvious that this is the same right-wing crap that's been spewed out for decades, except wrapped in some bigger words and a really long manifesto. Of course, it sounds to me like the Republican senators who couldn't articulate some reason to keep people away from actual knowlege spent a couple of years with some Rush Limbaugh recordings and a thesaurus until they finally churned this out. It's really that ridiculous, because it appeals to the prejudices of so many Americans, it doesn't surprise me that it's so popular. The only "reasonable thing about this entire document is the fact that it's on the Internet, so the person who made it won't be getting any money to donate to candidates who hate poor people and think women should give their health care decisions to old men who only have one uterus and one set of ovaries less than they do. But if this really is the "last call of reason," then I'd rather just not pick up the

phone. (audience laughter, applause)

In a situation of appeal to ridicule, as explored above, there are a number of factors which 1. Ignorance of the Audience: Most people in Bill Maher's audience would be hearing about the document for the first time, thus, they have no idea about the logical or rational arguments made by the document. For that reason, any validity or credibility it may have does not exist in their eyes, and they respond only to Bill's strawman version of them. 2. Preconceptions of the Audience: Bill Maher's audience has liberal social and economic ideas, but moreover, he has repeatedly conditioned them week after week to see conservatives as delusional God-freaks who live in an illusionary world, and this document would be supporting many of their views. Bill merely has to say certain things bluntly for them to seem ridiculus based on the values of his audience. 3. Comedic Structure: Bill has natural comedic talent, so he knows how to construct witty jokes out of completely serious things. 4. Misrepresentation of Content: The beginning of this book was a thought experiment to get people to realize that, even though the claims of this document are going to be sensationalist in that they project danger when it's not naturally to feel in danger when you are in most peoples' positions. Since the book takes an overall conspiratorial and alarmist tone at times, however, it is easy to intentionally misconstrue the first part of this document and nail it in a witty way.

5. Implied Common Knowlege: For many people, it is common sense that you tax the rich more. Those people are, of course, wrong, but they don't know why they are until you explain it to them.Unfortunately, there's no one to explain it to them, so when humor diverts it path to the obviousness of such implied facts, it creates laughter and ignorance surrounding it is perpetuated. What do the above five points demostrate? They demonstrate that Bill Maher or anyone else who uses these types of tactics work with a specific talent to affect peoples' opinions and make them laugh, but the end result is leaving nothing but a marinally similar impression in their mind of something that is being intentionally stigmatized for the purposes of suppression. That also applies more generally to all false propaganda.

XVII. A Declaration of War


There was a time when men dragged their feet, leaving a bloody trail through the snow as the grim and famished scowls on their faces betrayed worse sensations than most could imagine. They scraped the bark off of trees just to eat enough to stay alive, huddling blanketless and praying to be spared from frostbite. George Washington looked over his men with pity, unable to take away their suffering or comfort them. Supplies were scarce, but pain and shivering plentious. Valley Forge is a name that is oft repeated in history classes, but what will become of their legacy? What will become of the nation their sacrifice paid for? Men left their wives and their children to go through rigorous training and fight valiantly as their lives hung on the line oveseas. Bullets, grenades, lost limbs, lost hopes, lost friends, lost lives. Families at home would place framed pictures of the men who gave the lives, children would look up to them as they grew up without a

father who died a hero. Our heritage has been paid for and sustained by the price of blood and tears and suffering on the battlefield, and now, dare we destroy it ourselves? Will we squander every bit of this gift that was given us because we elect officials that will severely hamper economy and collapse our governmental system by bankrupting it? Will we honestly support things that are so counterproductive to reality, so very blantantly imposed upon us as virtues by those who would benefit from ending our nation as we know it, for the sake of rhetoric and feel-good politics? Will we sit back while the cultural and religious culture that hat has been our backbone is stripped from us and replaced with new morals imposed by those who control information? What if the new generation will not wake up? What if, as our elders die off and the next voting generation takes power, Democratic candidates receive 60% of the vote and upward in most elections? What happens when all our economic disasters are blamed on an unchecked free market and "deregulation" even though they are usually caused by regulation and the chambers of our congress are filled with Keynsian economists? What if the experts continue to spout off valid-sounding propaganda and the masses continue to believe them? What happens when insurance companies go bankrupt, the government debt begins to spiral out of control, and finally comes the wicked proposition we must accept to avoid a collapse of our system? This hidden cancer of propaganda, this trojan horse will continue to do its work unless enough Americans become wary of it and wake up to defeat its purpose. If they do not and the means of artificial propaganda are successful in burying this document in the public eye, then it will stand as a witness as the very nation that blood and suffering bought but those who were protected were not wary enough to take advantage of. This document might be spurned, but when the

consequences for failure are felt years or decades from now, the truth of its concerns might become a little clearer in the public eye. Everything we care about and love that is tied to the existence of our nation as we know it as at stake. America, particularly her youngest generation, has been dismantled with propaganda. This may be your final chance to turn this monster around before the point of no return. I love the Internet, I think public education is neccessary and television is an excellent invention that has the potential to do much more help than harm. It is not our cause to strip propagandists of their tools or to support fascistic government censorship, but to impel people to think independently and see the world based on actual facts, not the ideas that are fed to them by a professor or school curriculum or media outlet. It is as simple as making people think for themselves, overcoming the numerous obstacles of thought that have cropped up in our society that work against seeing the world in a clear manner with reason and common sense. This document will be called "racist." It will be called "homophobic." It will be called "misogynistic." It will be called "serving the 1%." But the more these stigmas, rather than logic, are used to attack it, the more the public has a chance to realize that these labels were manufactured to be obstacles to the conservative agenda in the first place. We should not use our aversion to this propaganda to support laws that suppress other peoples' freedom of expression. Rather, we should use our own freedom to counter the propaganda that will remain standing and may very well intensify. As long as these modes of propaganda exist, they will be a necessary training tool for those people who have been informed to analyze and become immune to as far as persuasion toward something that is not true. Many people who follow this document will finally see propaganda for what it is, but they must have the tact and

understanding to realize that other people simply see it as harmless as they once did. Going on an emotional yelling trip to try to persuade other people who have no suspicions that this propaganda is dangerous may do more harm than good, but firmly and clearly explaining our concerns to those who will listen will help fight the effects of propaganda. If this document has changed your view on things, then you know how you previously viewed the world and thus recognize how to help people who are propagandized; just imagine them as your former self. Our goal is to get people to see the issues as they truly are and impel them to think independently from the thought-patterns the media would impose upon them, both from the world's most popular news programs and fringe conspiracy sites. Our goal is to get Americans to realize what is going on and immunize them with the actual facts regarding partisan issues and why someone would vote as a conservative. We have to do this using logic and reason and common sense because our enemies are a heck of a lot better at creating propaganda than we are. We must act in spite of the prevailing opinions on the Internet or in universities or among our own friends, and we must all be bold in supporting certain stances that will cause us ridicule. This agenda has targeted the minds of people from the very beginning, but if you would share this document with your friends and try your best to inform people with some of this information if they would be willing to lend an ear, then you will do your part in preventing this agenda from overtaking America. Will this movement take off? That is entirely in your own power. If it does, you can count on many media entities and academic institutions to tear it apart with their best efforts. To anyone who reads and understands this document, the reason why this would happen would make perfect sense. To the believers of propaganda, this document may become a thing scorned and laughed at. This is not a

bad thing. If the propaganda has truly gotten so bad and America so gullible that people would believe the disinformation campaign rather than a major attempt to save them, then the Conductors have already won and the fundamental bet of our founding fathers that the voting public could not be deceived by those who wish to dismantle the nation will simply be proven false, a loophole that was exploited over a couple of centuries and ultimately caused the fall of a nation. But I don't think it's false. I think it's a sure enough bet that we will be able to wake up enough people to tip the scales in our favor for the coming generations to turn this monster around. We will see what happens. It is apparent that our enemies work around the clock with strict discipline like gears in a well-oiled machine while many people, myself included, have lived complacently in their daily lives doing little to inform other people. This is where this complacency ends. This is where we cease allowing these propagandists to continue their agenda while we sit back and preach to the converted or share our knowledge in our own little bubble. This is where begin speaking out in passion and fervor in places where we would be disliked, because those places deserve one last chance to hear the truth, whether it is accepted or spurned. This is where we cease being afraid of being destroyed for being completely honest and calling things what they are, because if defeat were to come either in appealing to the masses or brutal honesty, it is more noble to choose honesty. Nevertheless, I believe that our candor and our communication of blatant facts using logic is much more powerful than political rhetoric designed to appeal to people, as many Republicans have used in the past. It is time we stopped telling younger generations what to believe without telling them the logical or rational reason why we believe it. It is time we stopped giving ground to our enemies and start taking it. If you agree with this document, share it. Share the values, share the facts, share the expositions in your own words. Act in spite of the

prevailing opinion or the scorn of your own friends. If you will become a warrior in this war of information, then fight and never stop believing in that which you now hold in your hands in a darkening world. On, and the stripes of ridicule and the cries of bigotry will be hurtled at us by the media and some of our own friends and family, but we will sacrifice comfort for making a change for the better. On, and that which was bought with blood will be renewed again with words. On, and we will once again become a light to the world that will expose the cancers that disguise themselves as progress and the beautiful lies that disguise themselves as rational truth. On, and the victory which fate promises to all those who take a stand will be ours, whether we will salvage our nation or wilt as the majority consumes us. On, and we will no longer be drones who dance to the drums of propaganda as the sands of time run down, but we will be those who dared to fight to preserve what braver men and women have given their lives for, no matter how many of our beloved brethren spit at our faces as we do it. This document may be ignored or stifled out, and the consequences for inaction will be felt as the decades pass by. It may be heeded, and the engines that drive us toward our doom may be reversed while there is still time. The choice is entirely the reader's. This is the last call of reason; answer it with your actions in this world of freedom. If you choose to heed it, then share what you have learned and verified with other people who are in the same position you were in before receiving it. This can mean sharing this document, but it can also mean putting logical and common-sense arguments for these things in your own words for other people to understand. You have a responsibility to inform the public, because the operators of propaganda will continue informing them hour after hour regardless of what you do. They have their own personal gain in mind. I invite you to fight for what is right to your own ridicule and personal hurt. I invite

you to be a pillar of the republic you seek to maintain. I invite you to be the rich-serving homophobic racist misogynist bigot modernity will scorn but history will remember, and I hope you know that there are things at stake that are worth far more than your own popularity among friends. Besides a few attacks, open war has not waged within our borders since the War of 1812. Today is the day when it wages again: not a war of arms, but a war of resistance against irrationality that poses as rationality and the people who exploit the minds of Americans for their own gain. This document declares that war. Let the propaganda come. Let it tear apart each and every section of this document and try to bury and silence whatever movement it may cause. But let it be known that, from this day forward, the Conductors are no longer the aggressors in this war of information. We are. We do not have an empire of artificial media and influential voices and faces on our side. We have something far more powerful. The more they try to destroy this movement with propaganda, the stronger it will become.