It used to be that we had our choice of corporate-owned white men to vote for president. Now, we have our choice of corporate-owned white men, and they've even thrown in a corporate-owned white woman and a corporate-owned black man! What a great and truly free society we have, where we vote for the corporate-owned ethnicity and gender of our choice. What? They all spew nothing but rhetoric and talking points? FEH!!! You have a CHOICE!!! You want a GOOD choice? Why do you hate America so much?!?!

Well seriously... fuck that. I voted for Ron Paul in today's primaries because while he may be a rich white man, he's not corporate-owned and he doesn't spew rhetoric or talking points. He takes issues head-on, he values freedom and personal responsibility for that freedom, and he would uphold the Constitution, which protects those freedoms and enforces those reposibilities on us all.

Like voting makes a difference anyway... oh well, it was something to do on a Tuesday nite...

GM is going to resurrect the electric car that it killed several years ago when it recalled all of the Saturn EV1's that it had ever made. The EV-1, a first generation electric vehicle, got 60-70 miles per charge, which is 50% more than the 40 miles per charge GM is advertising for their new Volt... And considering the technology to build an affordable highway-speed electric car that can get 300 miles per charge absolutely positively exists, Chevy's boasting about 40 miles per charge? Well it's really not very impressive at all...

But the volt will also accept gasoline, E-85 Ethanol, or biodiesel as well. That's pretty cool for a couple of reasons. First, it gives you more choices. Second, it's truly practical (fuel it up anywhere, plug it in from a regular wall outlet). And third, it doesn't threaten the oil industry... If you wanted to you could pour 15 gallons of gasoline into it go about 600 miles.

Unreliable sources are saying Chevy wants to sell it for $20,000 (dollars are imaginary anyway, see below...), but actually getting it to be profitable at that price is a totally different story and they have not officially released price estimates. But if it's anywhere near that $20,000 price tag, I might just have to get one. My daily commute is 9 miles round-trip... so... it certainly makes sense for me...

We all know that money makes the world go round, but what makes the money go round? That's the more important question, I think... And it's a question that you could take many different approaches to answer... For my approach here, I'll keep it very high-level and generalized, hence the Wikipedia links... If you'd like a more detailed analysis, I suggest you search for the same topics I've linked to here in the United States Legal Code.

How is money created?

All money is created from debt. It's very important to understand that seemingly contradictory statement... But it's really very simple, and absolutely true. The money that we use today is known as Fiat Currency. And our banks operate on the Fractional Reserve Banking system. In short, this means that our dollars, euros, pesos, yen, yuan, rubels, etc. are not backed in any way by precious metals. There is no guarantee that you can bring your paper currency to the bank that issued it and get gold or silver in return. And furthermore, a bank is not required to physically posess any more than 10% (our current reserve ratio) of the money that it issues.

So with those guidelines in mind, here is how money is created from debt in the USA... The Federal Reserve Bank and the United States Government work in perfect harmony to handle the finer points of the process. The Fed is what's known as a Central Bank. Despite the .gov web address on the Federal Reserve web link, it is not solely owned and controlled by the US Governent. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation with a US Government Oversight board that was founded in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. If you read the text of this act carefully, you will see that the State does not own the Bank, but rather they are separate entities. The Federal Reserve Act is their contract to a mutually exclusive relationship in the business of creating currency. Well--not exactly mutualy exclusive, thanks of course to the World Bank. But I digress...

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank is selected by the President and the Senate. However, if you read deeper into the United States Legal Code (Title 12, Chapter 3), you learn that the bank itself has a good deal of influence over the selection process. As a result, the pool of nominees that the President and Senate have to choose from are more-or-less selected together by the bank and the government to serve their mutual interests, which mainly involve the transumation of debt into money.

The actual debt-to-money conversion is very simple. The US Government issues bonds to the Federal Reserve Bank, and in turn, the value printed on those bond are deposited into the US Government's Treasury. This is more or less a loan from the Federal Reserve bank--which mind you is not required to retain any precious metals to back the currency which it offers--to the Government at low interest. The Government of course is free to do more or less what it pleases with this money. A large portion of this money is granted to a small number of private corporations otherwise known as the Military Industrial Complex, and the rest of it is dispersed to other corporations or used for the purposes of public welfare.

Where do our taxes come in to play?

The Government then levies a tax on the income of US Persons (meant in the contractual sense, not the individual sense, that's why it's Persons and not people) in order to repay the interest on its debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

What about the rest of the banks? How do they get money?

The Federal Reserve bank enjoys special status as the Central Bank in the US Fractional Reserve System. Like other banks, it only has to retain 10% of it's assests in any sort of physical form. Unlike other banks, the only assets it is required to hold are US Government Bonds. It esentially creates paper or digital money with nothing but the authority of our Legal Tender Laws to back it.

As a Fractional Reserve bank the Fed is free to loan 9 times the value of the bonds it holds out to other banks at low interest at its Discount Window. Private banks "buy" this money from the Central Bank and loan it out at slightly higer interest than the Fed charges them. The majority of the loans issued by private banks at this stage in the chain are issued to large corporations and to other private banks. The corporations use these loans to do things like meet their payroll, develop their businesses, etc. And the other private banks issue higher-interest loans, like mortgages, credit cards, etc.

What if the loans can't be repaid?

Not to worry, most of the loans written in this first stage of the game described above are insured by the Federal Government. This might seem odd since the Government itself cannot get any money to actually pay the loans back without taking more loans from the Fed itself... But regardless, they do indeed insure many large-scale loans. And there are many instances of large scale corporate bailouts by the government. You'd think that in a free-market economy, poorly managed corporations that could not repay their loans and poorly managed banks that wrote too many risky loans would be allowed to fail and corporations that were run better would absorb their business and succeed. Well, in a free-market economy, that's what happens. But, as is evidenced by the information above, we do not operate a free-market economy.

But I work for my money! It doesn't come from thin air!!

Of course! I work hard for my money too... On our level of the chain, we do have much more of a free market, and much more freedom to make our own breaks. The part of the economy that most of us participate in involves an equal exchange of labor for the money that we are paid by our employers--or if you're in business for yourself, from your customers or clients.

But, regardless of how hard you work or what your salary is, our money itself does not require the same equal exchange of labor to produce. It does not require x number of hours or labor to produce x number of dollars. It requires nothing but the issuance of US Government Bonds to the Central Bank. Invariably, the money that gets deposited into your bank account was created as a result of US Government debt. US Dollars cannot be created in any other fashion. Our money supply is not constrained by the laws of supply and demand. This is unfortunate, because a monetary policy that operates within the constraints of the laws of supply and demand does a pretty good job of keeping the majority of the money in the hands of the many and in keeping the value of the currency stable, while a monetary policy that does operate within the constraints of the laws of supply and demand has led to the majority of the money being concentrated in the hands of the few.

What about preciuos metals?

Why are precious metals precious? Simple--because demand for them is high. Gold and silver have very high value in many different sectors of the economy, ranging from electronics manufacturing to jewlery making to demand by investors and beyond... By rule, precious metals require x number of hours to produce x amount. By "produce," I mean extract from the gound, divide into equal and accurately measured portions, and place some sort of seal on them to guarantee the accuracy of the measurements...

Precious metals are not exactly money in the modern world... Not anymore at least. There is no guarantee that you can go into a store and plunk down a silver coin and get whatever value that coin holds in the form of goods or services. Instead we have the aforementioned Legal Tender Laws to impose the US Dollar as issued by the Federal Reserve Bank as acceptable for all debts, public and private.

A hundred years ago or so, many shopkeepers wouldn't take paper money but would gladly accept a Government issued silver coin... While people could use precious metals to transact commerce in the days before Legal Tender Laws (1965 in the US) were passed, most people stopped using them when paper money was introduced en masse by the Federal Resreve system. Up until 1933 when private ownership of gold was made illegal, this paper money was backed by precious metals--meaning you could go to the bank and demand gold in exchange for your paper money.

In the years that followed the 1933 gold confiscation, the price of gold has become completely disconnected from the value of gold. And thus, banks and governments can issue as much currency as they want without the constraint of having to actually posess anything of real physical value. Over the years, things like the Bretton Woods Agreement, and then the Nixon Administration's dissolution of the Bretton Woods Agreement have removed any sort of influence of supply and demand from our money system.

By disconnecting our money supply from precious metals and therfore supply and demand, we have enabled vast amounts of industrial and technological growth, which in many cases is a really wonderful thing. Unfortunately, decoupling the money supply from the laws of supply and demand has also made it highly unstable and has led to concentration of that money in the hands of the few.

So whose money is it?

The currency we use today belongs to the Federal Reserve bank. It is not our money, it's theirs. We use it because our government is kind enough to tax us in order to repay the interest on the debt it incurrs to produce said currency and also to pass a Legal Tender Law to force us to use it even though it has no real physical value beyond the paper it was printed on. We use the money because we have little choice. And the power to create and regulate the creation of said money is concentrated in the hands of those who benefit the most from it--the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Government. So if you trust the government and banks and you don't think there's any corruption, well then great... But I don't share that trust, and I would think that anyone who's done any objective research into it wouldn't either.

you are aware of The Climate Crisis. you are concerned. how did you learn of The Climate Crisis?
• did you study the data and come to the conclusion yourself?
• did you read scientific papers, Published by the researchers?
• did you read about it in a Science Journal?
• did you read about it in a Major Syndicated Science Newsweekly?
• did you read about it in a Major Syndicated Newspaper?
• did you hear about it on Network or Cable Television?
• did you hear it from a friend?

what do you know about The Climate Crisis? the information you have consumed says that:
• there is a Great Looming Climate Crisis
• our energy sources are dirty
• our coal power plants and cars emit Pollution into the atmosphere
• our factories and industries emit Pollution into our water, our air, our food
• the Carbon Dioxide that we humans are emitting is causing Global Warming

• in fact, it may already be too late to reverse the trend
• our natural resources have been misused
• we have been shortsighted in our pursuit for a better life for our Nation, and for The World
• unless--and perhaps even if--we undergo A Dramatic Shift in the Way We Live, our Climate will Change, causing Catastrophes and Civil Unrest

or

• Global Warming is a crazy Left Fringe
• They are hell-bent on Controlling Our Lives
• They hate Technology
• They want us to reverse the industrial revolution
• Their Science is bogus

what do you know about the source you received your information from? are you sure what you know is correct? are you sure because you trust the source you received the information from?

• Climate Change is fact
• climage change is fact
• Carbon Dioxide is Pollution
• carbon dioxide is not pollution
• Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming
• carbon dioxide does not cause global warming
and, most importantly...
• Global Warming has been politicized

who can you trust, when it comes to information that has been politicized? when politics and Money manipulate the interpretation of science... who do you trust? who have you given yourself the option of choosing amongst?

They say that We must implement a Global Carbon Tax to dissuade Our Corporations from emitting Pollution into our atmosphere and Causing Global Warming. without this Money, We may not be able to Stop Global Warming

but...
• there is no man-made global warming
• warming causes more carbon dioxide, more carbon dioxide does not cause warming
• fluctuating concentrations of carbon dioxide have been recorded all throughout history
• the earth's temperature has fluctuated all throughout history
• changes in carbon dioxide concentrations follow changes in temperature by several hundred years
• there is a correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and climate change
• changes in carbon dioxide concentration does not cause climate change
• climate change causes changes in carbon dioxide concentration
• carbon dioxide is amongst the least effective greenhouse gases, pound for pound
• carbon dioxide makes up about 0.03% of our atmosphere
• water retains heat much better than air
• the sun emits a slightly fluctuating amount of heat energy throughout the course of time
• the water in our oceans absorbs and retains that heat far better than our air does
• as water warms, it emits water vapor and water soluble gasses, such as carbon dioxide,
as water cools, it absorbs water vapor and water soluble gasses, such as carbon dioxide
• over the course of time--many hundreds of years--the ocean's average temperature, in reaction to the changes in the energy emitted by the sun, changes enough to effectively alter the amount of carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere
• water vapor is responsible for warming shifts in our atmosphere on a short-term scale (season to season)
• the sun is responsible for warming shits in our atmosphere on a long-term scale (century to century)

our energy sources are indeed dirty, but carbon dioxide itself is not pollution. the problem here is neither pollution nor carbon dioxide nor global warming. it is the politicization of science, and the corruption of our Global Corporate Government System, which is telling us to believe that Truth is truth

i'm still here. maybe going to start writing again, too...

i'm not advocating revolution, or even rocking the boat if you don't want to. i only implore you to live your life with curiosity, integrity, and respect for the pursuit of unbiased truth. what you choose to believe is up to you.

The Dow Jones Industrial average is near its all-time high and the dollar is near its all-time low.





The gains in the Dow look a wee bit more modest when you consider the loss in value of the currency that we use to trade the stocks of the 30 companies that make up the Dow... Not to mention, using the performance of only 30 companies to measure the strength of the economy is nonsensical. From what I've heard, most financial professionals don't even look twice at the Dow... And neither should you. It paints a picture that is not an accurate representation of anything other than that the richest 30 companies continue to get richer while the rest of the country is stagnating at best.

I've gone about as far down this rabbit hole as I care to go. Basically what I found was meaninglessness and despair. When meaninglessness makes sense, it's time to unplug. Time to appreciate the small things in life. To take joy in friends, family, music, creativity, expression, love, coffee, going for walks, having food to eat, traveling, a good sleep, cooking, living next to the water, etc.

It is at this juncture that I draw the line between taking responsibility for those things that I can change and accepting those things that I cannot change, and also where I exercise the wisdom to recognize the difference between the two and not let those things that I cannot change draw me and those around me into a sense of meaninglessness and despair.

It is more important now than it ever has been to be able to recognize the difference between Truth and "truth." There is more disinformation spewed forth by the mass-media/CIA propaganda machine on 9-11 than conceivable. And the Internet (except my blog, of course) is the main pathway for this disinformation. The vast majority of what's out there has been planted and even honest and good researchers can't always tell the difference.

Case in point: Who Killed John O'Neill. A great movie in my opinion. Very well researched. Gripping. But unfortunately, it contains some major disinformation re: Mohammed Atta. Amanda Keller claimed that she was a stripper and she was dating him and he was a coke-head and a major partier. WKJO ran with this info. Then a couple of years later, Amanda Keller says she made the whole thing up, she was dating some "other Mohammed," and then she gets married, changes her name, and disappears forever... If you watch the original interview between her and Daniel Hopsicker--it should have been obvious all along that is it faked. Staged. Phony. She didn't make it up--she was reading a godamned script.

SO MUCH of 9-11 "truth" information falls under this category... Yes, we are reaching a tipping point where the floodgates will open and 9-11 "truth" will enter the mainstream--but we still must fight to be sure that it tips in the direction of TRUTH, instead of "truth."

As the Orwellian police-state continues to develop, our best chance at resistance is to study the art of psyops and disinformation and thusly disarm their only weapon... In order to get you started, I highly recommend this podcast on the topic of 9-11 truth disinfo. The Art of 9-11 Disinfo: This is Fintan Dunne of BreakForNews.com on the Jim Fetzer show.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations.

Warwick Hughes is an independent earth scientist. I don't know him. I've never met him. I've seen at least one accusation by a man-made global warming advocate that he is a liar. However, you can find some links calling me a liar too, I'm sure, so really what's the difference... My purpose in linking to his blog is because he links to a lot of scientific data, and I hope to get through as much of it as I can on my own, and I hope that many of you will take the time to read it as well. My understanding thus far is that the science of global warming does not support the politics and propeganda of global warming.

I'm not saying that I endorse any of the information he presents or the conclusions he comes to specifically (yet), but I figured it would be nice for people to know where to find a lot of information that reports the things you won't find in the mainstream press regarding climate change.

If the IPCC is going to propose a Global Carbon Tax, doesn't it seem prudent at least to make sure the science behind it is sound?

We hear a lot about this great consensus... But the consensus does not exist. And from what I've seen the science does not add up. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere follow temperature changes by some 500 to 1000 years. The temperature increases. Then after that--the CO2 levels increase... And the governments of the world want to propose a tax on carbon emissions to curtail climate change?? But... Carbon dioxide does not drive climate change. It never has... There's something else going on here... And I don't like it...

No documentary is without its own bias... But this one is also filled with verifiable science... Definitely worth watching--even if only for a different perspective and to put a reality check on Al Gore's misinformation-fest... Many have targeted Durkin's work as being merely sensationalist and many will point to factual inaccuracies... But really it's a big game of "he-said-she-said." And what is more sensationalist--someone telling you that our Carbon Dioxide emissions--only 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere (and CO2 makes up only 0.05% of the atmosphere (and it is the least effective greenhouse gas))--are going to ruin life as we know it? Or someone stating that many scientists disagree.

The oil industry doesn't care about debunking global warming. All of those companies are heavily invested in alternative energy generation and they will make their billions regardless of what our world's energy future is. Not to mention--the oil industry vis-a-vis the Bush administration has conceded the fight on man-made global warming. Why are so many scientists opposed to their names being included on the recent IPCC report on climate change? And why has the IPCC sought to present the report as being a "consensus" of thousands of scientists when indeed many of the people listed as being co-authors had nothing to do with it because as soon as they saw where it was going they wanted nothing to do with it? Could it be possible that the UN has a larger political agenda here? Perhaps they are tricking the mainstream-left into connecting pollution and waste with climate change, galvanizing their efforts behind "stopping global warming" rather than stopping globalization and the evisceration of civil liberties--obviously the larger threat to humanity...

But to me, this is not about politics or business, it's about science. And I'm no scientist. So I'll leave it to them to tell you in their own words (although the Oceanographer from MIT feels he was misrepresented, so as always, do your own research and take this with a grain of salt):

Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle

"According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault ... and there's nothing you can do about it."

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

picture me, if you will. then picture a crow. now picture me eating that crow. that's right. i've learned some important truths that have changed my mind as to the realities of our changing climate here on earth...

most of what you have heard from "the world's leading climate scientists" is propaganda for the globalists that run the world (these guys). man-made global warming is being used as a method to increase taxation ("there are these very expensive measures we need to implement to fix this problem, so... fork over the cash that our banks poofed into existance by sheer will alone and big daddy government will keep you safe and warm. well, not too warm...") and impose population control measures. the reality of it is that it's pseudo-science.

Global Warming: The cause is oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. This link will explain it far better than I can, but I'll continue with my poorly composed thoughts anyway.

fact: our oceans are warming.

now... try filling your bathtub with cold water, then crank the heat up in your house. see how long it takes the water in your tub to warm up. conversely, fill your tub with hot water and see how long it takes your bathroom to warm up and fill with water vapor... not too long. here's another test. put an icecube on your kitchen table. put another one right next to it in a glass of room temperature water. which one melts first? 3rd test (and this one you can't really do), fill your tub with cold water and then heat the tub itself. the water will warm up much much faster than it did when you increased the air temperature in the room. why do you think we heat water by placing it in metal and heating the metal rather than blowing hot air on the water? because it'd take about 46 hours to make a cup of tea!!

what we've illustrated here is a basic rule of physics. the denser the substance, the more effect it has on changing the temperature of the matter around it. so what do you think is having more effect on the temperature changes we're experiencing in our world today--the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? or the increase in magma temperature affecting an increase in water temperature affecting an increase in air temperature? before you answer this--think about the fact that ocean temperatures are rising--this is causing the icecaps to melt. how much would you have to heat the air in your bathroom to get the water temperature to change signifigantly? is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere heating the water? obviously--no.

every 100,000 years or so, the earth enters an ice age. if things continue on that cycle, we are at the cusp of the next one. our great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren might be pretty chilly. but before the ice age begins, there is an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere, caused by rising ocean temperatures. when water warms, it begins to release any gasses that are water-soluble. carbon dioxide being water soluble, we're seeing more of it in our atmosphere. the oceans are not heated by the air. they are heated by a rise the temperature of the magma in the earth itself. the heating water in our oceans is releasing carbon dioxide and warming the temperature of the air. this is a natural process, and it's no reason for us to bow down to the will of an already hugely bloated government...

I see news reporters and letters to the editor every day spouting propaganda and misunderstandings about Iranian president Ahmadinejad and his comments on the Holocaust. HE DID NOT DENY THAT THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED! HE DID NOT SAY THAT ISRAEL SHOULD BE WIPED FROM THE MAP!!! Please people, learn the truth--don't believe the corporate media created war-mongering hate-and-fear-generating propaganda and lies...

Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?

The subtle difference between what the Ahmadinejad actually said and what the propaganda machine says he said mean everything... Quoted from the article linked above:

"In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."

...

Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it."

Several years ago an article was published by Scientific American titled "Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor. It basically states that TV viewing is addictive, and people who watch excessive amounts of TV (as most American's currently do--our national average is 4+ hours per day) exhibit the same behaviors as those addicted to physical substances, gambling, sex, etc. Indeed the shift from left- to right-brain dominance that television viewers undergo releases endorphins into the nervous system. More interesting to me in that article was the mention of a 1986 study done by Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues that looks into the brain-wave patterns of people before, during, and after television viewing. I also found talk about a study done by Herbert Krugman, a Psychologist and manager of public-opinion research at GE (owner of NBC) which monitored human brain waves to discover what the effects were when watching television.

Here's another a quote from another interesting article entitled "The Nature of Television," which speaks of the effect of the endorphins released into the nervous system by TV viewing.
"These opiates are structurally identical to heroin and opium and just like the drugs themselves, endorphins are habit forming and addictive. Krugman observed that whilst watching television, right brain activity is at least twice as potent as left brain activity. As with many other scientists, psychophisiologist, Dr. Thomas Mulholland, arrived at the same conclusions, notably that alpha waves appear just after thirty seconds of television viewing and that whilst watching television the viewer's brain falls into a virtual trance."

Seems that television viewing moves the brain from a beta-wave state, where it is active in cognitive processing, deep into the alpha-wave state where it is passive, free-associating, no cognitive activity to speak of. Basically, what this tells us is that during television viewing, your cognitive mind is more-or-less turned off and you have no process of rational judgment or filters between what you are seeing and hearing on the TV and what enters your subconscious mind.

Here's another quote from "The Nature of Television": "all relevant research points to the fact that whilst watching television the brain is in a similar state as when under hypnosis."

So our adults and kids are sitting in front of the TV for 4 hours a day, brains in an alpha-state, susceptible to subconsciously absorbing anything they see and hear. Images are flashing in front of the brain, scenes are changing every 5 seconds, celebrity worship is implanted, programmed news is implanted, desire for intrinsically useless products is implanted, political opinions are implanted, gender, ethnic, religious, and racial stereotypes are implanted, etc., etc.

It's not just a waste of your time, it's putting you in a trance and programming your subconscious mind. The television is called the idiot box for a reason. Read the above research again... The General Electric Corporation, owner of a major media network, NBC, and a large cog in the military-industrial complex, funded a study in the 60s that shows that the television is a hypnotic device.

For fuck's sake, turn the fucking thing off.

Evil Zionist Santa has taken over & Eye's soul.

Your agenda of truth, justice, and liberty will be swiftly crushed by our corporate media conglomerate's psychological manipulation of the general public through television, radio, newspapers, internet, movies, music, advertisements, sexuality, etc. The people of earth will be doomed to react emotionally rather than think rationally.

We have been manipulating the public's perception of history for thousands of years. We purchased your government almost 100 years ago and we maintain it as an international corporation that is accountable only to us. We have co-opted your "truth" and diluted it with disinformation. We have spent billions of your tax dollars and even created some money out of thin air to spend on social psychology research. We are smarter than you. We know what you want and we make you believe that you are on the right path to obtaining it. You will never obtain it.

We have made you "truth seekers" believe that you are on a noble quest, that you are fighting against the establishment, that you can make a difference in the world via the political arena. We have pitted you against one another, and pitted the rest of society against you. We scripted and maintain tight control over the information that you receive. We have given you the truth, but only after ensuring that the vast majority of your society accepts lies as truth and makes decisions with their pocketbooks (which we have created and also control) rather than with their intellect and their ethics.

Either you will accept a life of perpetual debt slavery and false freedom, or your Hanukkah gift this year will be a lump of depleted uranium. All other choice is an illusion.