You may have noticed that virtually every week, a new and improved computer comes out. These new computers, manufactured by companies such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Apple as well as smaller business manufacturers. Some computers, such as the ClearCube, are smaller than a half-sheet of paper and about an inch tall.
As everyone knows, there is an up-and-coming field of nanotechnology in which scientists develop what is called All-Thermal Helix-Energy Intersecting Small Machines, or ATHEISM. The goal of this technology is procuring ways to get energy from the human body, provided by genetic makeup and the electricity inherent in human survival (brain signals, etc.). This energy will in turn be used to power devices simply by letting a human wear them. Scientists have already had some success with this project, developing thermal-powered wristwatches.
Further nanotechnology projects have involved making integrated circuits (also called ICs, used in amplification, alarm clocks, computers) smaller and smaller, to the point of being microscopic. Technology in the 80s led to the development of programmable and specialized integrated circuits, which has led to, among other things, airbags (accelerometers) and retinal scans (logic gates, working in tandem with databases). As technology gets more and more complex, research enables it to become smaller and smaller. This has given humanity such devices as the hearing aid, a minute device that can effectively 'cure' hearing loss. Capitalism has shown its appreciation for these inventors, awarding thousands upon thousands of patents for these specialized devices which have revolutionized the way industrial society lives out its day to day.
The concept of governmentality, pioneered by Michel Foucault in the late 1970s, includes the idea of a professionalization of government. That is, government becomes an area requiring its own expertise; government agencies have their own civil rights codes, their own ways of dealing with equal employment, their own bureaucratic hierarchies. As the rate of patent work increases -- remember, technology and knowledge advance at a far faster rate than they used to -- the government will require more and more expertise to pound out patents faster, enabling advances in technology, in turn enabling further patents.
But how to enable the patent office to deal with the ever-increasing workflow, without increasing resources? The answer lies in the very system: to keep up with the rate, the government must install programmable Integrated Circuits in its populace, to give people the 'governmentality' and expertise necessary to keep up with the patent flow.
As should be abundantly clear by now due to the complicity of the patent office, the government, through programs like federal grants and donations from shell organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, funnels money toward complacent ivory tower researchers in academia as well as money-grubbing capitalist pig-dogs.
The clear goal of the government in supporting nanotechnology advances, as well as the capitalists and academics, is to ensure the constant flow of new patents to the United States Patent Office and thus continue with the mind-control program. To accomplish this end, the government is planning on installing mind-controlling nanotechnology computers within the human body. These computers, as advances continue, will require new patents frequently, just as advances in medicine and science happen frequently, thus successfully controlling everyone until government-sponsored and enabled technology rises and takes over everyone. The danger is clear!
12.20.2007
MySpace Invades YourSpace
I'm sure many of you have in fact heard of the tragic death of Megan Meier. It has been widely reported throughout the news. She's the poor girl who was pushed to suicide by her neighbor's mother using the popular website MySpace. But there's more to this story than meets the eye.
Here's what everyone knows: Megan Meier had been talking to a boy online who she confided in. The boy changed tone, becoming mean, and Megan killed herself as a result. In the next few days, the world learned that this boy had actually been a girl's mother from across the neighborhood. Realizing the power of the internet, many immediately called for further restrictions on social networking sites. But, in the context of current political affairs, we can see the obvious truth in this seemingly simple story.
The events of September 11th, 2001 proved to the people of the world that the United States government had no problem killing the innocent as a means to gain more power over their people. The death of Megan Meier was a similar tragedy. The accused mother in this tragedy has repeated time and time again she is innocent. It's quite obvious—the government did it.
9/11 led to a massive increase in government power in tracking us during our everyday lives. The PATRIOT Act is probably the best known example of this. Further intrusions include a proposed National ID Card. The death of Megan Meier is similar. Parents fear for their children online. They've seen Chris Hanson, they know of the sexual predators. Now they've seen how powerful MySpace can be to young minds. The people have been convinced they're willing to give up their rights online to protect their children. Don't fall for it. Know the truth.
11.13.2007
Government and Jewish Control of the Drug Supply in Ghettoes
Over the past 40 years, as black men have become more socially prominent in the wake of civil rights, they haven't integrated completely into the suburbs. Since the revolution ending in increased civil rights put the black community on equal footing with whites, the question is raised about what factors prevent them from moving into family-friendly suburban areas and outside of crime-ridden urban hotspots. Even in the wake of civil rights, blacks find themselves 'stuck' in low-rent and dangerous areas while substance abuse rates climb higher and higher. This raises important questions about the failure of government programs dedicated to improving the lives of black men by moving them and their families to the suburbs; is it possible that recreational substances (e.g., drugs) are being chemically modified by the government to control the black community?
The social theorist and cultural studies professor Dr. Andre Young has hinted at this in his work, noting that certain substances known to be commonly used for recreational purposes are often used without full knowledge of the physical and chemical consequences; in the professor's words, "[there is no] telling what the side effects could be." He further indicates that they tend to act as aphrodisiacs, to such an extreme that subjects of affection become not peers but the Other, mere objects in the eyes of the user. Further contributions by Dr. Young's peers imply that such activity is more common in urban areas of Southern California than it is in the suburbs of Southern California.
Besides his powers of perception, the value of Dr. Young's observation lay in his position as the anthropologist. Rather than simply observe from afar, Young has incorporated himself into urban culture and experienced it firsthand and that should be considered during a reading of his 2001 texts.
It is clear from Dr. Young's work that substances are powerful and capable of strongly human behaviour. As with anything having results like this, it is most important to ask cui bono? [who benefits?]
Social spending in urban areas has been reported by neutral-agenda institutions such as the Cato Institute to actually increase poverty. Yet the details of the social spending are seldom readily available. Is it possible that government money is going into putting harmful and mind-altering substances into urban areas to prevent the black community from moving to the suburbs? Let's consider the financial implications.
Prudent advice from long-time students of politics often includes the phrase "follow the money." The Western finance capitals are London in Europe, and New York City in the United States. Consider this: given that much of the financing in politics comes from old banking money in the United States, and from old royalty money in the United Kingdom, it seems irrefutably likely that the financiers are involved directly. More prudent advice from long-time students often includes the phrase "Nothing in politics happens by accident." Therefore, the depressing but irrefutable truth is that Western financiers are involved in keeping the black community out of the suburbs, using the means of forcibly injecting harmful and addictive substances into urban areas through financial power.
The social theorist and cultural studies professor Dr. Andre Young has hinted at this in his work, noting that certain substances known to be commonly used for recreational purposes are often used without full knowledge of the physical and chemical consequences; in the professor's words, "[there is no] telling what the side effects could be." He further indicates that they tend to act as aphrodisiacs, to such an extreme that subjects of affection become not peers but the Other, mere objects in the eyes of the user. Further contributions by Dr. Young's peers imply that such activity is more common in urban areas of Southern California than it is in the suburbs of Southern California.
Besides his powers of perception, the value of Dr. Young's observation lay in his position as the anthropologist. Rather than simply observe from afar, Young has incorporated himself into urban culture and experienced it firsthand and that should be considered during a reading of his 2001 texts.
It is clear from Dr. Young's work that substances are powerful and capable of strongly human behaviour. As with anything having results like this, it is most important to ask cui bono? [who benefits?]
Social spending in urban areas has been reported by neutral-agenda institutions such as the Cato Institute to actually increase poverty. Yet the details of the social spending are seldom readily available. Is it possible that government money is going into putting harmful and mind-altering substances into urban areas to prevent the black community from moving to the suburbs? Let's consider the financial implications.
Prudent advice from long-time students of politics often includes the phrase "follow the money." The Western finance capitals are London in Europe, and New York City in the United States. Consider this: given that much of the financing in politics comes from old banking money in the United States, and from old royalty money in the United Kingdom, it seems irrefutably likely that the financiers are involved directly. More prudent advice from long-time students often includes the phrase "Nothing in politics happens by accident." Therefore, the depressing but irrefutable truth is that Western financiers are involved in keeping the black community out of the suburbs, using the means of forcibly injecting harmful and addictive substances into urban areas through financial power.
11.08.2007
The Great Social Security Scam
The powers that be want you to be reliant on the government. They want you to be force fed and like it. They don't want you to know any better. But we know better.
Social Security is perhaps the biggest violator. The carrot and the stick. Everyone wants to retire in comfort, don't they? And when those checks come around nobody complains! The government likes you to like it. And they're willing to go to any lengths to keep you reliant on the tyranny of government.
Now that Social Security exists, it's in the government's interest to lower your life expectancy. The shorter you live, the less Social Security they have to pay out. The less Social Security they pay out, the longer they can keep the program from going bankrupt. Just how far are they willing to go?
Things like trans fats and cigarettes have been known to be dangerous to your health for decades now, yet nobody will do anything about it. Yet DDTs, which save lives by repelling disease-carrying bugs, is banned because it hurts poor little birds. You must ask yourself why the government would act in such a way. Banning DDTs makes the government seem like the good guys--if they'd save the birds, of course they'd look out for you! If you've fallen for it, you've been made a fool of. You're under their control and you don't even know it.
But surely, if you're here and reading this, you know what's really going on. The government clearly doesn't care about the laissez-faire economics. That idea died a long time ago under those tyrants Wilson and FDR. No, they keep products that are bad for you on the shelves to keep you from growing too old. Just look at the death rates from cigarettes since the inception of Social Security. Is it any wonder?
Now, we all know the government also sponsers the drug trade and covers it up publicly with the hilariously (and suspiciously) inefficient War on Drugs. For instance, I'm sure you've heard of the FBI's connection to a cocaine-filled airplane that recently crashed in Mexico. What would the United States do when a government comes in and eradicates poppy growth, raising the prices of heroin? Invade them under the guise of reciprocation for a terrorist attack. Guess who's #1 again!
It's obvious what the government wants. They want more power. They want you to become more and more dependent on their services. And they're willing to do things that effect your health and your way of life to keep you oppressed.
Social Security is perhaps the biggest violator. The carrot and the stick. Everyone wants to retire in comfort, don't they? And when those checks come around nobody complains! The government likes you to like it. And they're willing to go to any lengths to keep you reliant on the tyranny of government.
Now that Social Security exists, it's in the government's interest to lower your life expectancy. The shorter you live, the less Social Security they have to pay out. The less Social Security they pay out, the longer they can keep the program from going bankrupt. Just how far are they willing to go?
Things like trans fats and cigarettes have been known to be dangerous to your health for decades now, yet nobody will do anything about it. Yet DDTs, which save lives by repelling disease-carrying bugs, is banned because it hurts poor little birds. You must ask yourself why the government would act in such a way. Banning DDTs makes the government seem like the good guys--if they'd save the birds, of course they'd look out for you! If you've fallen for it, you've been made a fool of. You're under their control and you don't even know it.
But surely, if you're here and reading this, you know what's really going on. The government clearly doesn't care about the laissez-faire economics. That idea died a long time ago under those tyrants Wilson and FDR. No, they keep products that are bad for you on the shelves to keep you from growing too old. Just look at the death rates from cigarettes since the inception of Social Security. Is it any wonder?
Now, we all know the government also sponsers the drug trade and covers it up publicly with the hilariously (and suspiciously) inefficient War on Drugs. For instance, I'm sure you've heard of the FBI's connection to a cocaine-filled airplane that recently crashed in Mexico. What would the United States do when a government comes in and eradicates poppy growth, raising the prices of heroin? Invade them under the guise of reciprocation for a terrorist attack. Guess who's #1 again!
It's obvious what the government wants. They want more power. They want you to become more and more dependent on their services. And they're willing to do things that effect your health and your way of life to keep you oppressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)