Life, Liberty, Property
Note: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them
Hat Tip: Business Insider
Infographic Source: Frugal Dad
By Robert Ringer | May 3, 2012 | WND
The two most poisonous words in the English language are rights and entitlements. They mean essentially the same thing, and both are subjectively created in the minds of collectivist dreamers.
Though the notion of rights/entitlements has been around since the founding, and has been heating up at an accelerating pace since FDR first introduced Americans to the welfare state, it is Barack Obama whom historians will credit with bringing the issue into the debate arena.
His nasty, Alinsky double-down style has caused millions of heretofore sleepwalking citizens to wonder if his fundamental change of America is transforming it into the kind of country they really want for their children and grandchildren.
Right now, Republicans are obsessing about “reforming” entitlements, though few of them dare talk about taking away people’s artificially created rights (a right to an education, a right to a good job at a “decent” wage, a right to “affordable” housing, a right to free health care … a right to just about anything one can imagine).
Even though rights and entitlements are really one and the same, the word rights has a much stronger moral connotation. A right sounds very official, as though it were handed down from on high, while an entitlement has a twinge of victimization to it.
But whether one refers to involuntary gifts from his neighbor as rights or entitlements, the bottom line is that they are made possible only through the government’s never-fail trump card: the use of force. And it’s not a force for good, but evil.
Mao had it right: Political power does, indeed, grow from the barrel of a gun. Patriotic Americans like to delude themselves, but the reality is that government can do anything it wants to you, your children, or your property through the threat force – and the use of force, if necessary.
Even so, most people – including some of the most sophisticated media types – tend to ignore what government’s essentially unrestricted use of force means in real terms. Their normalcy bias tells them that we have checks and balances via our three branches of government, so a Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, or Chavez could never happen in today’s America. Alas, they are hopelessly naïve.
Whether it’s Waco, Ruby Ridge, taxes, silencing free speech, or regulating activities individuals want to engage in, government’s use of force is always the trump card. This was made evident yet again when a video of another Obama far-left appointee, Alfredo Armendariz, went viral last week.
Read the full article here.
By Wes Vernon | April 26, 2012 | Renew America
It is with a mixture of caution and fascination that one reviews a book by Michael Savage. Some toxic controversies in which he has been embroiled transcend his worldview (about which some have questioned).
Consider, however, that the British government outrageously has denied him entry into its kingdom and that some 10 million Americans are drawn to his radio talkshow. Like him or not, he is not to be ignored.
In Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama’s Dream of the Socialist States of America, the author makes the case that — unlike Obama’s 43 predecessors (good and bad) who merely made mistakes — this president is suspect of deliberately attempting to bring down the United States.
Back to basics
“The next president must love America” is Savage’s premise. He believes — literally and beyond campaign rhetoric — that our country cannot survive another four years of Obama. Though this tome fulfills the take-no-prisoners expectations of “Savage Nation” fans, the author’s point is about far more than verbal rock-throwing.
Trickle-Down Tyranny is crammed with fact after fact and, more to the point, many instances of “connecting the dots,” some with frightening scenarios. Mr. Savage cites multiple small steps that, when taken together, lend some credence to his comparison of the current administration to Hitler’s step-by-step takeover of Nazi Germany. “The parallels,” he writes, “are so disturbing.”
Media’s power to ignore
Though the talkshow host expresses a personal dislike for media mogul Rupert Murdoch (the feeling is mutual), he defends the latter against his rival, left-wing financier George Soros (though he fears Soros is winning).
Murdoch’s (now-shuttered) News of the World in London had indeed “violated the privacy rights” of convicted pedophiles. Largely ignored by the media’s anti-Murdoch echo chamber, notes Savage, is that “dozens and dozens of the pedophiles were out of prison and living in neighborhoods with young families with small children.”
Savage reports that “most Britons” do not believe government’s responsibility to protect the privacy rights of pedophiles should supersede the safety of kids. The “child-molesting felons” were forced to move away as a result of the investigative reports.
And the ultimate motive was?
Moreover, Mr. Savage cites Murdoch rivals in Britain who were guilty of far more egregious privacy violations. Singling out Murdoch, the author contends, was part of an attempt to neuter the Murdoch-owned Fox News on this side of the pond in time to save Obama in the upcoming election.
Hanging over Murdoch’s head are threats (implied or explicit) of legal action by Attorney General Eric Holder (named by Savage as one of the most corrupt officials in the Obama administration).
Without explicitly using the term, the author leaves the reader to speculate that Murdoch is being blackmailed to “toe the line,” even though no American was involved with wrongdoing in Britain’s eavesdropping scandal. Nor were any of Murdoch’s U.S. outlets.
Read the full article here.
By John Nolte | April 30, 2012 | Breitbart
Everything conservatives will be looking for is on every page of “Tyranny.” Just as he did with “Liberal Fascism,” Goldberg uses scholarly history, damning logic, pop culture, and laugh-out-loud humor to connect the dots that expose the Left as the vacuous, dishonest, State-addicted mercenaries they really are. But what sets “Tyranny” apart from its predecessor and, in my opinion, improves on it, is two things:
First, simply by its title alone, “Liberal Fascism” was red meat for the Right; a delicious, timely, page-turning balm in The Year Of Obama. As we were getting our electoral butts kicked in every corner of America — as our worst political nightmares were impossibly coming true — we could at least get under the covers and flick a flashlight onto Jonah’s reassurance that we were right, dammit!
“Liberal Fascism” is ours and all ours, but to its credit, “Tyranny” is less so.
“Tyranny” isn’t red meat as much as it’s an argument. Yes, so was “Liberal Fascism,” but that was a more pointed argument made from a somewhat belligerent posture (which I loved). “Tyranny,” though, is something I would (and have) send to my Obama-loving, swing state-dwelling, left-wing mother. For years now, the two of us have fired books at one another in the hopes of persuading the other to see the light, and because Goldberg’s theme is less about partisan politics than it is about intellectual honesty, I’m convinced it’s going to be one of my more persuasive missives.
“Tyranny” isn’t about ideology. Don’t get me wrong, Goldberg still takes it to the Left, but liberalism (for very good reason) is merely the vehicle the author drives to explore the much bigger theme of how and why the left and their allies in media and academia have allowed political debate to devolve into cliché. The over-arching theme, however, is even bigger and speaks to conservative and liberal alike:
Think.
For.
Yourself.
Unfortunately for the Left, they’re the ones most guilty of failing in that department (don’t worry, Republicans take a few well-deserved licks), but I can’t imagine any reasonable liberal, like my mother, reading Goldberg’s words and not only rethinking how they themselves argue, but also feeling a little unsettled and bamboozled by some of the arguments they’ve bought into. Which brings me to my second point:
Read the full article here.
Update:
Piers Morgan’s Childish, Hostile, Cliché-Ridden Interview of Jonah Goldberg [Video]
By Daniel Greenfield | April 29, 2012 | Sultan Knish
Controlling a large number of people isn’t easy. The United States alone consists of 312 million people spread out across nearly 4 million square miles. Add on nearly 500 million for the population of the European Union and another nearly 4 million square miles of territory. Then pile on Canada with 34 million people and another 4 million square miles, Australia with 22 million and 3 million square miles and a few other stragglers here and there, and the postmodern rulers of the progressive empire have to cope with nearly a billion people spread out across 15 million square miles.
Large territories and large numbers of people are very difficult to govern. Structures tend to break down and people further away from the centers of power don’t listen to the boys at the top. The only way to make a going proposition of it is to consolidate as much power as possible at the center and the very act of centralizing power leads to tyranny.
The most direct chokehold possible is physical. China’s rulers, faced with vast territory and population, turned to the water empire. The modern West is quickly rediscovering a more sophisticated form of hydraulic despotism, cloaked in talk of saving the planet and providing for everyone’s needs.
Western resources are not innately centralized, which makes seizing control of them and routing them through a central point more difficult. This has to be done legislatively and has to be justified by a universal benefit or a crisis. One example of this is FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act which allowed the government to control wheat grown on a farm for private consumption. Another is nationalizing health care by routing the commercial activity of medicine through government organs. Both services and commodities can be controlled in this manner.
But the larger challenge is that the West is rich and a water empire depends on scarcity. Central control is much less potent if there is plenty of the commodity or service available. It’s only when shortages are created in bread or health care that the system really wields power by rationing a scarce commodity or service.
If a resource is scarce, then the water empire has to distribute it efficiently. But if a resource is widely available, then the water empire has to find ways of making it scarce, until the demand vastly outstrips the supply.
The modern water empire is dependent for its power on manufactured shortages. The rise of the progressive state was closely tied to its exploitation of shortages. Its challenge has been to win the race with industrial productivity by manufacturing shortages and destroying wealth faster than it could be created. While the machine of industry created wealth, the machine of government destroyed it. Today the machine of government is very close to winning the race, creating a state of permanent shortages.
Manufactured shortages are the great project of modern governments. This manufacture is done by prohibitively increasing the cost of creating and distributing products and services, by controlling the means of production in the name of wealth redistribution and by prohibiting the production on the grounds that it is immoral or dangerous. Over the 20th century the transition was made from the first to the second and finally to the third.
The third means of manufacturing shortages is the final trump card in the race between human ingenuity and government power. It began with pollution regulation and has reached the stage where all human activity, from a bike ride to the corner to a puff of exhaled air, is a form of pollution. The carbon footprint is to the human being what the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to wheat, a mandate for total central regulation of all human activity.
While the second means of manufacturing shortages only justified redistributing wealth, the third prevents its creation. It is the final lock of the water empire. When it slides into places, shortages become permanent and the Empire of Poverty rules over all.
The Empire of Poverty is the modern incarnation of the water empire, its feigned concern for social equality disguising its hunger for total power. With the third stage, the empire of poverty is mostly putting aside its pretense of controlling production in order to maximize human benefits from the products or services and is shifting over to controlling production in order to deny use of the products and services to those who need them.
Global Warming rhetoric is still couched in the usual social justice rhetoric, aimed at the poorer kleptocracies who are eager to join the line for a handout, but its logic is poverty driven. It is not out to create wealth, but to eliminate it, on the grounds that cheaply available food or electricity is an immoral activity that damages the planet.
Read the full article here.
Adam Taxin interviews Daniel Greenfield for a bit under five minutes about his Sunday, April 29, 2012 column, “The Empire of Poverty.”
Special-interest groups have injected the issue of race heavily into the high-profile Florida death of Trayvon Martin and the pending trial for suspect George Zimmerman. In fact, a recent poll revealed 6 of 10 say “race activists” are exploiting the tragedy.
But there apparently will be no more comment from the White House on the trend, as Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to allow Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House and the second-most senior reporter on the beat, to inquire.
At the daily briefing today, nearly two dozen reporters were not allowed to ask any questions, including Kinsolving. Instead, CNN was given seven and CBS and Fox six each.
Kinsolving wanted to ask if the president had any response to columnist Walter Williams’ recent revelation about how race is an issue only some of the time.
“Does the president have any response to Dr. Williams’ as he did about the death of Trayvon Martin?” Kinsolving wanted to ask. He also wanted to seek comment about a Kansas City child who was murdered by attackers who said, “You get what you deserve, white boy.”
The columnist talked about a Tulsa, Okla., case where “a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death..”
Williams, whose writing focused on media dishonesty and race hustlers, also explained in Kansas City, Mo., “two black … youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, ‘You get what you deserve, white boy.’”
He also cited a Knoxville, Tenn., case where “a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks. The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend’s rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered.”
“None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news the Trayvon Martin case made, and it’s deliberate,” Williams wrote. “Editors for the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons….”
Barack Obama, meanwhile, was among the first to link the Martin case to race, saying even as the case developed that if he’d had a son, he’d look like Martin.
Williams noted the violence is itself a tragedy.
“Even if the president and his liberal allies in the media and assorted civil rights hustlers don’t care much about blacks murdering whites, what about blacks murdering blacks?” he noted. “During a mid-March weekend in Chicago, 49 people were shot, 10 fatally, including a 6-year-old black girl, making for more than 100 murders this year. Philadelphia isn’t far behind, with murders clipping along at one a day since the beginning of 2012.”
He said only white-on-black crime fits the political narrative at hand, and so only that gets attention.
Read the full article here.
By Susan Jennings | February 10, 2012 | Activist Post
As we delve deeper into world control, more information arises that helps us understand the current global situation. Many people are unaware of the interconnectedness between the largest global companies.Eighty percent of the world’s wealth appears to be earned by a “core” of 1,318 corporations, which in turn are being controlled by only 147 companies. Seventy-five percent of these companies are financial institutions — and the top companies on the list are the Federal Reserve banks.
The Federal Reserve created 26 to 29 trillion dollars’ worth of bailouts for their own companies between 2007 and 2010. This was revealed in their own audit statements, and confirmed by United States Congressmen and prominent financial analysts. (Source) Please note that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, is a private corporation controlled by international bankers. (Source)
Anytime the ‘Fed’ prints money-Federal Reserve Notes, the American taxpayer is charged interest on the amount printed. Alan Greenspan admitted that “the Federal Reserve is an independent agency . . . there is no other agency of government who can overrule actions we take.”
As they understood the extreme dangers to our life and liberty, our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to a central privately controlled bank.
This global control occurs in multiple ways:
The majority of radio, television and large Internet companies has become concentrated into the hands of just few companies. Fifty independent companies once comprised the media as of 1983. Now, Time Warner-CNN/TBS/TNT/AOL/Fortune/People; News Corp-Fox/New York Post/Wall Street Journal/MarketWatch.com; Walt Disney-ABC/ESPN/Miramax//Pixar; Bertelsmann-Most EU stations/Random House/National Geographic magazines; Viacom-CBS-Simon & Schuster/Comedy Central/BET/Paramount; and GE-NBC/Telemundo/MSNBC/ decide what is news. (Source) Such consolidation creates the ability to easily manipulate the masses via television, radio and printed media. This includes global news, political information, science, health and social values — which we have all seen go down the toilet. The desensitization to dead bodies &, increasing violence, glorification of anti-social behavior, i.e. the ones doing the most lying/cheating/stealing are the winners; the invasive surveillance systems to acclimate the public to a complete loss of privacy, and the lack of unbiased, actual reporting on critical events.
As a result, the NDAA, SOPA and PIPA legislation have all had a positive slant on them in Mainstream Media. The NDAA wipes out the 4th Amendment right to due process; and the latter two proposed laws remove our free access to websites, giving the government the right to take down Internet sites at will. Thus, their interests seem to be solely in maximizing their profits no matter the detrimental effects on the environmental, social and health of all life. All the while maintaining control of the global population through massive manipulation.
Read the full article here.
By Cardinal Lawyer | April 2, 2012 | Breitbart
First-year law students, mandatorily assigned to the class, stop attending the class, moonlighting instead at other sections of the same course being taught by other professors.
As an administrator, what do you do? To reasonable people, the course of action is obvious–you simply tell the visiting professor to stop it, and to stick to the curriculum.
But you don’t do that. Why not?
The answer is obvious, but complex: because you know you will be called a “racist” by activists, and you will do anything to avoid that. So you try to tiptoe around the problem, and you make it worse.
That’s one legacy of racialist Derrick Bell, when he was invited to teach at the home of political correctness, Stanford Law School, in the 1980’s.
The success of radical leftists in taking over administrative control of various institutions–the media, higher education and public worker unions–was partly based upon their tactic of accusing their opponents of being racist.
The truth is, it worked very well for a long time, and often still does. Human nature is to give in to avoid being called racist; it’s just not worth it for ordinary people doing everyday jobs–they didn’t sign up for that kind of harassment. The left knows it, and exploits it.
That partly explains how the left has used an intimidating culture of fear to turn institutions into bowls of milquetoast. It’s a decades-old legacy of ordinary people backing down again and again, giving in to the radical Left.
In the universities, the Marxist/collectivists didn’t call themselves “communists” or “socialists;” they used the brand name of “Critical Studies.”
Buried in Derrick Bell’s resume is an instructive episode showing how the racial intimidation of the “Critical Studies” race baiters helped move the Leftist’s agenda.
Bell–who died last year–objected to neutrality and color-blindness in the Constitution. Bell wanted race to become a permanent weapon of the left–in short, he was a race warrior and wanted constant racial strife.
To justify his race war, he argued that the existence of slavery at the time of the U.S. Constitution rendered that agreement unenforceable against blacks. He reasoned that the Constitution was fatally illegitimate, and could never be fixed–not by the Civil War or the resulting anti-slavery amendments, nor by the Civil Rights amendments. To Bell, the Constitution was merely a tool to keep the black race down–permanently. It was government of the racists, by the racists and for the racists.
And because it’s illegitimate, it does not have to be obeyed. That’s the intellectual justification. Got it?
Read the full article here.
"One man with courage is a majority." ~Thomas Jefferson
By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]
By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]
"Fundamental Transformation"
You Know Who You Are!
The Indispensable Man
"We win. They lose."
An Army of One
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell
Conservative ramblings from a two-job workin' Navy Reservist Seabee (now Ret)
Help is not coming. Neither is permisson. - https://twitter.com/Grey_Enigma
news politics conspiracy world affairs
Sovereign Serf Sayles
I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!
Dan Miller's blog
By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.
Taking Pride in Humanity
ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS
It's Secession Or Slavery. Choose One. There Is No Third Choice.
Just another WordPress.com site
The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.
John Malcolm 
“They Live”, the Weird Movie With a Powerful Message
By VC | April 17th, 2012 | Vigilant Citizen
‘They Live’ is a science-fiction movie from the Eighties that features aliens, a WWF wrestler and a whole lot of sunglasses. What’s not to like? While, at first glance, the movie appears to be a bunch of nonsense, ‘They Live’ actually communicates a powerful message about the elite and its use of mass media to control the masses. Is the movie describing what we call the Illuminati? This article looks at the deeper meaning of John Carpenter’s strange but fascinating movie ‘They Live’.
Warning: Major spoilers ahead (get over it, the movie is 24 years old).
Watching They Live is a conflicting experience. It is an odd combination of eye-opening messages with lackluster acting, powerful social commentary with 1950′s B-movie special effects and gripping satire with odd punchlines. Constantly making viewers oscillate between “Wow, that was genius!” to “Wow, that was corny!”, it is difficult to properly evaluate the movie from a cinematographic point of view. However, from a “message” point of the view, They Live is gold. Based on Ray Nelson’s short story Eight O’Clock in the Morning, the movie is one of those rare subversive stories that forces viewers to question their world and their surroundings. Because, despite the fact that the movie is about ghoulish aliens, it communicates truths to the viewers that are only alluded to in mainstream movies. In fact, looking deeper into the storyline, one might realize that there’s probably more “science” than “fiction” in the story of They Live … especially when one has “truth-seeing sunglasses”.
The hero of the movie, played by WWF wrestler Rowdy Roddy Pipper, is a drifter that is apparently nameless. In the short story and the movie’s credits, he is referred to as Nada, which means ‘nothing’ in Spanish. While this nameless nothing is broke and homeless, he still manages to expose the alien’s hidden rule of the world. How did he accomplish that? With the only thing he’d ever need: The Truth. Oh, and also guns. He used a lot of guns. Most importantly, despite the fact that Nada was tempted several times to shut up in exchange for “generous compensation”, he kept his integrity and never agreed to sell out to the aliens. Now, that’s a role model. To top it off, he says the best things ever.
“I’m here to kick ass and chew bubble gum … and I’m all out of bubble gum”.
Are the aliens in the movie an imaginative way to portray the world’s elite, those who secretly run the world, those we call the Illuminati? Let’s revisit this cult classic and see how it describes the hidden rule of the elite.
The Premise
Right from the beginning, as we see Nada walking around Los Angeles with his backpack, the movie sets a particular mood: Something is not quite right. While Nada appears to be a happy-go-lucky kind of guy, the city is not happy and it is not too kind to happy-go-lucky kind of guys. Quite the contrary, there is a sense of impending doom in the air: Poverty is rampant, helicopters fly around the city and street preachers speak of soulless beings ruling the world.
“The venom of snakes is under their lips. Their mouths are full of bitterness and curses. And in their paths, nothing but ruin and misery. And the fear of God is not before their eyes! They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! And our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are our owners. Our owners — they have us. They control us. They are our masters. Wake up. They’re all about you, all around you!”.
Is the preacher’s description of the “masters” applicable to the Illuminati? I believe so.
As we follow Nada’s aimless drifting across the city, the camera often focuses on people gazing blankly at television screens, mindlessly absorbing the vapid messages it communicates. Regular Joes appear to truly enjoy their television shows … until an obscure organization hacks the airwaves to broadcast subversive messages about the hidden rulers of the world.
“Our impulses are being redirected. We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep. (…) The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society, and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain. Please understand. They are safe as long as they are not discovered. That is their primary method of survival. Keep us asleep, keep us selfish, keep us sedated.”
Can the above statement be applied to the Illuminati? I believe so.
The Average Joes who watch this pirated TV broadcast all get a massive headache – the raw truth is indeed too much for most people to bear. One such viewer switches the channel after telling the guy on TV: “Blow it out your ass”. Just like today, most people do not want to hear about this kind of stuff … they just want to go back to their mindless TV viewing.
Nada realizes that the street preacher and the man on television are connected through a local church. When he sneaks into the church, he discovers that it is actually the headquarters of an underground organization.
On a wall inside the church is written “They Live We Sleep”, a phrase that describes the fundamental difference between the elite and the masses. Those in power know the truth about the world and possess the means and the power to truly “live”. The rest of the population is sedated, dumbed-down and manipulated into a zombie-like status in order for it to be as easily manageable as possible by the masters. The masses’ ignorance equals a state of endless slumber.
Nada learns that the rebellious organization is attempting to recruit people to take down the rulers. However, a few days later, Nada discovers what happens to those who plot against those in power.
Helicopters, bulldozers and police in riot gear raid the place, destroy everything and violently arrest the members of the underground organization. That is how the elite responds to contrary views.
After witnessing the violent police shakedown, Nada begins to realize that something is wrong in America. The happy-go-lucky guy who believed in working hard and following the rules is starting to believe that something is amiss here.
Determined to learn more, Nada re-enters the church and finds a few interesting things.
The police painted over “They Live We Sleep”. Obviously, “They” don’t want that message to be known.
More importantly, Nada discovers a box full of sunglasses that allows his to see the world as it is. Added bonus: They also look pretty cool.
Seeing the Truth
While the sunglasses found by Nada appear on the surface to be worthless, they actually provide him with the greatest gift of all: The Truth. When Nada first puts on the sunglasses, the experience is shocking.
When he has his sunglasses on, Nada sees through the smoke and mirrors projected by advertisement and mass media . He only sees the core of their message and the only reason why they exist.
No matter which magazine Nada flips open, he sees the same subliminal messages, which tells a lot about the true function of “celebrity” and “fashion” magazines. Despite the fact that they are all different, they all ultimately serve the same purpose: To reinforce messages from the elite to the masses.
Nada also quickly understands the truth about money.
“In God We Trust”?
Nada’s most shocking discovery concerns people around him.
Some people are not human. They are from another race that has infiltrated society.
Read the full article here.
Related Articles
Share this: