In its most elementary form, the FCC is trying to do the same thing. Their aim is to slow down emerging Internet markets, and get control of the kind of information reported there. It is about stopping innovation, not protecting its continuation. The federal government wants to tax trade over the Internet and to infuse the pure market capitalism of current online activity with the socialism normally associated with all government infusion.
Tech companies like Amazon became great because of the Internet—because government was out of their way. I use Amazon all the time—mostly to find books that are rare and out-of-print. When I was a little kid I used to get a publication in the mail showing me rare books and prints available throughout the country—and I’d usually have to pay several hundred dollars for such prints. One of those books was a hard to find copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead which I considered a real treasure at the time. But along came Amazon, and virtually any book I have needed over the last decade has been found and purchased through Amazon.com. I consider them an amazing delivery service and they became that way without an ounce of government involvement.
But now they’ve hit a government regulatory wall—actually two. First the FAA shut down their delivery proposal. Pinheads in the government likely can’t foresee why anybody would want under 30 minute delivery service—but I can report that I’d personally use it several times a year. It would be very useful for me to buy a book without having to leave my house that I would want to start reading that same afternoon once a number of other tasks had been completed for the day. Traveling about takes time, and if I could save that hour of transportation time, I could gain one hour of productive time out of a 24 hour day by ordering a book from Amazon and having it delivered 30 minutes later. That would be extremely valuable to me.
Government workers don’t understand the value of such time—because they spend most of their days wasting it. They are timid creatures—those who work in government. They are afraid of every little thing falling out of the sky and hitting them in the head, and fear dramatically a free Internet without government’s grubby paws within it. So they get into the business of making rules that they can deal with so to limit the rest of the world to their weaknesses. That is what the FCC is doing with Net Neutrality. A branch of government guided by the Obama White House sought to take control of the Internet because in this case, his political party can’t compete with the flow of information that is coming out against his progressive way of thinking—so he brought in Tom Wheeler at the FCC and created an insurrection without any public comment or scope of intrusion—and just like that—the Internet is no longer a free place. Government regulation is coming and soon those who were in favor of Net Neutrality will realize why people like me were against it. The rules that are coming will be noticed, and intrusive.
The Skycar would of course be the next step beyond drone delivery. Once people realized that the drones were reasonably safe, they’d accept that personal delivery using Skycars was entirely possible. Instead of a UPS or FedEx truck driving from one point through countless steams of ground traffic, the vehicle would take off from a distribution center and land at a residence within 10 to 15 minutes avoiding traffic all together. It would be an advance guidance system that would keep track of all the sky traffic without human error contributing to any danger. However, if the FAA won’t allow a small little drone to fly through the air without a human being guiding it by line of sight, they surely will not allow large vehicles transporting human beings around in the sky controlled by Google Earth navigational systems.
The only real restriction is the federal government, and now thanks to America’s first openly socialist president, the only place where explosive innovation actually takes place through unfettered capitalism is the Internet which the FCC just voted itself to control under the careful guidance of the White House. There are hundreds of wonderful ideas just waiting to be nurtured into existence right now, but the government is impeding them with a mask of safety—and security—yet with a reality of protection of existing, ancient technology.
Imagine if the federal government had prevented the Wright Brothers from taking aviation to the sky so to protect the union workers who made roads back at the turn of the 20th century. Or imagine that a horse breeder was afraid that the invention of the automobile would destroy their way of life, so they lobbied the federal government to make automobiles so controlled by regulation that it wouldn’t be worth building cars—which actually happened. After all, imagine the arguments of giving human beings a guided missile to drive around possibly running into countless other human beings on a massive scale. It would be impossible to develop the automotive industry in modern America—because regulators would snuff it out of existence before it ever got off the ground. That is the cost of the FCC intrusion of the Internet—a government takeover of the freest place on earth that will limit innovation from now on. History will prove it so.
Yet what few people asked was how those companies, Google, the Free Press and New America’s Open Technology Institute had access to the net neutrality report before any voting American. Now you know dear reader why we still have clunky cars, cancer, and cumbersome delivery systems—because the government picks winners and losers based on their personal preference and comfort level. And that is why the FCC takeover of the Internet is one of the greatest tragedies in our lifetime. It’s equal to the government taking over the aviation industry before Boeing built their first airplane.
Has anybody posed the question to Barack Obama recently if he still considers himself a member of the “middle-class?” I personally find the term degrading, and insulting. Who wants to be the “middle” of anything? Not me. So I don’t identify with the “middle-class.” I don’t want to be considered in the middle-class, and I don’t want to accept that there is even a middle-class of just average Americans. I believe in American exceptionalism. Acknowledging a middle-class says that we accept a society of average people. It’s like saying we want our football teams to be average, we want our cars and electronics to be “normal” and that there is no reason to compete against anybody else because we don’t care about the final score. It’s like saying to a video game player who is obsessed with a game like Call of Duty that they should be happy with their “average” score instead of playing over and over to increase their rating.
Yet Obama talks about the “middle-class” like its something good that he wants to expand—and accept more of. He is actually promoting it, and is trying to expand government education to actually make more “average” people. Yet it would be safe to say that Obama considers him and his family as part of the “upper” ruling class. Such behavior was always typical among the communists who wanted to be affiliated with the enforcers as opposed to the commoner. The ruling class always gets better living accommodations, and social status and Obama clearly enjoys his elevated political class status as President of the United States. He will never be considered a part of the middle-class for the rest of his life—so why does he want to promote it to so many people? It really doesn’t make any sense.
The answer comes from deep inside the type of collectivists that Obama is. If they can eliminate competition, they will never be challenged by anybody seeking to actually surpass their social status with actual aptitude. A gigantic middle-class means for people like Obama no challenge to his social status as a member of the elite. So he naturally wants to protect his status with more “middle-class” type people, and the way he performs the task is to propose that the effort is actually good for people.
This is the real nature behind Obama’s new education plan which he actually sent to me through an email. You can read that email promotion from Obama’s White House below where the intent of the proposal is to lower standards for children so that they will be further dumbed down into a compliant “middle-class” of adults giving the federal government more centralized control over students. Of course Obama’s people never tell the whole truth, just as in the first sentence below which attempts to state that students are functioning at a higher level than ever before and that the government education system is actually working. The secret is that the standards have been lowered to make students appear better—without actually achieving anything. For the government, they are successful because they are in the business of making more compliant—average—people. But for the hopeful parent who wants their child to be the next Einstein—there is nothing about the following proposal that will help their child achieve greatness. Obama simply wants to clip their intellectual wings so that in the future—those children will be happy in the middle-class.
From: Barack Obama <democraticparty@democrats.org> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Subject: Stand with me on education, Rich
To: Rich Hoffman
Just last week, Rich, we found out that our high school students are currently graduating at an all-time high, and last
year, our younger students posted the highest scores ever recorded in both math and reading. That’s great news! But ensuring our children get the most from their education in today’s ever-evolving economy
remains one of our most important responsibilities. It’s also a major part of my vision for a stronger middle class,
which I laid out in the State of the Union last month. That’s why I’m making the replacement of No Child Left Behind a priority. We need a better education plan — one that
cuts standardized testing to a bare minimum, invests in our preschools, and gives every kid in every corner of our
country a fair shot. I’m calling on Congress to pass a law that makes this vision of a brighter tomorrow for our sons and daughters a reality, Rich.
If you agree with me, then go ahead and let them know right now by adding your name next to mine. This plan is just common sense, and it deserves a vote in the House and Senate. But Republicans on Capitol Hill have their own ideas, and without support from people like you, it will be pretty darn tough to have a meaningful debate about any of this. I’m confident that we can work together and get this done, but I could use your help today to show Republicans that
Democrats are committed to making this level of progress permanent. So sign your name today, and tell Congress to pass an education bill that works for middle-class families: http://my.democrats.org/Better-Education-Plan Thanks for standing with me today, Rich.
I’ll be in touch again soon.
Barack Obama
Now, here is a message from the Liberty Township Tea Party describing what is really going on with Obama’s new education plan. To those who think that the Tea Party is still a group of radicals, the evidence below should be obvious.
The White House and government position in general is to make more compliant “middle-class” people through federal education programs. As any intelligent reader will quickly notice by reading the following additional information deliberately removed from Obama’s letter on the same subject, the attempt is to erode more state sovereignty issues at the level of educationand to give even more central control over education matters to the federal government. Read it for yourself:
ACTION ALERT: STOP THE STUDENT “SUCCESS” ACT (HR 5)
Congressional Leadership Is Bull-Rushing Through HR5, the 600 Page Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (rebranded the “Student Success Act”)
The House votes on it this week. Call your Representative and call the Speaker of the House and tell them to vote “no” on HR 5!
202-224-3121. Below are just a few of the problems.
HR5 Denigrates Parental Rights and Seizes State Sovereignty
No program shall “operate within a State, unless the legislature of that State shall have . . . waived the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Sec. 6561) (emphasis added).
Federal requirements will trump the rights “reserved to the States and individual Americans by the United States Constitution” to lead in the education of their child. (Sec. 6564)
Requires states to change laws and regulations to “conform” to HR5. (Sec. 1403)
HR5 Does Nothing to Relieve Children From No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB’s) Oppressive Testing Requirements.
Feds Will Effectively Direct State Education Policy through Enhanced Continuation of Heavy-Handed NCLB Policies
Requires states to demonstrate to the federal government that their standards, assessments, and state accountability systems meet the goal of “prepar[ing] all students to graduate high school for postsecondary education or the workforce.” (Sec. 1001)
Requires states to submit comprehensive state plans, which the Secretary can disapprove. (Sec. 1111)
Increases Federal Data Collection To Control Curriculum
Empowers the Department of Education to request individual student and teacher data from State and Local Education Agencies.
Just like the situation with Net Neutrality, Obamacare, or any other scandal, the Obama White House cannot be trusted with even small truths—because they will lie and mislead about virtually anything, particularly in regard to education. Their end game is not the same as the rest of the world. It’s rather selfish and full of presumption—they want an expanded “middle-class” to protect the seeds of progressivism created by their radical left-leaning predecessors. They care about the end because it justifies the means—and in this case they want a dumb population full of average, middle-class slugs so they can easily dominate their thoughts and actions over the next century. That in essences is what Obama didn’t say in his email. But if he wanted to tell the truth—he would have. Instead, it took the Liberty Township Tea Party to say what the truth really was by a political class who considers itself well above the middle-class and is protecting itself from future insurrection through poor education and centralized federal control.
Meredith Perry was an astrobiology major in college and did space research for NASA, but at the tender age of 25 years she has taken on the remarkable task of challenging the entire electrical delivery system framework with her very new and innovative company called, uBeam. And, she’s hiring. Her goal is epic and she is just two years away from making it happen. As of this writing she is poised to partner with a tech company with deep pockets like Apple or Google to remove power cords from all appliances starting with mobile devices. Here is the way she describes her company to potential applicants.
Our engineering team is comprised of world-class multidisciplinary inventors, where the word “impossible” is not part of our lexicon. We take pride in solving complex technological problems quickly, across many fields. At uBeam, we go from PowerPoint to prototype in a month or less.
We’re on a mission to untether the world, and we’re in search of new blood to join the team. We’re seeking hands on, dedicated people who are driven to push the boundaries of technology, people who are not looking for a typical 9-to-5 desk job, who are looking to make tectonic shifts in the world of electricity.
About her new technological invention she says according to her website and USA Today, “I started looking into types of technology that harnessed ambient energy, and I stumbled across piezoelectric [material], and I thought, if this can harness vibration, how do I induce vibration over the air? Then I realized that sound is vibration over the air. It was a natural “aha.”
“The dream is to replace all electrical outlets with uBeam transmitters,” says Perry. “You’ll wake up and just go through your day with your device and it will be charging in your house, in your car, at your bus stop, at your gym, in your hotel. We want to be absolutely everywhere. And wires won’t be anywhere.”
Here’s how it works. uBeam’s transmitter is a wafer-thin square the size of a salad plate that punches out ultrasonic frequencies much like a speaker creates sound. The receiver, currently in the form of a smart phone case, resonates at the same high frequency and turns that imperceptible movement into energy, charging the phone.
uBeam’s transmitter doesn’t go through walls, so a square tile is required for each room. Although uBeam is still a few years from being consumer-ready, Perry is convinced her “competitively priced” creation will find its way into our homes and any commercial space where devices are used.
“What I’ve seen over the years is people making tiny improvements in existing technology as opposed to saying, ‘Let’s throw this all out and do something new,'” she says. “I know the odds are so against me. But I wouldn’t start a company and bust my (rear) for years unless we were working on something orders of magnitude better than anything else out there.”
I love Meredith Perry’s attitude and the implications for her invention is quite extraordinary. It has a real chance of completely changing the way that power is transmitted from one place to another. It of course highlights the origin of power to begin with where the debate of Thorium as opposed to dirty energy is clearly a better option, but because of politics Thorium was suppressed as dirty energy was highlighted. There is a real danger of Perry’s invention being crushed by the status quo because it will completely change the way that homes and businesses are wired during construction. uBeam is certainly one of the biggest breakthroughs in science and technology that is currently on the frontier of discovery—and it came from a very young and ambitious young woman unafraid of the status quo—or her place in it. She is to me a remarkable young woman.
I would say that the best home for uBeam would be Apple, who has enough fluid cash to purchase all the big three auto companies in America right now. Only from such an innovative company would something as cutting edge like uBeam have a chance of cutting through the massive amount of lobby power that will try to sink them. It would give Apple a tremendous advantage over their competition such as Samsung for a few key years of future product rollouts. Obviously, uBeam would need to be available to all products, from the new Samsung televisions to their mobile devices—but Apple working with uBeam could corner that market to protect the wireless power market from the political machine that seeks to capture and regulate energy to throttle the cost and demand.
A company like uBeam is one step closer to my dream of every car, home, and personal power consumption device pulling free energy out of the air and being self-generated which is a real possibility. In our immediate lifetimes the debate will occur that the current power grid all across the world is old-fashioned and well out-dated. All power lines could be replaced with personal power devices—and that is a debate that will cause current power companies and the governments in their pocket a lot of heartache. Perry’s uBeam company is the gateway to such thinking and once people get a taste for it, they will accept it for everything from their washers and dryers, to their cars—and eventually their homes.
Ambient energy is important because it generates energy from everyday motions in life. uBeam is using ultrasonic waves to create energy, and it is entirely possible that the same could be done on a massive scale—just study an electrical storm during a spring rain where cold air strikes a front of warmer air provoking a violent storm. Such things have been tried before but were struck down politically because money could not be made on generating the power or the delivery method. When it comes down to something like what uBeam proposes, the technology is viable, clean, and much more efficient and reliable, but it will threaten the current infrastructure which will find it a threat to its very existence. So for the next step in wireless power transfer to occur it needs two things to happen—one of which it already has. It needs a fearless, smart, and charismatic young person who doesn’t understand the nature of defeat and is a rebel even by the standard of the Silicone Valley tech companies. Meredith Perry is the embodiment of such a person. The next thing it needs is a protective entity that has an immediate need for such a product as uBeam is producing. Apple or Google are among the only companies with the big guns to protect uBeam from the resistance that will surely come. If those two things can happen, the world just may change for the better.
Needless to say, I’m rooting for uBeam and its founder, Meredith Perry. She reminds me of my daughters who are the same age. There is a lot of hope in her, and I would hate to see that ambition crushed by a world protecting itself from its own insecurities. For that reason alone I’m ready to rip out all my outlets and convert over to uBeam technology. It’s just a matter of time.
Below is a good video that demonstrates exactly what Net Neutrality is and it should be watched. It’s a very confusing issue because the advocates of Net Neutrality are actually taking the position of the opposition in saying they are defending the freedom of the Internet. However, it is a ruse. The FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is a Obama guy, as will be shown below and is a former lobbyist for the cable companies. The Net Neutrality supporters are trying to make it sound as if it is the cable companies who are pouring millions of dollars into defeating Net Neutrality, but it is the opposite that is really happening. It is the status quo technology that wants Net Neutrality and it is all the upstarts that are against it—because the FCC chairman under Obama’s direction is seeking to make the Internet a public utility—so they can control it—tax it, and unionize it. Just four days before the FCC historic vote, over 200,000 signatures have signed the below letter to the FCC, which can be accessed for yourself at the following link.
Internet use and online communication is the scourge of autocratic governments that deny basic freedoms to their people. Internet information has proven to be a spark that creates the fire of freedom in the most oppressive corners of the world.
The Internet is one of the most positive forces for improving the human condition the world has ever known. It is the hub of innovation for the economy in America and the world. It’s a source of progress, democratic distribution of information, societal change, personal empowerment and technological innovation.
The attempt by the Obama Administration to control the Internet as a public utility takes power away from consumers, website developers and small business owners and puts it in the hands of Government. This will drive up costs, slow down innovation, and put unelected political appointees in charge of picking winners and losers.
And it will take away America’s moral authority to argue that autocratic regimes have no right to assert control of the Internet in their own countries.
Mr. Wheeler, I am signing my name here today, asking that you and your colleagues vote NO on bringing the Internet under Federal Government control.
Sincerely,
Now watch this video–they are all on the same team. The protestors, and Wheeler.
It is the right thing to do to sign the letter and send it to the FCC, but be warned, the Chairman already has his marching orders by the president, so the letter won’t have any levity to his decision-making process. All that signing the letter will accomplish is in letting the government know how many people actually stand against them in a fashion to actually put their name to it. By traditional White House analysis, 200,000 signatures is a large number. It’s a small number of the population, but it represents a fairly scary opposition that they will try to minimize, but to a less successful effect. To understand why, study the history and background of the FCC chairman.
Originally considered a frontrunner for the position,[7] Wheeler was confirmed as the new Federal Communications Commission chief in November 2013.[8] Despite a letter written by several prominent former Obama administration officials endorsing Wheeler for the position, many people expressed concern over the consideration of Wheeler for the position due to his history of lobbying for industry.[7]
In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame.[5][9][10] He is the only member of both halls of fame.[6]Cablevision magazine named Wheeler one of the 20 most influential individuals in its history during cable’s 20th anniversary in 1995.[5]
On the current path, large cable companies are becoming extinct, the government cannot get their control around information because of the free and open Internet that exists now, and they want the FCC to begin getting things back under control from Google, Microsoft, and Amazon to actually protect the companies they are claiming to be against like Comcast, AT&T and other traditional communication companies. They are playing the same tricks they did with Obamacare, Benghazi, and open border immigration to overwhelm the system, hamper the minds of the masses with too much data-and to shove through new controls and regulations that nobody will stand against until it’s too late.
Wheeler is going to vote in favor of Net Neutrality because he’s been told to by his boss in the White House to do so. This is a power grab by the FCC for more control, not less. The government position is actually that they want to protect start-ups and porn providers with a free and open Internet by defeating a pay to play system—but what they don’t tell anybody is that they are seeking to control and limit that freedom for everyone, not just the big companies. In that respect the Internet will be “equal,” it s just that everyone will be equally limited and taxed.
So fill out the form, send it in so that guys like me will have ammunition to slam the FCC with later when we can expose the crimes about to be committed. The more people who fill out that form, the better the case will be later to prove that we told you so—so that by the time there are new elections in 2016, congress, the senate and hopefully a new president will pull the FCC back in and defund them into oblivion. That is the best way to strike a blow at this encroaching insurrection. So, make sure to fill out the form today, so that when we fight tomorrow—there will be some statistical information to use in proving what a gross violation the FCC actually imposed on the freest place on earth, the Internet. And they did it all in the name of control, taxation, and much more limited options for a tomorrow they dread to see coming.
The biggest difference between workers in the private sector and those in the public is the monopolization of effort that is typically associated with a lack of options. In the private sector there is a lot of competition whereas the public has virtually none. Scientists, teachers, IRS service representatives from the top to bottom get a check whether or not they perform so they are not motivated to do a good job. In the private sector there are other options and a check only comes if the product or service rendered is one that people actually want. Private sector work actually demands performance and those who excel do so because the product they offer is superior to other attempts of a similar value.
I thought I was in for a tough time the other day when I visited the Chick-fil-A at Bridgewater Falls near my Ohio home. My wife and I waited until about 2 PM to visit so that the lunch crowd would die down a bit, but the parking lot was still full. Parking next to us was a couple of “wigger boys” with their pants pulled down to look like rap artists complete with neck tats and a girlfriend belonging to one of them—maybe both. I typically go to nicer places just to avoid those types of people. But this particular Chick-fil-A is near the Hamilton/Fairfield border and there are a lot of these types of people coming from the government subsidized homes in that area—so you tend to bump in to them at the Bridgewater location. But I wanted a chicken sandwich so my wife and I went in any way.
The scank boys and their trashy girlfriend complete with a baby tucked into something that looked like a purse took one look at the crowded dinning room and said, “fu** this” and turned around to walk out. I gladly held the door open for them to leave happy to see them go. As they walked by they smelled like cigarettes, pot, and spit. I watched them walk like penguins across the parking lot back to their car to make sure they didn’t open their door into my own car out of disrespect. Once they were gone, my wife and I resumed our visit to Chick-fil-A.
I had just been thinking about those “wigger boys” trying to emulate a government subsidized African-American existence that has fed the rap culture with so much negativity when a young man of color stood at the counter to take our order. He was excessively polite, well-spoken and very clean-cut. His voice sounded like it belonged on the radio with a deep resonance that held behind each word an articulation of confidence that came from nowhere else but from within a complete personality. He said “sir,” to me about ten times in 2 minutes and was extremely professional. He even wiped the overflow off our drinks as he prepared them. Everything he did the attendant did with professional flair and an appreciation for the quality of his work. He was marvelous.
Chick-fil-A typically has better employees than other similar fast food restaurants which is clearly a by-product of their recruiting practices. But this guy was excessively good even compared to Chick-fil-A employees. I continued to be impressed as we were given our food and I turned to find a table I had been looking at recently vacated, and still dirty. I had been thinking of cleaning off that table so we could sit down—because it was rather messy. But before I could perform the task a woman in her middle years was already there wiping it down clean. She even got on the floor and hand-picked bits of food that had fallen there so that it wouldn’t be messy around our feet. That further impressed me. We sat down and I watched the woman who promptly went behind the counter to wash her hands. For a fleeting second I had the feeling that mankind wasn’t falling off the edge of the earth into an abyss that it will never recover from. I was delighted.
The articulate attendant continued to take orders from the line that continued to be nearly out the door. With each customer he showed the same interest in perfection and left his customers with a fulfillment well above the standard for a fast food experience. As I thought about him, and Chick-fil-A in general I had to contemplate what drew us to the restaurant as opposed to the Chilis just across the pond from our location, or the Wendy’s down the road mixed with an Arbys, Frisch’s, Subway, Pizza Hut and even an Applebee’s all located nearby. At that hour even the Chilis restaurant had a nearly empty parking lot—but Chick-fil-A was full. And the employees seemed excited about working there. The food after all was pretty average. I mean its good, fresh and there’s a decent variety, but the Chick-fil-A experience is different and that seemed to be more of what was drawing people in than anything.
A large part of that experience which sets apart Chick-fil-A is the quality of their employees—which directly carries over into their food and overall environment. It is obvious that Chick-fil-A puts an emphasis on quality employees and this gives them a market advantage over everyone else. It also helps that they stay so busy that quality people tend to be drawn to the place to avoid the scum bags and skanks that are found everywhere else. In the case of my experience, the disenchanted social misfits decided they didn’t want to brave the crowd, but as I looked around most of the people in the dining room were pretty clean-cut types who looked like they might attend church often—and likely took an interest in the lives of their families. It probably had more to do with why those “wigger boys” and their “hoe bag” decided to leave because they felt uncomfortable with the environment. They would be more at home at a Taco Bell, or a White Castle where half the workers behind the counter looked the same as they did.
I’ve worked on the other side of the food counter for a long time and I know what goes on. When I buy food if I see someone working in the kitchen covered in tattoos and looking like they belong in a rap video I am likely to be careful what I order and I will watch them prepare it. It’s not practical to expect a low quality person to prepare food for your own sustenance. Garbage in tends to make garbage—so I am usually careful about stuff like that. I have an extreme reluctance of going through drive thru windows for that very reason. I like to see what I’m buying and I don’t trust people I can’t see to do the right thing. We are dealing with an entire generation raised on movies like Jack Ass and shows like Beavis and Butthead and they think it’s funny to spit in food and rub their body parts on what we put in our mouths. At Chick-fil-A I have much more trust in the food making process than I do someplace else—especially Taco Bell. McDonald’s I trust more just because they have been the best at taking the human element out of the food making process. There are many fewer opportunities for food tampering at McDonald’s than there is at Burger King or Wendy’s. But Chick-fil-A is the best of them all and they still do a lot of traditional food prep.
A Chick-fil-A would never occur with government workers at the helm. If the restaurant were unionized it would also not have the same level of service. It would at that point be just another chicken place—it would lose its special appeal—its value. Government workers and those coming from union mentality households tend to believe that jobs were created so that employees can buy flat screen televisions and play video games all day—that a job is just something that gives them a check at the end of the week instead of a privilege for earning a living based on their individual merit. It is because Chick-fil-A understands how to recruit and keep good employees that they have such a market edge over a very competitive marketplace.
Whenever I go to Disney World with my family one of the things I most look forward to is the treatment of the customer anywhere within the vast complex in Orlando, Florida. The employees are always very professional and enthusiastic about their jobs, which allow customers to buy into the fantasy setting they try to create. Negative people are a deterrent from positive thought processes, and at Disney World negativity would destroy the fun world created by the theme parks. So I actually look forward more to the positive environment by the workers than of the rides and attractions themselves. But at Chick-fil-A I get the same without the extraordinary expense. And that is what is so magical about the fast food giant. And I have to thank that young man who made my experience so much better recently—who was so much better than the average Chick-fil-A employee—which is saying a lot. He created such a positive environment that he elevated the personal work ethic of all those around him and that is the most marvelous gift of all. It was why that restaurant was still packed even as the other restaurants in the area were preparing for their dinner rush. Chick-fil-A at Bridgewater Falls hadn’t yet stopped being busy from lunch, and the way things looked, they weren’t going to get a break. But the employees stayed positive anyway, which is what makes them so much more special.
As I’ve said before, there is a very good reason I write all these articles, and they are never intended for the masses. I offer them to everyone, but due to their length, and content, the masses will tend to reject them as too difficult. Purposely I present most of my articles at over 1000 words—because people of poor intellect will avoid the contents—leaving a target audience of approximately 1% to read them. That 1% tends to be the social elite, the news makers and shakers of society who aren’t so easily scared off by such lengthy presentations. They require such explanations as they cannot find in typical 400 word pieces because modern problems require more information for their inquiring minds. The Drudge Report has its niche, which is to present many links to several pertinent articles on a daily basis from one location. Other news sites do a good job of reporting daily events, but they only go surface deep not giving the proper depth of an argument that might typically fill a 12 to 22 minute television or radio segment. Being a person with a background in doing a lot of live radio and television I have a pretty good idea what is needed for a typical interview so I present my articles in a way that will settle the mind of the type of people who find themselves in a position to do important things—by means of shaping the social dialogue.
Going through Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom articles a number of them especially from 3 to 4 years ago are routinely at the top of many Google searches because minds seeking that information start inquiring about the topics about a year and a half before they feel comfortable talking about these controversial issues at a social occasion or even more daring—in front of a camera. I am not the only one providing this service, but I do make sure that I provide each topic in a way that would be able to be discussed credibly during a news segment—because I have the unique experience of performing that task myself. One of my most popular articles is the one about Barrack Obama’s mother revealed through nude photographs taken likely by Frank Marshell Davis—the communist and mentor to the current president which at the time seemed very controversial, but presents enough evidence to declare that there is something really wrong with the mind of the man currently sitting in the White House.
When that article was first written I had taken an article from The Blaze discussing the new book The Communist written by Paul Kengor and provided a means for framing the argument by logical, articulate minds. Anyone who has done live interviews knows that before you can articulate fully a statement during a debate, that you have to know the who, what, why, when and where backwards and forwards otherwise you will stumble through the interview sounding foolish. It’s not enough to provide the observation that Obama was trained as a communist—and these are the facts—you have to paint the story in a way that makes sense to the 1% of the population that actually considers things, and tend to be leaders in their own right.
So it gave me great pleasure to watch former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani defend American exceptionalism and lay out essentially the primary topics presented in my article on Obama mentioning specifically the Frank Marshelle Davis connection on the popular Fox News show The Kelly File. It was an explosive interview by a guy who traditionally speaks his mind and hits hard in his positions. But, five years ago, he would not have dared to say any of the things he did on The Kelly File because of the scrutiny it would have provided him as a spokesman for the Republican Party. Back then, Obama’s presidency was still new, and people like me were being viewed as extreme. Now, the facts are in, and those at the back of the train of thought—not always their fault—are seeking answers. In Obama’s case the foundations of his beliefs point back to a childhood developed by socialist leaning grandparents and a number of father figures scooped up by his sexually carefree mother over many years. These men were Islamic and Hindu in their faith and in some cases were communist radicals shaping the mind of the young confused little Barrack Obama in a way that ruined his mind.
I started out my article on the Frank Marshell Davis character with a sensational headline that typically grabs a reader’s attention, but once they see the lengthy contents they turn away. However, there are plenty of who, what, why, when and wheres presented and by the time those readers finish one of my articles, they are well equipped to seek out support information. I even put the link to the very good book by Kengor at the end for people to read for themselves. After they’ve done a bit of personal investigation they can then ask the question how we allowed such a Trojan Horse like Obama into the White House to begin with. That appears to be the path that Giuliani has taken-and it was good to hear him double down on The Kelly File when he was being offered a platform to apologize from. I’ve been in that situation a time or two myself, so I understand and sympathize with what it means, and when Giuliani held his ground, he put himself in a position to lead many others in the proper direction of actually questioning Obama’s intentions in a way that the political left has successfully deterred for six years.
Just because a person is President of the United States it does not mean they love the nation. Glenn Beck actually did a good radio piece about Obama in the wake of the Giuliani comments about love for a country specifically and was spot on in his analysis. Obama does not love America the way we might love America. He was raised away from the mainland in a third world developing country by a sleep-around mother who brought many men to the young man’s life leaving a very confused little boy who communist radicals later befriended to send the fair-skinned community organizer behind the scenes to dismantle the “imperialist” monster. They saw America as something to “transform” not to protect so they went about their business of hiding their insurgent behind the protection of racist accusations. Influential Republicans who often tour the talk show circuits held their tongues because of the volatility of bringing up anything negative about Obama’s past giving him a chance to show what he was really about. When they saw his actions over the last six years, they sought out answers to provide some context to their observations leading them to articles like mine that have been out there a while, but are only just now being accepted as a viable examination into the insurgent mind of America’s current president.
Obama is an American president that we’ve never seen before—and there is a reason. He was raised and developed to be a radical within the White House. He was elected through guilt—accusations of an ancient past that involved slavery cast against the political party that actually freed the slaves. Through their timidity Republican leaders stayed away from the controversy and gave Obama a chance. Now, they are seeing what people like me have been saying all along as the facts have caught up to their positions at the back of the train and they can’t hide from the facts any longer. Of those Giuliani is among the first of the top 1% of party leaders and people of means to speak about these matters in front of a camera instead of at social gatherings under hushed voices and for that he deserves credit for his courage. Now that he’s shown the way, others will follow, and it is at that time that a proper exploration into the real motives of President Obama can be understood.
It takes a while for the contents of these articles to do their job, but it’s the nature of the human mind. If I wanted to appeal to the masses, I would write much smaller, less controversial and far leaning articles. But I’m not. I want people like Giuliani to read these articles from his iPhone in a New York café and consider—what if. I want him to think about it for some time with the reassurance of talk radio, books like Kengor’s and to want to add up the evidence and finally do something about it when they get the opportunity. Because guys like Giuliani get in front of the camera often, they get a chance to really break open a story—even if the information is old. The Frank Marshell Davis story is old at this point, but it never really hit the American consciousness, because it is too complicated and deceitful to consider among a busy public. But that was always the plan to place an insurgent communist type thinker into the White House of the freest country on earth to dismantle its power and influence the world over. It’s one thing to present the evidence, it’s another to stake a reputation on it. And for a man of Giuliani’s reputation, it means a lot that he’s finally willing to make such statements. It’s a sign that the type of people who typically find themselves in a leadership role, are finally able to articulate an argument against the Obama presidency that steps beyond the pageantry of the office itself. And that is the first step in solving the problem. The masses of democracy that Obama appeals to have enabled the insurgent to hide his true colors behind a political office meant to be above scrutiny. It takes that unique 1% to take action against such maniacal schemes. And it is for them that I do all this work.
Out of all the potential candidates for the upcoming presidential election in 2016, it is Scott Walker who most personifies my expectations for such a high administrative position. He is certainly the most qualified, and vetted of any potential candidate except for maybe President Obama himself. Walker has been through a remarkable amount of tribulation—and has come out on top each and every time. He has the even temperament to take on anything and still come out as someone who can build bridges with those he disagrees with. From my vantage point, he’s the perfect candidate including the fact that he did not graduate from college. Recently when progressives have witnessed the polling numbers of Walker and realized that he could have a legitimate chance at running for President of the United States, they have been clamoring for anything and everything negative about Walker that they could—which has been a very short list. Even when they looked for skeletons in his closet they found it surprisingly empty. All they could muster was an attack on his intelligence because he did not complete college—which again to me is one of his greatest strengths.
The college myth was created by the progressive class to perpetuate the complete lie that college would allow kids to purchase their way into merit for income earning potential. It has only worked in regard to government workers who don’t have any real expectation of performance anyway. In the private sector college experience has not replaced the traditional ground up mentorship’s which used to be so common—where a hard enterprising worker learned everything there was to know about a business and worked their way up the ranks through tribulation and experience. Progressives in their desperate task of creating a society of collectivists decided that the best way to accomplish the task was through public education and colleges—which they have done. There is a good reason that most educators throughout the United States are known liberals. It is to teach students liberalism and to implant in their young minds the concept of selflessness. For instance, when my wife attended college she was told to read the Koran. When she asked the question about why the Bible wasn’t offered she was instantly told that she wasn’t there to ask questions but to do as she was told—which came as a surprise to both of us. The college had an agenda for their students and that was to spread the theocracy of Islam while charging students huge amounts of money for the indoctrination. The results can be easily seen around us to this day.
In college I was primarily interested in economics and philosophy—and my professors were wrong on both. In philosophy on the very first day the topic of conversation and first reading assignment was I Ching, which I thought was stupid. I explained the book to the class and professor as a ridiculous expression of oriental mystics that had very little to do with American economic power. Of course the professor attacked American domination through economics around the world and cited that the oriental people had it right as a best approach through a happy life toward our deaths. Even more shocking to me was the fact that out of a class room of 50 students I was the only one who had read I Ching so I was the only one who knew what I was talking about—except for the professor who was clearly a huge bleeding heart liberal. I Ching essentially preached the ideals of Confucianism which was really a back door approach to preparing the mind to accept communism as a state-run option—because the orient is essentially a collectivist based society and their philosophies reflect a lack of focus on individuality. I had read the book on my own the year before and already knew what I was going to get out of it, yet the philosophy professor was planning to spend four weeks on the book—which to me was just ridiculous.
There was a similar story which involved my economics studies. When I discovered that the professor in that class was essentially preaching the merits of Keynesian economics I completely rejected the class and was ready to withdrawal. Again, I had already read enough prior to the class to know what the professor was teaching and to stay in his class meant I would have to turn off my mind—not turn it on to a greater degree. Clearly, the experience my wife and I had in college was evidence that the college experience was not about teaching students to be productive people in society—it was to indoctrinate them with as much liberalism as they could cram into a four-year degree hoping that students would take with them that idiocy into the real world to implement progressive political strategies.
I lived on the campus of the University of Cincinnati for one full year and part of another without the desire to party at the fraternities, or to hang out at the bars and nightclubs. I went to a few of those events just to see what all the fuss was, and I didn’t like them. So I spent my time reading books in restaurants that were open all night and maintaining my emotional distance so I’d have clear observation. I was able to watch the college students—who were my age, with the gained insight of uncommitted logic and I drew my conclusions—which turned out to be extremely right. College for most people is a really bad idea. It’s good for learning something in the medical industry and other sciences, but for practical application into the manufacturing sector, or in sales, invention, and even engineering—college does a terrible job in producing intelligent, hard-working masterpieces. College is the dream of progressives to ruin the minds of the young with collectivist crap with the promise that success in life can be purchased. All you have to do is sit through the liberalized classes like a time share victim and hope that you come away from the experience with a free vacation from life.
College teaches people to think within a system—but often the answers to the hardest problems are outside of any organized structure. This is why major progressives like Howard Dean were threatened by Scott Walker as seen in the video above. This is also why Walker has been so successful in Wisconsin where other governors throughout the country have faltered. Walker is functioning from personal experience instead of direction from a system of collective thought. College graduates make nice little party leaders who will think for the good of the political orthodox, but if a problem falls outside of those parameters, they are often lost as to what to do—because collectively their party has not yet answered those types of questions. That happens to Barack Obama all the time. He is the epitome of a college graduate ill prepared for the world outside of liberal institutional thought. He cannot think on his feet.
College success is a myth created by progressives and largely the baby boomers bought into the lie completely surrendering logic to pure speculation. Boomers wanted to believe that they could purchase a better life for their children with a college ticket—but all their kids really received was a trip into the “Brave New World.” College often ruins minds and destroys opportunity—and most kids are better off not going. There is no replacement for good old-fashioned hard work—and that is the kind of person that Scott Walker is. A quick study, and one of my most popular articles seen on the sidebar to the right indicates that most successful people avoid the damage that college does to their minds. I saw little of nothing in my college days that was helpful to a human being who desires to think. What I saw happen to women in particular I thought was devastating to their integrity forever. What I gained most out of college was found at a local Burger King that I sat in and read my many books—which I could have done without going to college. It was the most positive aspect of my experience. I ate a lot of Whoppers.
The panic of a Walker candidacy from both Republicans and Democrats is in finally convincing America of the worthlessness of a college education. If Walker wins, it will be a major blow to the progressive myth—and that has all those who love their institutions deeply concerned. But that issue needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later, because America needs the innovation that comes from those who normally get frustrated with college and drop out all together as opposed to those looking to purchase their way through life by turning off their minds just so they can get a piece of paper. From my personal experience there are a lot of potential Bill Gates types out there along with his nemesis Steve Jobs—both who didn’t have a college education. College destroys minds, it doesn’t help them grow and develop new ideas—not at the normal pace of human need. College limits people far more than it helps them, and that is what a Scott Walker President would illustrate to the 21st Century masses. The college scam is already falling apart and people will discover it by default, but Scott Walker could accelerate the process, and might actually save some of what’s left of America. So if I get the opportunity, I will vote for Scott Walker.
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted the below video from 1961 by Ayn Rand herself about capitalism and communism. At the time there was a lot of debate about which was better for society. The political class and intelligentsia decided they liked communism whereas the American people still in love with their John Wayne westerns and old-fashioned ideas of westward expansion loved their capitalism. Democrats and labor unions in a partnership with each other decided that they would avoid the name of communism in much the same way that Fidel Castro did during the period that he was trying to convince Cuba to turn toward Marxism by denying that his proposed dictatorship was a party of communists. Of course we know by history that it was a complete lie, just as history will show that in America public schools, colleges, and the federal government itself has fully embraced communism all along—and sought to teach children those “communal” concepts from before even kindergarten. Visit any daycare facility and you will see communism being taught to 3 and 4 year olds in great abundance. In 1961 Ayn Rand was despondent as to how the great America could even conceive of making the mistakes she had just escaped from in her mother Russia. So she made the below recording to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association to contemplate why.
Speaking of management associations and the innovations available to America it is an aspect to my life that I know first hand. I came to know Ayn Rand and the ARI work because I share with them very similar ideals about how business should be conducted and why capitalism is such a vastly superior mechanism in any global marketplace. I never read Ayn Rand until just a few years ago, yet I lived my life nearly in parallel with her character Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. When I finally did read it I wondered how I had traveled through life for over 40 years without running across it—and once I did I understood completely the intentions of the novel.
For me the most powerful part of the book was when Roark refused to be a member of the architectural board for the World’s Fair exhibit because of his strict personal revulsion toward collectivism. I too have been invited and had to decline many such associations and it has cost me likely millions in so doing. For thirty years I have been given many, many, many opportunities to do just as what was offered to Roark in The Fountainhead and I declined for the same reasons so to keep my own integrity intact. I had never heard of anybody doing the things I had been doing and taking the social positions I had until I read The Fountainhead, which was really the first time I had a measure that I was actually right in my instincts—and it was good to hear Ayn Rand from beyond the grave tell me she understood.
I had for years been struggling with the communism so present in American business—everything from Six Sigma concepts to Jack Welch management methods. I was sent to many classes over a great deal of time and on day one I lost interest because essentially what they were teaching was classic communism—not capitalism. It was no wonder that companies struggled with profits and innovation and I had no desire to learn such a stupid thing. I often refer to my years at Cincinnati Milacron as one of those pinnacle moments of understanding. I was sent to a Lean Manufacturing seminar as a hand-picked bright spot in their future only to discover that the company was dying on the first day of class. I lost interest in that company once I realized that they were has-beens and would soon go out of business more or less—which of course they did. My views at the time I couldn’t articulate against the current because everyone essentially thought I was nuts—since I was the lone voice against “consensus” and other focus group derivatives. I knew from experience that I wanted to maintain my individuality because it was within that element that true innovation in thought was brought forth.
I still run into the same opposition—actually every day. But I now have a track record to beat over people’s heads which quiets them. When I was in my 20s and 30s everyone just thought I’d grow out of such thoughts of independence—but instead I just got worse over time the more I saw that my methods worked as opposed to other studies. During the 90s I likely read every management book there was in Barnes and Nobel over a ten-year period, and most of them were so wrong, that they might as well be the equivalent to the latest “quick diet” fad because the methods were built around the same mysticism. Most corporations, and most businesses function like a communist dictatorship which quickly saps the strength of an organization of its most valuable resource—the individuals who actually work for the institution. It isn’t long that a company dies on the vine once a few decades of communist dictatorship ruins them for life. Cincinnati Milacron died in this fashion—as did General Motors. The later was only saved by government bail-outs.
Banking institutions, corporations, political structures—everywhere that there is a hierarchy of a few nameplate administrators who have power over others just by title, communism is found to be at the core philosophy of the leaders within the institution. Many of those tuning in to listen to Ayn Ran only cared about what she had to say about profit—not about the means of obtaining it. Most American businesses in 1961 were already infiltrated with communist ideals through their education institutions. They were already thinking in the wrong manner and were mapping out their own personal destructions even as the leaders built their careers and retirement pensions. Those same individuals might have been paid good money for their leadership—but what they often left in their wake was a declining business, not a flourishing one. I simply refused to play along—and over time it has benefited me and many others because when fresh ideals are needed, they are available because I have not destroyed the means of obtaining them.
As Ayn Rand said, it wasn’t communism that proved to be superior to capitalism. It was that in America capitalism committed suicide because businessmen and women discovered that to be good at capitalism they actually had to be good people to the very core of their being and could not have their egos uselessly massaged by corporate structure. The ability to dictate the lives of others because they held power over their employees’ financial purse strings proved too tempting and they fell in love with the power of communism—the ability to be the center of control of all things distributed to others according to their need. For men, the best way to test this morality is in placing a beautiful young secretary outside of their offices. If they contemplate using their power and influence to bed her—they are not moral enough men for capitalism. For women, if they use their power and position to decorate themselves with excessive sign stimuli and tales of oversea travel not out of necessity—but grandeur for the sake of it—as if to exemplify that they hold a higher title than others and therefore hold the fate of so many in their hands—then they are not moral enough for capitalism and will become seduced by the profiteer communism eventually. Once they do, you can hear the term, “team” uttered from their mouths more and more often as they are always on the search for “communal” exercises intended to achieve consensus. A typical episode of The Office is a good place to start to see this withering, pathetic diatribe of failure manifested through comic relief.
As I write this article my wife and I just bought iPhone 6 mobile devices—which to me is one of the most innovative items on planet earth presently. The company itself is nearly at a $1 trillion market cap valuation, and they’ve done it their way. They are very much as a company the way Howard Roarke conducted his business—vastly independent of other companies. They make the market come to them instead of forming themselves to the market. Many analysts college trained to think like nice little communists wonder why the market evaluation of Apple isn’t already over $1.26 trillion—after all it could be. But Apple does things their way for their own reasons and they are driving the market according to their creative input as a company driven by individuals. Steve Jobs after all was a very informal businessman who didn’t have a college degree, and was actually fired from the company he created. But in the end it was Jobs who made Apple what it is and paved the way for creative minds through an excessive commitment to a capitalism loving culture that made Apple such a successful company. Jobs was one of the first to introduce casual wear to the business place just to break down the top down communist culture of rigid dress codes and oppressive company reminders that the employees served the institution—not the other way around. What Jobs did at Apple he was able to perform because he wasn’t taught in college to hate it capitalism—but to use it to be a creative human being. He was essentially a modern real-life Howard Roarke.
Apple isn’t the only company out there who understands that communism has no place in American business. There are others, but they are definitely on the fringe. I am one of those proud fringe people and I know of several others because like-minded people tend to know each other. But what Ayn Rand said in her lecture to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association was completely accurate. It’s not that communism is superior, or had even won. Communism has seeped into our culture as a profiteer while those who were supposed to protect capitalism were too busy thinking about how powerful they are over their employees, or in banging their secretaries. Instead of conducting themselves in a moral way, they have instead turned toward Apple and tried to copy everything about the company hoping that they will strike gold in the same manner. But they can dress in jeans and follow other similar attributes of Apple, but if they don’t develop a creative—capitalist environment for their employees to prosper in—they will fail leaving the default mode of operation to the mindless communists who will sweep in to save the day with bail-outs, focus groups and the constant reminder that institutions are all about “consensus” building. But they were, and will always be wrong. Successful companies are built by individuals for the sake of creative enterprise and it is there that capitalism shines best and brightest—and for the most people’s benefit. It is what’s missing from our present culture and why everything taught counter to that basic ideal is a waste of time. American business knows how to get there, but they are not willing to act morally to achieve it—which is why Ayn Rand in 1961 was so baffled by the American approach to the long-standing debate. There just weren’t enough defenders of capitalism out there because too many executives were staring at the boobies of their secretaries—instead of on the next great idea and how to free the minds of mankind to unleash the power of capitalism and the ideals that spring forth from such a culture.
One of the great failures of the human condition is the personal desire to control other people through manipulation, social titles, and just sheer domination. Anyone who has worked in an environment where other people were constantly in interaction, they have witnessed this desire for control over others in all its dysfunction. Control is essentially the primary reason for the governments’ desire for gun control over its population. It is also the primary reason Obama through the FCC wants control of the internet through Net Neutrality. The control desired isn’t anything needed, but is only to satisfy the egos of bureaucrats and their lust to have the kind of control over others that they can’t get in their personal lives. If the root cause of the human desire for control is analyzed in most situations it will be found nearly 100% of the time that those who desire control over others most are those least secure about how to guide their own lives from moment to moment.
Often control is disguised to be seen as a helpful measure. An insecure parent might desire to control the finances of their children so to keep them close—so not to leave them vulnerable to social judgment which might otherwise be noticed. A boss might desire to control an employee they know is superior to them by crafting mundane procedures to wear down the challenging individual in hopes that the tasks will hone down ambition so corporate superiors might not notice. And the government at all levels–from the local zoning board all the way up to President of the United States can’t resist controlling other people through rules and regulations. For the political employee it is difficult to resist when power is confiscated through government mechanisms and provided to the desk of a bureaucrat the means to sort through and re-distribute the fruits of productivity to those they deem worthy. For the zoning administrator the rich land owner who wants to build a new garage will have to pay more and grease many more wheels to get approval than the hot young blond who wants to build a deck to sun bath upon. When the rights of others must be filtered through some government bureaucrat abuse through control is a common occurrence.
It is because of this human frailty desiring control over others that economies struggle and do not reach their full potential. It is also why there is much resistance to laissez-fairecapitalism as opposed to socialism, communism, or some mixture of those ideas, especially by the political left. If the mind of those who call themselves democrats is analyzed correctly, it will be discovered that deep down inside they typically have serious personal control insecurities—which is why they are Democrats to begin with. Those who lean liberal tend to be insecure with themselves and desire to use re-distribution of resources through politics as a means to inflate their personal power over others. This was never more apparent than in the 1990s when then President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to hide their human frailties behind economic policies that pretended to support capitalism, only with a new spin on the type of socialism that control addicts desire most. They called it “The Third Way.”
In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly”.[5] Blair referred to it as “social-ism” that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a “new capitalism”.[8]
In other words, the Third Way is identical to the corporate boss who is technically incompetent who steals the ideas of a superior minded employee so to impress their bosses when performance reviews are requested to drive up job security. Government has recognized that socialism and communism tend to rob people of initiative, so they give the illusion of capitalism so that the work excess produced can then be stolen and re-distributed to their political supporters to keep them in power. So essentially the Third Way is socialism without the title designed to hide the intentions toward control. It would be equivalent to the jealous husband who won’t let his wife drive a car under abusive circumstances—afraid she might find a better lover—by telling her that driving is dangerous and that he loves her so much that he doesn’t want her to get hurt. That is the essence of the Third Way economy patterns so prevalent today, introduced by progressives like Bill Clinton and heavily supported by open socialists like Barack Obama.
The point of this article is to illustrate what is really going on behind Net Neutrality. Under the current policy of Internet regulation and creativity, it is essentially a model of laissez-fairecapitalism. Products are bought and sold rapidly in great number because there is an incentive to make money—so a very diverse number of products are available to consumers at a wide range of prices driven by competition. Government regulation hardly exists on the Internet and this has allowed a market sector to flourish—much the way the economy in America did during the 1920s, and 1980s under presidents Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Communists and socialists however have had their presidents elected in most of the other periods and the result has been lackluster economic growth—except for the advent of the Internet. At the heart of the desire for Net Neutrality is the desire to control the economy and the people who make it up.
There is no problem with the Internet, there is no unfairness. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail on the Internet because of its limitless creative options. It has regulated itself through competition the way laissez-fairecapitalism tends to anywhere it is utilized without controls imposed upon it by weak-willed personalities. Net Neutrality is all about control over others. That need for control is built on inner insecurities by lesser individuals who want to appear as equal or even superior to their betters. With Net Neutrality weak people who know they can’t compete in life need the protection of government so that they can feel equal to everyone else. Under open market capitalism, they can’t, so they must sabotage the successful so that they can feel equal. That is what is called “social justice.”
Net Neutrality is all about control and insecurity. It’s about a government that is useless trying to make itself relevant with “social justice” by stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy. It is just another version of the Third Way. It’s a scam—just like most things in government are. It’s an attack on laissez-fairecapitalism. It’s all about control from inferior minds over superior ones in the only way that such an arrangement can occur—through manipulation, emotion, and a promise of security from illusionary concerns. Net Neutrality is a false argument against freedom by a lying government for the sole purpose of convincing the strong to give up their rights to the weak so that social justice through the Third Way of compromise can occur—which is nothing more than a way to hide the inadequacies of failed personalities from the realities they’d otherwise make for themselves.
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
I occasionally discuss false flags created by governments and organizations to induce a given social reaction. I don’t believe everything is a conspiracy theory, or a false flag but I am extremely distrustful of conglomerations of people when they are trying “collectively” to get something done. I read the work of Friedrich Nietzsche at a very young age and his view of the individual versus the collective—such as the phrase above—have become a fundamental part of the way I view the world largely because I have been able to confirm the results with experience. For instance, a few years ago the public school in my home district of Lakota was demanding a tax increase on property values. One of their reasons for asking for more money was to make the school safer because of the recent school shootings—like the Sandy Hook incident. Conveniently a shooting spree threat was found a few days before the election in the girl’s bathroom of the high school inciting panic throughout the district. CLICK TO REVIEW. The tax was won in favor of the increase by approximately a 1% swing. Likely a radicalized teacher union member left the note, but nobody will ever be able to prove it even though there were cameras and witnesses—the investigation never turned up an arrest of any kind. After the election, the issue was just dropped and within a few weeks—everyone forgot about it. That would be an instance of a likely false flag operation by an organization that needed to swing votes in their favor for a collective cause.
There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes. Below is a list of several that are now far enough into the past that they can be looked at honestly. Many modern false flags still have too much political weight to them, so any analysis is still decades off—and likely history will view our current time as being filled with them. False flags are natural by-products of collectivism and such philosophy is taught in our public schools so groups of people as Nietzsche said—are quick to lend their support. In the following list, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to their part in a false flag endeavor, either orally or in writing. Pay close attention and then consider if any such action is likely in the modern context.
Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army .
A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings.
Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
A S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers). (I don’t completely agree with the cause, but there was certainly foul play involved)
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers.
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
Very interesting isn’t it? Now—after watching Brian Williams fall from grace and knowing what you do now dear reader—how many false flags can you name in your neighborhood? I bet you can find enough to fill a lengthy list. Now, imagine how many there are at the state and federal level. Think about that the next time you vote—and before you fall for the contents of the next sappy news story.
