Corrupt News

Middle Class And Farmers Lose, Rich Business Elite Wins

Alex Birch — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:10:24 -0700

To get a glimpse of how "equal" our society is, check out the latest news on US food prices:

U.S. consumers should brace for the biggest increase in food prices in nearly 20 years in 2008 and even more pain next year due to surging meat and produce prices, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday.

Food prices are forecast to rise by 5 percent to 6 percent this year, making it the largest annual increase since 1990. Just last month, USDA forecast food prices would climb between 4.5 and 5.5 percent in 2008.

This means the economy for the middle class in America is going to be under even more strain this and next year. The segment of society that basically keeps it alive is currently being wiped out. Quoting from the same article, not even the farmers are gaining anything on the rising food prices:

Farmers get 20 cents of the food dollar and the rest goes to processing, labor, transportation and distribution.

20 cents! And the rest is basically a product of the centralized city-states we've built over time, now swallowing up the resources that we would be able to reduce to a minimum cost in a local society. We pay for the transportation, we pay for the third party distributors, and we pay for the industrial processing to make the food seem fresh and eatable. The whole food industry is built around a globalist design where large industries profit from what hard-working farmers and middle class consumers create. Therefore it doesn't take a genius to understand which segment of society that's benefiting from this system:

The most striking trend in the distribution of income over the past decade, as Toynbee and Walker show, has been a spectacular improvement in the financial fortunes of a small minority at the top of the scale.

Those in the top 1 per cent have seen their income rise by half as much again as the average earner. There are now some 50,000 earning over £500,000, twice the number as a few years ago: a group now called the "super rich".

The question is whether this matters as much as the authors protest. It certainly matters if the rich use offshore funds and non-domicile status to avoid paying tax to the tune of at least £12 billion a year - it is hard to disagree with Toynbee and Walker's call to tighten up tax laws.

The top 1 per cent in our society are the people who manage this bureaucratic machine and turns it into a weapon for power and wealth. Most of them became rich because they were ambitious enough to get ahead of others in the class race and built a fortune on economic speculation, multi-national marketing of mass consumer goods, or by becoming a middle-hand between the producers and consumers of those goods and services.

That's why farmers aren't in control. They've been bought up and are currently working under tough circumstances to survive on their work, just like middle class people are working themselves to death, while only receiving a small portion of wealth in comparison to the work they perform. The bosses make the big bucks, because they own the jobs and they own the industry. This is the nature of our master-slave society, where we turn economic exploitation into an ideological lifestyle.

Return of the Ancient

Alex Birch — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:42:20 -0700

Women in Turkey have been returning to 2,500-year-old fashions, as bracelets, earrings and other accessories styled after pieces in the Iron Age section of the Antalya Archeology Museum grow more popular by the day.

Corc Bozkurt (68), who has been a jewelry designer for 55 years, says most of the orders he has been getting recently have been for imitations of Iron Age accessories. There is strong demand for bracelets and rings in particular, he adds. "There has been a return to the fashions of antiquity. The new styles in jewelry design actually date back thousands of years. I always take older jewelry as examples for my new designs." He said depending on the craftsmanship, the prices of the accessories sold in his store range from YTL 5 to YTL 300. He added that they are also very popular among foreign tourists visiting the region.

The past is alive. While we cannot go back in time, we can use the knowledge and spirit of the Ancients to express our culture from a modern perspective. Tradition is timeless. Just like this Turkish jewelry designer is using Iron Age accessories as a template for his work today, the knowledge and experience gathered by our ancestors are finding new life by melting with the current time frame, touching at the eternal. An interesting example of this:

Japanese scientists will next month look into seismic resistance secrets in the design of the 2,500-year-old Parthenon which has withstood scores of quakes, a senior Greek archaeologist said on Friday.

"The Parthenon had great resilience to earthquakes, as did most classical Greek temples," Maria Ioannidou, the archeologist in charge of conservation on the ancient Acropolis citadel where the Parthenon stands, told AFP.

"The ancient Greeks apparently had very good knowledge of quake behaviour and excellent construction quality," she added.

We like to think we're the height of humanity, but as soon as we begin to ponder the greatness of past civilizations such as Ancient Greece, we slowly come to terms with the reality: history doesn't linearly strive towards greatness. It runs in cycles. If we create great art today, then so did Renaissance Italy. If we build great roads today, then so did Rome. If we construct great buildings today, then so did Ancient Greece. If we believe we're that great, we need to demonstrate that in culture, spirit and common achievements. Understanding the past civilizations and putting their ideas into practice is the gateway to rise from the ashes to the stars.

The Death of the Western Civil Order

Alex Birch — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:41:27 -0700

One of my ambitions this summer is to try not to see even the tiniest glimpse of Olympics coverage on TV. This isn’t mainly a protest about how boring athletics are generally; or about China’s human rights record. It’s more that my hatred of the modern world has risen to such a pitch that I’m now trying to dissociate myself from anything that smacks too scarily of the future.

China is definitely one of those things. Call me reactionary, call me racist, but I just can’t bear the idea that, after centuries of Anglo–European, Judaeo–Christian global hegemony, we’re soon going to have to cede economic and cultural place to these people who don’t think like us, share none of our values and for whom pretty much everything we’ve achieved from Aristotle onwards is a total irrelevance. I feel rather as the citizens of Rome must have done in 410 as they watched Alaric’s Visigoths gathering at the gates: ‘Why our generation? Why couldn’t it have lasted a few more centuries so some other poor saps as yet unborn could take the rap instead?’

"Why couldn’t it have lasted a few more centuries so some other poor saps as yet unborn could take the rap instead?" Because our civilization decided it was more important to turn the civil order up-side-down and promote the socially aggressive loud-mouths to power. If you think about it, only idiots are currently in the spotlight. The shameless TV and radio hosts, the artistically worthless and commercial musicians, the leftist-oriented and dogmatic academics, the puppet leaders in politics, and the hollow idols on TV who get to become stars for a month, because they managed to sell their soul at the highest bidding.

When a society replaces communitarian values that recognize the social order as an organism, and citizens as part of that organism, with the idea that self-marketing is more important than striving for a goal that includes common good, it slowly decays from within and fades out while the voices of media whores drown out any sanity and social cohesion. Institutionalized individualism destroys civil order and takes many forms, broken family life being one example:

One likes to think of oneself as outside the herd, an exception to the rules of demographics, trends and polls, but every so often one comes across a survey from whose bonds it is impossible to be extricated. Yup, you say to yourself when you look at it, that's me. Bang to rights.

In this case, it is the news that British families spend, on average, 34 minutes a day shouting at each other. Some 35% of households shout for about an hour a day, rising to 50% of households if those households have more than one child.

Shout all you want, it will only add to the frustration, both among parents and children. We're so busy getting our own voice heard that we forget we're a biological and spiritual team, and supposed to be working together. But when you feel you've got nothing to work for, why bother lending a hand at all? Some of this an unfortunate by-product of our welfare state, where material comfort has decreased the dependency on community culture, but as the social layer of our society is slowly falling apart, even the most basic of aspects to civilized human existence (family life, private economy, work culture, civil responsibility) will rapidly deteriorate.

Don't get dragged into this social chaos. Let idiots confuse themselves while you work with the like-minded and intelligent people with whom you share the same values and outlook on life. Together we can turn this around, inside the system, without declaring any violent revolution or shout our ears deaf. We need sanity and civil order back, and the actions you do in every day life contribute to spread social awareness of the fact that a better lifestyle is possible.

Fly on Spider: How Fear of Greatness Makes Us Jerks

Brett Stevens — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:55:02 -0700

Nine-year-old Jericho Scott is a good baseball player — too good, it turns out.

The right-hander has a fastball that tops out at about 40 mph. He throws so hard that the Youth Baseball League of New Haven told his coach that the boy could not pitch any more. When Jericho took the mound anyway last week, the opposing team forfeited the game, packed its gear and left, his coach said.

Officials for the three-year-old league, which has eight teams and about 100 players, said they will disband Jericho's team, redistributing its players among other squads, and offered to refund $50 sign-up fees to anyone who asks for it. They say Jericho's coach, Wilfred Vidro, has resigned.

But Vidro says he didn't quit and the team refuses to disband.

In this life, you either rise above by creating something new -- an ability, a work of art, a machine, a civilization -- or you find yourself in the bad position of trying to push others down so you feel like you're rising.

But in this universe where relativity reigns, you only feel the motion of rising, because you're still relative to the rest of your environment, which is being pushed backward by time. You rose relative to where you were, but that sank as time passed. So you achieve nothing.

In this case, a star pitcher is too good, so the others -- who want their kids to shine at something -- act to de-legitimize his participation instead of accepting his greatness. It's like a fly elated at the corpse of a spider, glad for the petty revenge it can take against its erstwhile master.

More than any political reality, this demographic and psychological reality commands human beings. We fight for status. The smart do it by getting good at something, even if it's not Little League, and the fearful do it by destroying the best hopes of their generation.

Compare it to this short story, Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut:

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
...
Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
...
“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.

We either rise to excellence, or we reduce others. Equality is a naive notion, indeed; so is the idea that we can have a life of peace without struggle, because even if we don't struggle against each other, we are struggling against time and our own limitations, hoping to exceed them.

When we push others down, we feel like we're rising, but if the camera pans out and we see the whole scene, we realize that we got nowhere, and we damaged a hope for all of us collectively through the greatness of another.

In this life, we either take our own perspective as absolute and so become prone to wanting to tear down others, or we accept that we are each but a small part of this world, and we must work and take risks to get anything in it. Nothing is owed to us. We are unequal by birth, unequal in aptitude, and there are no guarantees of fairness regarding the results, but unlike individuals, the world around us never becomes neurotic and delusional. It is consistent, and so gives us the basis by which we can struggle for excellence.

If we do not, we relapse inward and become addicted to changing appearance not reality:

“It used to be that photographs provided documentary evidence, and there was something sacrosanct about that,” said Chris Johnson, a photography professor at California College of the Arts in the Bay Area.

If you wanted to remove an ex from an old snapshot, you had to use a Bic pen or pinking shears. But in the digital age, people treat photos like mash-ups in music, combining various elements to form a more pleasing whole.

“What we’re doing,” Mr. Johnson said, “is fulfilling the wish that all of us have to make reality to our liking.”

Editing a photograph seems like a simple act, but as we get accustomed to being able to do it, our tendency is to try to alter the way reality appears to us so that we feel better about ourselves, instead of going out there and making change so that reality is better to us.

It even has political implications, as our friends Kraftwerk remind us:

Interpol and KGB
Control the data
Memory

The GM Food Debate: More People Or More Sanity?

Alex Birch — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:18:36 -0700

The debate around industrial agriculture and GM crops is now reaching a culmination in the media. Famous people either speak against industrial farming and lose points in the media for doing it, or promote it as the solution to all of our problems, which scores high among lobbyists and food corporations. One gent who recently took sides and was later flamed for it, was Prince Charles:

In a statement setting the Prince against politicians who believe GM foods will be crucial to feeding under-nourished populations in the developing world, he said: "What we should be talking about is food security, not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand."

His belief was backed up by Mike Childs, the campaign director for Friends of the Earth. "GM crops will not solve the food crisis - and forging ahead with an industrialised farming system will continue to fail people and the environment around the world," Mr Childs said.

"If we go down this path I think we will put this country at risk. There could be a period of great difficulty in the next 10 or 20 years," Mr Holden said. "No evidence has emerged from the first round of GM crops of any public benefits. They have actually increased pesticide use in the farms that have used them."

Corrupt has previously documented the arguments for GM crops made by its proponents and exposed them as poor excuses for large industrial complexes to overthrow our national food supplies and turning them into a geopolitical weapon. Columnists such as this one are simply confused people who, without knowing it, promote more industrial totalitarianism under the food corporations:

It is an indictment of our society that, despite huge scientific advances in the last century, particularly in the production of food, millions of people, perhaps hundreds of millions, do not get enough to eat. The principal culprit is the Green movement, in its many species or fanaticisms. The Prince of Wales, who might be described as the most prominent Green man, has recently drawn attention to the destructive power of his ideology by attacking the growing of genetically modified crops, perhaps the largest step forward ever taken by mankind to reduce the cost of basic foodstuffs, and to increase their production and worldwide availability. I imagine if the Greens had lived in the 18th century they would have attacked the innovators who launched the agricultural revolution in England, which preceded the industrial one later in the century, and prevented mass starvation and chronic famine when the population rose sharply at the same time.

This columnist misses out on the essential, which is that we cannot possibly feed the entire world population (6,7+ billion, and growing) with food, with or without GM crops, and therefore it's a poor argument to force the third world into a dependence relationship upon Western industrial food powers to survive the day. Food may have become cheaper to produce, but we're also left with more pesticide, increased health risks, and a centralization of food production, which leads us back into the hamster wheelof globalization. But in the world of liberal humanism, all that matters is the moral choice of the dominant paradigm: I said what the Man told me to say.

The gap between our moral paradigm and reality is left wide open, and only clear-minded individuals recognize that we need to change our morals so that they fit in with realistic expectations of how to solve the fundamental environmental problems we face today (not the other way around: trying to impose our neurotic moral fantasies upon reality, for the sake of escaping the illnesses of the world and appear hip among social circles). Here's one man who has figured this out and is teaching a new generation of Americans to pay attention to the real world again:

More people and same amount of resources don't add up in the long run. Although he doesn't outright say it, we all know what he would like to say: we need some war and famine to reduce the number of useless people on this planet. In fact, we might welcome some chaos in the world, because it would disrupt our moral hypocrisy and force us to reconsider a different path for our civilization. Just like Russia provoked us into remembering what happens when you leave a boiling pan on the stove for too long, nature's own work of destruction is going to become the next wake-up call. And considering the situation today, we might just need it.

South African Pagans Outraged Over Witchcraft Story

Martin Regnen — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:24:18 -0700

This story from Mozambique seems like a funny tabloid tale of weird superstition. However, take a look at the second half of the article which is a response from the South African Pagan Rights Alliance published "in the interests of presenting all sides of the story". Note the demands and the language. One might expect the South African Pagan Rights Alliance to guard and protect African religion and culture, but unfortunately they sound exactly like generic Western activists. Is this what decolonization, democracy, aid programs and education in Western universities have done to Africa's pagans? Is there no one left to stand up for local traditions without sounding like the ACLU or SPLC?

I suppose it could be worse - the SPLC would officially designate the Mozambique association of traditional healers a "hate group" while they're at it. Also, the language isn't as passive or convoluted as the protest letter which University of Chicago faculty wrote opposing the Milton Friedman Institute and which John Cochrane nicely dissected, but it is clear where these people get not only their way of thinking but also their style of writing. Give them a few more years and they will probably sound like the most advanced Western progressives of today.

Perhaps the Mozambique association of traditional healers is not Western in its thinking, tone and purpose and perhaps there are others who still stand up for Africa's traditions in ways which aren't directly opposed to all tradition. Still, finding out that the South African Pagan Rights Alliance acts and sounds like this did not brighten my day. This may not be the most harmful facet of the global spread of progressive ideology but it is one of the more depressing.

Pleasant Illusions and Difficult Realities

Brett Stevens — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:15:59 -0700

Pleasant Illusions are easy answers. PIs don't require you to change your life, just to pick a better institution or product or idea and it magically makes everything better.

Difficult Realities are those hard facts of life that we must confront in ourselves and the world. DRs mean we have to actually get out of our comfortable chairs, work together and find real solutions, and that not everyone will be happy so there might be some struggle.

It's an eternal human tendency to want PIs instead of DRs, because we're busy leading our own lives. Don't rock the boat, at least before my investment portfolio comes in. Don't do anything that might alienate any of my customers. Don't make the underlings mad, or upset our corporate overlords.

It seems to me that if you post a Pleasant Illusion, many people sigh and think wouldn't that be nice, and click it, but DRs get voted down as quickly as possible. Is it any wonder our human problems change form but never go away, if we're unwilling to face them?

This -- from a comment attack on Reddit -- about says it all.

How We Raped Our Women

Brett Stevens — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:08:18 -0700

But can domesticity ever really be subversive? Self-proclaimed "domestic artist" Jane Brocket believes that in this day and age it has unwittingly become a provocative act. She produces a cult blog, Yarnstorm, which covers cooking, sewing and knitting, and attracts 50,000 hits a week. "Anything which is very personal and behind closed doors and pleasurable for women is subversive these days," she says wryly.

But it is this frisson of the taboo that appeals to a new generation of young women, who seem to love the novelty of baking and dressing up in aprons. Jazz D Holly, 24, an aspiring playwright from east London, is the president of the Shoreditch Sisters, the youngest branch of the Women's Institute, which has 20 members who meet regularly to swap recipes and knitting patterns. For her, domesticity is about rebellion: "I think it is a reaction to 1990s ladette culture and the sense of androgyny around that. I don't like the idea that we are exactly the same as men. I think it is damaging to women's self-respect."

In Holly's case it is also a personal stance. "My parents were punks," - her father was Joe Strummer of the Clash -"so I had a chaotic childhood. You try to be subversive by not doing what your parents did. It was not rebellious for me to go out drinking and taking drugs because that was what my parents did. I've always been fascinated by knowing how to knit but I had to learn it from my great-grandmother because my mother did not do anything like that and my grandmother was part of the whole 1960s women's lib thing."

Naturally, the two sides line up for this one so they can poison it with uselessness.

The left is set to be outraged that women are oppressed by not having the exact same role as men. After all, the left is a revenge movement by the clueless, who use their greater numbers to force/guilt others into handing them things they didn't earn.

The right is set to claim that this is a return to the 1950s, and that our current oblivious course is just fine, because the right is the party of business owners who are trying to keep the left off of their asses. The right believes that if we just let the market take care of things, and cut our costs to the bone, the good people will send their kids to private school and it will all be OK. It is more realistic than the left, but still enables degeneration.

As I see it, the truth of the matter is what women in the article said: they have become displaced from a role that only they can fill, and they're tired of feeling like generic human beings.

Their mothers and grandmothers, believing it to be The Right Thing to Do, worked hard to tear down those social roles. But then they realized they were office fodder like everyone else, and now, the competition has increased massively, so it's sink or work yourself to the bone 80 hours a week for some stupid job in order to have enough cash to be a single woman out of the ghetto.

And we all know where that ends:

"Society says you're old and dried up by the time you've turned 40, and it's such horseshit," Capps says. "We need to celebrate women taking control of their sexual desires. Nobody's getting hurt in these relationships — and shhhh, nobody's gonna tell."
...
She tells Unreal she dated a 21-year-old for two years intermittently while diddling other young studs. One of the more memorable occasions transpired when an eighteen-year-old and a nineteen-year-old helped her move. "They came up with a plan to tag-team me," she recounts. "I said, 'Let's just do it one after the other.'"
...
"I think it comes down to women who wanted it both ways, with careers and families — they got their careers and now they don't have kids. All the men their age want to date younger women, and they're looking around and going, 'You know what, the young guys want it: Why not?'"

Classy. Hide your empty, childless, familyless, successless life by going out and banging clueless younger males. It has all of the elegance of a drive-thru.

Our society rapes women two ways. First, on the right, it makes them possessions. Traditional society didn't do this. Only after liberals challenge traditional society did the right-wing emerge, and their response was more control through money. That didn't work, as history shows us. Second, on the left, society makes women generic and assumes they will be satisfied with the lowest-common denominator, with no awareness of time. "Here. Have an office job, a string of dongs, and some Betty Friedan pamphlets. Now You Are Whole!"

If you want to ensure that your daughter will never run away and have a family, molest her. She will spend the next forty years trying to figure out why she's neurotic.

Society does basically the same thing. Given a choice between being good capitalist possessions, and being dropouts, women opt for dropout, and only find out when they're 48 that they didn't want to be family-less, child-less, generic careerist whores. (Don't worry, feminists -- we'll note in a later article how the same happens to men, with the usual twists required for males to adopt anything.)

After their first fifteen failed relationships, well, why not trying whoring? At least it passes the time, and distracts from those empty, negative, subservient lives.

Has feminism freed women? Hardly. It has made them labor and taken away their sacred roles in families.

Good is Evil Unless You Don't Believe in Good

Brett Stevens — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:34:14 -0700

We love the illusion that any action can be Pure Good. It's hard to get any agreement on complex moral arguments, so it's best if we stick to illusion. One of our favorite ideals is love and friendship. This, we reason, must be Pure Good.

But when you think about it, there's an evil side to love and friendship.

To pick a lover or a friend is to rank them above others, which in our relativistic universe has the side effect of deprecating the importance of others. "Me and my friends passed this starving guy, this insane person, ten thousand former valedictorians on meth, and a cheer squad getting gang raped by a prison work detail, then we got ice cream." Even if we don't walk past them, we don't see them. We have found a goal.

While to our minds -- steeped in the positivist illusions of mass media whose only goal is to sell us products we don't need -- try to wrap ourselves around how this could be good, consider this: life is better when we focus on a positive goal, instead of a negative one. There will always be suffering, somewhere. But to build better things apart from the suffering is more important than plaguing ourselves by it.

Those who fear this kind of independence, which is the real kind, not the kind you have to have granted to you by some government, are going to call you an elitist. They'll call you a Social Darwinist, a callous person, a Troll and other bad names. What they won't do is tell you how you're wrong, on your terms. They'll repeat insults at you and frown at how you've left behind the herd and their politically-fortunate belief in Pure Good.

Worrying about the suffering of others is like trying to make yourself rise in life by putting down others. You're fighting negatives with negatives, and the result is that you get nowhere, because in our relativistic universe time is like a current pulling everything into nothingness, and the only success is to push forward. Past "Pure Good," apparently.

Bill Clinton, Moron

Brett Stevens — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:02:25 -0700

Now that every talking head in the world is blaming George W. Bush for all of the world's problems, it's time to turn our focus back to a more popular leader who, as time has gone on, has proven himself to be a moron. He did what was popular at the time, but with the wisdom of having seen these works play out over the years, we can now see what he actually did was evade Difficult Realities in favor of Pleasant Illusions.

Russia. On his watch, Russia collapsed. What does everyone want to hear? "You don't have to worry any more." What's the Difficult Reality? This is now a rogue state looking to recapture past glory. Not only does that evoke comparisons to the interim between world wars, BUT we're also talking about a place that has upset the balance of European politics for some time, and a state that has been friendly with the Chinese when they were busy attacking us. Clinton could have used his considerable power to further destabilize Russia, and to take internal control by buying out the nation. He did nothing but smile and wave.

The dot-com boom. What's this new thing, the internet -- people are buying the heck out of it. What's the Pleasant Illusion? That money is free, and if people want to blow it on crazy stuff and radically inflate its value, why, go ahead. The Difficult Reality is that to inflate the value of something beyond the market means the market needs to readjust, as it did in 2000-2001. Luckily, we had a new guy to blame for that.

Race. Bill Clinton made race and racial reconciliation a central part of his campaign. Tired of riots in Los Angeles, and racial killings elsewhere, American voters made him popular because they liked the Pleasant Illusion that they could make racial unrest just go away. Problem: racial unrest increased as we went from four ethnic groups (whites, blacks, Latinos, American Indians) to many more. Further, the roots of racial resentment weren't addressed by Bill's preachy and emotional surface treatments. The result was a simmering time bomb that exploded after September 11.

Environment. Wasn't Bill the Environment President, too? But when we look back, most of his environmental actions involved highly symbolic defenses of wildlife refuges, which are good, but served to distract us from the broader problems of limiting pollution, limiting landfill, and finding new sources of clean energy. Instead, he passed the buck on this too.

We're not "left" or "right" here at CORRUPT -- we believe that artificial division is the result of corruption itself, and that neither wing is going to offer much of hope. However, we are against all lies and deceptions, and most of all, opposed to blatant stupidity. Bill Clinton is less of a hero now that his wife and he crossed the Obamachrist, but he was still held up as our ideal of a President, even though he left us more than these four ticking time bombs.

We've said it before and we'll say it again: most voters are misinformed, and will use their Freedom to vote for Pleasant Illusions, which is convenient for those who want to corrupt and manipulate the nation because most people are easy to fool since their attention span is about two weeks. Consider this whenever you hear the radical proclamations of media figures, protestors and pundits in the coming weeks.