Why I Love The Us - Life Is Too Easy Here!

[Anonymouse]

I was just thinking that. No matter how Shahan would like to believe that he's a free man, he's the exact opposite of free. He's allowed himself to succumb to the various conspiracy theories, which in itself shows that he's no longer a free man.

 

I want to point out that it's not the problem with adhering to or prescribing to certain conspiratorial views, but the problem is one of evidence and proof to corroborate and verify the cohesiveness of ones paradigm. A paradigm based on nothing much other than what you want things to be, is not much of a worthy paradigm or world view.

 

Conspiracy is recognized in all legal systems and it's a legitimate concept of law. In modern usage it has gathered a more pejorative tone, and is often applied dismissively when assertions are made that powerful or influential individuals consciously plot and plan in secrecy. You will note that this is exactly what goes on, as the sole tissue that connects most of what we call government, is conducted in secrecy. The problem is one of proofs, not the nature of the crime.

[Sip]

By the way Sip, the guys who own Argo Tea are my cousins best friends. I happen to have some Red Tea and Raspberry Tea as we speak! Damn that stuff is good!

 

No kidding? Now if you say your cousin's name is "Hovo" then I'll be really amazed. Because I know them through a guy named Hovo who is very good friends with them

[Anonymouse]

No kidding? Now if you say your cousin's name is "Hovo" then I'll be really amazed. Because I know them through a guy named Hovo who is very good friends with them

 

Yes, my cousin's name is Hovo. Haha. Small world, eh?

[Shahan Araradian]

First, you make a bold claim that the media (including TV Shows & other "entertainment") produce American culture. Do you have any evidence of this other than a mere assertion? It can just as well be stated that the television shows and entertainment are nothing more than a reflection of Americans' values, and not the other way around. After all, in order for something to be successful there has to be a market for it, i.e. supply must meet demand. It's a basic principle of economics, and that you do not understand this and make such erroneous statements that these TV shows "produce culture" is indicative of your economic ignorance my friend. As horrible as the show Friends was, it appealed to a large cross section of the white liberals who made the show popular. And why is it that shows get canceled in the first place? Lack of ratings. Wow, that's some culture producing power right there!

 

Second, you state that the media produced the justifications for going to war in Iraq. While the media is no innocent darling in America, and no sane mind listens to Faux Snooze or CNN, the media merely supports what it gets from the official insiders and administration hacks. In that sense, the media is guilty for collusion, but not for fabricating the lies. They originate from the politicians and planners and senior analysts and think tanks, etc.

Let me refer you to the following book for evidence of my claim:

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

 

Alternatively, you may watch the documentary video of similar title:

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

 

Third, your assertion that migrant workers are slaves is another leftist-socialist-Marxist cliche. There is nothing to indicate that and you have not proven they are slaves by merely stating they are. You do not describe the way things are, but the way things ought to be, and it's similar to Marxism. Things ought to be a certain way in order to come out with a validated theory, or world view or paradigm.

These so-called "migrant-workers" have no citizenships, have no voting rights, and don't even get paid minimum wage. They are being kept in the U.S. because politicians and businesspeople know that without them the service industry in the U.S. would collapse.

 

Hence my claim that migrant workers from Latin America (and possible from other places like China) are de-facto slaves right here in the U.S.

 

Lastly, Americans are debt slaves because of a fraudulent institution known as the Federal Reserve and the fractional reserve banking system. There is nothing just about it and it is a scam. By allowing people access to cheap and easy credit, people naturally take it. What is cheap or free is always going to be abused. The grossest example of this is all things that are publicly owned, such as freeways. Because they are publicly owned (which I am guessing you're an advocate of judging from your leftist-socialist views), there are abuses and overuse, i.e. tragedy of the commons.

Borrowing money is not cheap (let alone free)! If you borrow 1 dollar over 30 years, you end up paying $2.4 dollars in the end assuming 7% interest. How is that "cheap" or "free"?

 

Example of the freeway is non-sensical; the reason that many U.S. cities (esp L.A.) lack urban planning is to keep real estate values high. Real estate values are kept high by creating a massive "village" of 2-3 story housing, instead of residential high-rises. Control the supply to keep the prices high; it's just like diamond industry, one of the biggest sham industries that's convinced 99% of the population to place a $5,000 rock on their ring every time they get married. And since "diamonds are forever" there's no secondary market for diamonds... Meanwhile, diamond mines are overflowing with diamonds, but the one or two companies who own all the diamond mines don't issue them out to keep supply on the market low and prices high...

Edited August 28, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[Shahan Araradian]

Shahan, you have GOT to stop watching TV.

Did I not mention I don't watch TV?

[Shahan Araradian]

I'd suggest you take a round trip drive from SF Bay to New York City. Allocate maybe 4 weeks ... spend a couple of days in different cities ranging from small to medium.

I prefer to take a trip to India if I want to learn about humanity.

[Yervant1]

I prefer to take a trip to India if I want to learn about humanity.

Why? Do you want to learn the Indian cast system, don't forget the "Untouchables".

I forget how many layers was that?

[Anonymouse]

Let me refer you to the following book for evidence of my claim:

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

 

Alternatively, you may watch the documentary video of similar title:

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

 

I have heard of Chomsky and I have read and heard of many of his works, including this one. However, you are missing two things: 1) I never denied that the media can alter or have an effect on public opinion or public perception. So in that sense, you are shadow boxing as this is not even a legitimate issue at contention. 2) I have claimed that the medias influence on public consciousness is not all pervasive and all influencing, whereas you are. I have asked for evidence of your absolutist claim. You have not offered any. Instead, you have offered links to Chomsky's work, which albeit very informative, does not reach an absolute verdict, since one of your specific claims was how American shows produce culture, aside from how the media influences public perception on foreign policy. So what happened to your claim that American shows produce American culture? I don't seem to recall Chomsky every addressing this distinctly, and neither he nor you have offered evidence of this nor explained why certain shows get "canned" for lack of ratings. It's interesting how you have quietly dropped one of your claims to the sidelines hoping it won't get noticed by burring it under the giant issue of how the media manufactures consent.

 

These so-called "migrant-workers" have no citizenships, have no voting rights, and don't even get paid minimum wage. They are being kept in the U.S. because politicians and businesspeople know that without them the service industry in the U.S. would collapse.

 

Hence my claim that migrant workers from Latin America (and possible from other places like China) are de-facto slaves right here in the U.S.

Borrowing money is not cheap (let alone free)! If you borrow 1 dollar over 30 years, you end up paying $2.4 dollars in the end assuming 7% interest. How is that "cheap" or "free"?

 

There is no evidence here that migrant workers are slaves. What we have here is a few statements meant to paint a picture of migrant workers as slaves by taking bits and pieces of random factoids and weaving it together to come up with the "proof" of how migrant workers are slaves. But as far as proof required to vindicate your statement, it is lacking. In fact, because of your economic ignorance you actually believe minimum wage is a good thing. The precise reason for many of the unemployment problems and why these migrants are in such bad living or working conditions is because of state laws, like minimum wage laws which create a barrier to entry, and thereby contribute to unemployment or force individuals to resort to these desperate measures. Wages should be determined by the market, just like everything else, not government fiat.

 

Example of the freeway is non-sensical; the reason that many U.S. cities (esp L.A.) lack urban planning is to keep real estate values high. Real estate values are kept high by creating a massive "village" of 2-3 story housing, instead of residential high-rises. Control the supply to keep the prices high; it's just like diamond industry, one of the biggest sham industries that's convinced 99% of the population to place a $5,000 rock on their ring every time they get married. And since "diamonds are forever" there's no secondary market for diamonds... Meanwhile, diamond mines are overflowing with diamonds, but the one or two companies who own all the diamond mines don't issue them out to keep supply on the market low and prices high...

 

Your point above is tangential and irrelevant to the point I was making. My point was in relation to the Federal Reserve system, and in response to the point you were making that America is full of debt slaves. I was explaining the reason for that debt slavery was because of the Federal Reserves policies of cheap and easy accessible credit which fuels these artificial booms and busts, such as the dot.com boom, and more recently the housing bubble. As an analogy, I talked about public choice, such as freeways to make the point that when something is cheaper or easier to access, or hell, free, like the freeway, you have what economists and social scientists call, tragedy of the commons, i.e., a conflict over scarce resources between individual interests and the 'common good.'

 

You have not proven any of your blanket assertions yet. You have made several claims and I have asked verification of these assertions. Nothing yet...

[Shahan Araradian]

I have heard of Chomsky and I have read and heard of many of his works, including this one. However, you are missing two things: 1) I never denied that the media can alter or have an effect on public opinion or public perception. So in that sense, you are shadow boxing as this is not even a legitimate issue at contention. 2) I have claimed that the medias influence on public consciousness is not all pervasive and all influencing, whereas you are. I have asked for evidence of your absolutist claim. You have not offered any. Instead, you have offered links to Chomsky's work, which albeit very informative, does not reach an absolute verdict, since one of your specific claims was how American shows produce culture, aside from how the media influences public perception on foreign policy. So what happened to your claim that American shows produce American culture? I don't seem to recall Chomsky every addressing this distinctly, and neither he nor you have offered evidence of this nor explained why certain shows get "canned" for lack of ratings. It's interesting how you have quietly dropped one of your claims to the sidelines hoping it won't get noticed by burring it under the giant issue of how the media manufactures consent.

No. I stick to my points; haven't dropped anything. Chomsky talks about the EXACT same things. (Indeed the book's title "Manufacturing Consent" means EXACTLY what I'm trying to say: that the media manufactures/PRODUCES American culture and so-called "public opinion" -- everything from what Americans buy to what they "invest" in to how they interact with each other to what they do during their spare time to how they vote and how they see themselves, their country, and other countries/peoples in the world.) It's pointless for me to regurgitate things when someone else has produced academic work on this issue. Watch the documentary video if you don't have time for the book. It's 2 hours 45 mins. You may find it here:

http://www.torrentportal.com/details/12469...%29+VOSTFR.html

 

There is no evidence here that migrant workers are slaves. What we have here is a few statements meant to paint a picture of migrant workers as slaves by taking bits and pieces of random factoids and weaving it together to come up with the "proof" of how migrant workers are slaves. But as far as proof required to vindicate your statement, it is lacking.

Given their lack of rights and living conditions, they qualify as defacto slaves. There's no more proof required. But then again based on your previous posts about Mexicans, you think they are equivalent to robots anyways so it doesn't matter what their quality of life is.

 

In fact, because of your economic ignorance you actually believe minimum wage is a good thing. The precise reason for many of the unemployment problems and why these migrants are in such bad living or working conditions is because of state laws, like minimum wage laws which create a barrier to entry, and thereby contribute to unemployment or force individuals to resort to these desperate measures.

Personal attacks are your modus operandi. Your argument is non-sensical.

 

Wages should be determined by the market, just like everything else, not government fiat.

Have some humanity; not everyone on Earth can be paid a 6 figure salary... And you wouldn't be thinking the same if you were born one of those guys who has to pick strawberries every day or work in a sweatshop. All humans deserve to live in dignity, and you're arguing against federal minimum wage of less than $6 per hour (before taxes)?

 

If you do the numbers, a $62T annual global economy and 6.5 billion humans is on average just under $10K per human per year. With all of this technology that we use for automation, don't you think every human AT LEAST deserve $6 per hour?

 

... But it's difficult for someone to have humanity when he's surrounded by so much inhumanity in the form of Los Angeles where you're from ... So I don't blame you; traffic, smog, over-crowding, concrete megalopolis, bunch of rude people from Armenia, more ethnics, LAPD, Glendale PD, police helicopters, traffic, pollution, cars, gangs, heat wave, overly-materialistic society, Hollywood consumerism... A real hell-hole!

 

Your point above is tangential and irrelevant to the point I was making. My point was in relation to the Federal Reserve system, and in response to the point you were making that America is full of debt slaves. I was explaining the reason for that debt slavery was because of the Federal Reserves policies of cheap and easy accessible credit which fuels these artificial booms and busts, such as the dot.com boom, and more recently the housing bubble.

Dot com boom had nothing to do with the federal reserve. The money that was invested was venture capital, not borrowed capital. You're on the mark, though, re: housing bubble.

 

You have not proven any of your blanket assertions yet. You have made several claims and I have asked verification of these assertions. Nothing yet...

I asked you to read a book or watch a documentary. Those are my backing evidence from an accomplished scholar.

 

It is entirely your choice to educate yourself or remain ignorant.

 

They say ignorance leads to greater happiness though and that's why people like to be lied to and listen to lies instead of like to hear the truth. Lies are kept simple. But the truth is complicated. People don't like complicated things, especially after a day of information overload... The irony is that once most Americans get home, they turn on the tube to be bombarded with even more information...

Edited August 28, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[Anonymouse]

No. I stick to my points; haven't dropped anything. Chomsky talks about the EXACT same things. (Indeed the book's title "Manufacturing Consent" means EXACTLY what I'm trying to say: that the media manufactures/PRODUCES American culture and so-called "public opinion" -- everything from what Americans buy to what they "invest" in to how they interact with each other to what they do during their spare time to how they vote and how they see themselves, their country, and other countries/peoples in the world.) It's pointless for me to regurgitate things when someone else has produced academic work on this issue. Watch the documentary video if you don't have time for the book. It's 2 hours 45 mins. You may find it here:

http://www.torrentportal.com/details/12469...%29+VOSTFR.html

 

How convenient! Just as I thought you'd reply. When called upon to uphold the veracity of your statements, instead what you do now is you fuse the idea of how something like Friends creates culture into the general framework of Chomsky's manufacturing consent. And by the way, having read it, I can tell you, he is talking about foreign policy generally, and domestic policy. It has nothing to do with culture. It is about politics and the political system. You made the bold claim of how the entertainment produces culture. You have not supported any evidence for this claim. And while I have never denied that the media can influence public perception on foreign policy (notice I am leaving the possibility open), you have come out and entirely claimed it is an all-or-nothing deal. Moreover, you have buried your claim that "TV shows & other "entertainment") which manufacture/create American "culture" as well as foreign policy."

 

Do you realize what culture is? Have you bothered to look at the definition of what culture is? To show you the idiocy of your claim we will define culture as Merriam-Webster has:

 

"the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

 

To make the bold claim that the only way that culture as defined above is shaped is through the media is not only Marxian in its effrontery, it is completely devoid of and denies man's free will and individuality; to say nothing more than that man is an automaton, an empty soul, a tabula rasa to be inscribed upon by his puppet masters. This is an epistemological error that Marx committed and which was pointed out by many of the classical and Austrian economists. There is nothing new under the sun here. You have not provided any evidence of this, and nor have I read that Chomsky claimed this "specific mode of media-producing-consciousness". If I have missed anything Chomsky has said, then why don't you point it out? It's been a while since I have had the book from the library in my formative years, but don't you run away or think you can get off the hook by simply referring to a link which is a torrent at that. You have made a bold claim, and like you made a bold claim in the International forum, you have been called upon it, and now you run away.

 

Given their lack of rights and living conditions, they qualify as defacto slaves. There's no more proof required. But then again based on your previous posts about Mexicans, you think they are equivalent to robots anyways so it doesn't matter what their quality of life is.

 

Personal attacks are your modus operandi. Your argument is non-sensical.

 

Have some humanity; not everyone on Earth can be paid a 6 figure salary... And you wouldn't be thinking the same if you were born one of those guys who has to pick strawberries every day or work in a sweatshop. All humans deserve to live in dignity, and you're arguing against federal minimum wage of less than $6 per hour (before taxes)?

 

If you do the numbers, a $62T annual global economy and 6.5 billion humans is on average just under $10K per human per year. With all of this technology that we use for automation, don't you think every human AT LEAST deserve $6 per hour?

 

... But it's difficult for someone to have humanity when he's surrounded by so much inhumanity in the form of Los Angeles where you're from ... So I don't blame you; traffic, smog, over-crowding, concrete megalopolis, bunch of rude people from Armenia, more ethnics, LAPD, Glendale PD, police helicopters, traffic, pollution, cars, gangs, heat wave, overly-materialistic society, Hollywood consumerism... A real hell-hole!

Dot com boom had nothing to do with the federal reserve. The money that was invested was venture capital, not borrowed capital. You're on the mark, though, re: housing bubble.

I asked you to read a book or watch a documentary. Those are my backing evidence from an accomplished scholar.

 

It is entirely your choice to educate yourself or remain ignorant.

 

So this is how you dismiss my argument? You whine about the supposed personal attack (which was actually a fact, you are economically ignorant) and thereby you think you're off the hook? You have not addressed my point about minimum wage laws and how they create more problems than they solve, and in fact, are more harmful to the poor people you claim to protect. Consider these two links:

 

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190c.html

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/3...kes_create.html

 

As Murray Rothbard put it best, "The low wage of migrant farm workers is not a sign that they are "exploited" (whatever that term may mean), but precisely that they are low-skilled and easily replaceable. And anyone who is inclined to weep about their "exploitation" should ask himself why in the world these workers emigrate seasonally from Mexico to the United States to take these jobs. The answer is that it's all relative: what are "low wages" and miserable living conditions for Americans, are high wages and palatial conditions for Mexicans--or, rather, for those unskilled Mexicans who choose to make the trek each season."

 

 

 

They say ignorance leads to greater happiness though and that's why people like to be lied to and listen to lies instead of like to hear the truth. Lies are kept simple. But the truth is complicated. People don't like complicated things, especially after a day of information overload... The irony is that once most Americans get home, they turn on the tube to be bombarded with even more information...

 

Wow, you are so deep and philosophical and esoteric. You and you alone know the truths from the lies and everyone else is an ignoramus. This is a sure way to end any debate, as it really shows and convinces people you are telling the truth, and in fact, know what you are talking about. *taking notes*

Edited August 28, 2007 by Anonymouse

[Boghos]

Anybody that uses Chomsky, the darling of the festive Left, as a source of political analysis cannot be taken seriously.Chomsky writes these books full of self-hatred that are actually no different than the worst tabloids.It appeals to underperfomers and misfits that are so common in the Left.It is not one´s fault if he is a miserable loser but rather the result of a conspiracy.In other words, a paranoid fantasy.

[Shahan Araradian]

Anybody that uses Chomsky, the darling of the festive Left, as a source of political analysis cannot be taken seriously.Chomsky writes these books full of self-hatred that are actually no different than the worst tabloids.It appeals to underperfomers and misfits that are so common in the Left.

HAHAAA!!! Right. So socialists are underperformers and "capitalists" are over-achievers.

 

It is not one´s fault if he is a miserable loser but rather the result of a conspiracy.In other words, a paranoid fantasy.

So you discount the existence of a human social hierarchy? That is laughable...

[Shahan Araradian]

Wow, you are so deep and philosophical and esoteric. You and you alone know the truths from the lies and everyone else is an ignoramus. This is a sure way to end any debate, as it really shows and convinces people you are telling the truth, and in fact, know what you are talking about. *taking notes*

Live and learn

[Anonymouse]

Live and learn

 

So you have nothing else to say? Predictable.

 

By the way, Chomsky is not credible, not because of his foreign policy analysis, which is more often than not, very cogent, but rather, he is not credible because of his economic ignorance and his embrace of socialistic policies.

[Shahan Araradian]

So you have nothing else to say? Predictable.

 

By the way, Chomsky is not credible, not because of his foreign policy analysis, which is more often than not, very cogent, but rather, he is not credible because of his economic ignorance and his embrace of socialistic policies.

I don't like repeating myself; the discerning mind already has the knowledge s/he needs.

[Shahan Araradian]

By the way, Chomsky is not credible, not because of his foreign policy analysis, which is more often than not, very cogent, but rather, he is not credible because of his economic ignorance and his embrace of socialistic policies.

Մուկ these two elements are intertwined; the U.S.'s foreign policy is governed by special interest groups (as Chomsky explains) and the vast majority of these special interest groups are related to the economy, particularly large corporations (controlled and owned mostly by the power elite) not only lobby in Washington but through their advertisements and control over the media shape American society from spending habits, to voting habits (e.g. the ridiculousness of making people think that two political parties can represent 300M people), to manufacturing their culture and even their personalities.

 

In the case of the war in Iraq and the bogus/manufactured "war on terrorism", the special interest groups were:

1) Fossil fuel companies, who wanted more control of the oil in Iraq and the gas in Afghanistan

 

2) Defense contractors, who not only provide the physical hardware for war -- missiles, bombs, ammunition, guns, tanks, F-16s -- but also all of the logistics like food, fuel, clothing, training, etc.

 

3) Global capitalists (banks) who finance the war and the American people (the masses who pay taxes; not the power elite who barely pay any taxes) end up taking the bill, paying a lot more than $1 over the long run for $1 borrowed today by the "U.S. government"

 

4) Zionist lobby that wishes to trample all opponents to the Zionist state, including Iraq, Syria, and Iran...

 

---------------------------------

 

So the bulk of the U.S.'s foreign policy isn't at all in the best interest of the bulk of the American people nor to any bulk population; indeed, it is harmful. The U.S.'s foreign policy is dictated by the power elite through vehicles known as corporations and banks. Numbers 1-3 above are BIG business in the trillions of dollars! These businesses are being subsidized by the American masses who will in turn still pay MORE for gasoline and MORE for anything since the dollar devaluated and MORE in taxes! (the irony...)

 

The "terrorists" were manufactured; all the evidence points to foreknowledge of 9/11 by US and Israeli intelligence. There is even talk of the buildings being a controlled demolition which I agree with, too, having seen the perfectly symmetrical way in which the Twin Towers came down, as well as the bogus way in which WTC 7 collapsed. There is no doubt in my mind that WTC 7 was a controlled and planned demolition... It is impossible for a concrete and steel building to collapse in on itself with just a bunch of debris hitting it (no planes hit it!). Only a professional demolition crew can so exactly demolish a building to display that sort of free fall characterized in the WTC7's collapse which you can watch here:

 

The silence in the media as well as the lack of official investigation into how WTC 7 collapsed is really amazing!

 

Control the information that people receive and you control their behavior. Elementary universal AI theory that stated in another way is 'control the training set of the UAI and you control its behavior.'

Edited September 4, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[Anonymouse]

Մուկ these two elements are intertwined; the U.S.'s foreign policy is governed by special interest groups (as Chomsky explains) and the vast majority of these special interest groups are related to the economy, particularly large corporations (controlled and owned mostly by the power elite) not only lobby in Washington but through their advertisements and control over the media shape American society from spending habits, to voting habits (e.g. the ridiculousness of making people think that two political parties can represent 300M people), to manufacturing their culture and even their personalities.

 

In the case of the war in Iraq and the bogus/manufactured "war on terrorism", the special interest groups were:

1) Fossil fuel companies, who wanted more control of the oil in Iraq and the gas in Afghanistan

 

2) Defense contractors, who not only provide the physical hardware for war -- missiles, bombs, ammunition, guns, tanks, F-16s -- but also all of the logistics like food, fuel, clothing, training, etc.

 

3) Global capitalists (banks) who finance the war and the American people (the masses who pay taxes; not the power elite who barely pay any taxes) end up taking the bill, paying a lot more than $1 over the long run for $1 borrowed today by the "U.S. government"

 

4) Zionist lobby that wishes to trample all opponents to the Zionist state, including Iraq, Syria, and Iran...

 

---------------------------------

 

So the bulk of the U.S.'s foreign policy isn't at all in the best interest of the bulk of the American people nor to any bulk population; indeed, it is harmful. The U.S.'s foreign policy is dictated by the power elite through vehicles known as corporations and banks. Numbers 1-3 above are BIG business in the trillions of dollars! These businesses are being subsidized by the American masses who will in turn still pay MORE for gasoline and MORE for anything since the dollar devaluated and MORE in taxes! (the irony...)

 

The "terrorists" were manufactured; all the evidence points to foreknowledge of 9/11 by US and Israeli intelligence. There is even talk of the buildings being a controlled demolition which I agree with, too, having seen the perfectly symmetrical way in which the Twin Towers came down, as well as the bogus way in which WTC 7 collapsed. There is no doubt in my mind that WTC 7 was a controlled and planned demolition... It is impossible for a concrete and steel building to collapse in on itself with just a bunch of debris hitting it (no planes hit it!). Only a professional demolition crew can so exactly demolish a building to display that sort of free fall characterized in the WTC7's collapse which you can watch here:

 

The silence in the media as well as the lack of official investigation into how WTC 7 collapsed is really amazing!

 

Control the information that people receive and you control their behavior. Elementary universal AI theory that stated in another way is 'control the training set of the UAI and you control its behavior.'

 

No this misses the point.

 

You blame corporations for what is essentially a problem with government. Don't forget that governments created corporations in the first place, for corporations are a legal fiction. Therefore, it is not corporations that run governments, but governments which run governments and consequently have more influence and do influence corporations via granting monopoly privilege to some, denying it to others, or instituting regulations and legislation that creates interference into the private sector. Government, as an institution, is an end in itself and I am surprised you do not know this after reading Chomsky. Perhaps not even he realizes this. Policy think tanks like PNAC, and other secretive organizations and lobby groups like the Israeli lobby all have a higher interest in controlling foreign policy than do oil companies. The latter is more situational and circumstantial. Since the U.S. happens, to be invading, why not get a piece of the pie? And even then, why smear all corporations when only a few are in collusion with the government, like defense contractors and other defense companies, i.e. Halliburton? Oil was at best a secondary rationale for invading Iraq. Even now the U.S. largely relies on Canada for its energy supplies and previously the Americas. The invasion has had more to do with American hegemony and the rise of China, and specifically, Israel and Israeli agents that controlled PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and a host of other Jews.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Anonymouse