http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39723000/jpg/_39723849_slaves_story_ap.jpg
The behavior modification specialists who design mainstream education do so in a similar (if not same) way as the ones who design marketing campaigns. This makes education be based more on art than on science with the goal of all practical decisions affecting how it's run being based on the appeal of the designer's artistic expression rather than the reflection of logical conclusions. Little effort goes into understanding how people in the general population think and what creative ability they have and a great deal goes into teaching conformity. This conformity of course aids the designers rather than the people being educated.I'm not describing so much a conspiracy as I am a system of government where the corporations that fund it are protected by unearned power. In the U.S., the resource used is still called capitol but in as much as that even exists I doubt it will still be being called that for much longer.
This chart shows:
"Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day."
I don't believe the fraudulent description of the US dollar's worth will be necessary to promote much longer as the means for determining what people are entitled to.
"About 250,000 - 300,000 people die per day."
This says:
"On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the
problem Half the world now has fewer than the "replacement level" of children. That includes Europe, North America, and the Caribbean, most of the Far East from Japan to Thailand, and much of the Middle East from Algeria to Iran."
He goes on to say:
"The granddaddy of demographic doomsters was Bob Malthus, an English clergyman who got famous by warning 200 years ago about population growth. He believed that the world's
population would keep increasing till it was cut down by
disease or famine. Back in the ferment of the Industrial
Revolution, he was a favorite of the evil mill owners and a
scourge on anyone with a social conscience.
Malthus hated Victorian charities because he said they were
keeping poor people alive to breed. Better that they die,
he said. He believed the workhouses, where the destitute
ended up, were too lenient, and he successfully campaigned
for a get-tough law known at the time as Malthus's Law.
The novelist Charles Dickens, a social reformer, attacked
Malthus in several of his books. When Oliver Twist asked
for more gruel in the workhouse, that was a satire on
Malthus's Law. In A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge was a
caricature of Malthus. In Hard Times, Thomas Gradgrind, the
unfeeling headmaster of Coketown, had a son called Malthus."
The U.S. has always based its laws and social agenda on the encouragement of racial segregation.
Wikipedia says of Racial segregation in the United States:
"Racialism was also fueled by the ideology of Social
Darwinism, which broadly asserted that because of a natural
competition among humans and the social evolution driven by
the survival of the fittest, the white man not only should
but deserved to retain political and economic power. Thus
the behavior exhibited towards Negros was not perceived as
racism but rather action that was sanctioned by the
‘science’ of Euro-centric racialism.[5]:118"
http://shakashawshow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nm_lincoln_slavery_081103_ssv.jpg
and it says here: THE INHERENT RACISM OF POPULATION CONTROL
Malthus said:
"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But, above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.30"
so:
"Remarkably, Malthus was encouraging an active repression and abuse of the poor based on what he believed was their natural inferiority. In doing so he essentially had created and was advocating a new type of racism, a “scientific” racism by which whole segments of the population were to be discriminated against based on their socioeconomic status. The term “pauperism” came to mean a racial classification of those who were “naturally” and incurably poor. Allan Chase explains the outlook of the new “scientific” racism created by Malthus saying:
"The poor and the near poor of all nations were–and still are–held to be a race apart, ‘a definite race of pauper stocks.’ In the countinghouse philosophy of scientific racism, the physiological, cultural, and economic woes of the poor and the nonaffluent ‘middling classes’ were scientifically ordained by Nature, and therefore neither preventable nor reversible.31"
According to this view the poor owned nothing–not even the right to live. If a man is born poor, explained Malthus, “and if the society does not want his labour, [he] has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no cover for him.” (Emphasis added).32 Thus, Malthus became the father of a “scientific” racism much more encompassing and more dangerous than the ethnic racisms of the past."
As this shows :
Racial hygiene is now being disguised, promoted, and funded, with the idea that we are preserving our planet.
http://pollypartisan.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/global-warming-myth_65.jpg
What Malthus was saying is that not only do we need to get rid of inferior races, but we need to expose their bad habits and even encourage those habits so that the superior humans will have all the resources they need and a "clean" environment.
He claims that one of the ways to encourage this hygiene (as it's so ruthlessly described) is to promote the good and best humans and advertise how the worst deserve to be eliminated.
One of the ways I see this most often used in today's society is by claiming that economics is the scale by which to judge a persons character.
The way that law enforcement and the judicial system does this is by encouraging violence within communities that are more economically depressed, preventing these people from having a legal defense, and encouraging the media to cover stories, which claim economic challenges and the defects of the economically challenged are the reason for their violent acts.
The way they sell this as a humanitarian act is by claiming that this will encourage more aid to these groups. However, those that fund the lawmakers, the enforcers, the judicial system, AND mainstream journalism are more interested in the elimination of people than they are in their empowerment.
As we saw in the Katrina storm response, there is an overwhelming attitude that directs many law enforcers to believe that if they leave the impoverished alone they will kill each other and eliminate "their kind". When law enforcement officials do show when violence has been committed within an unpopular region, their actions are more offensive because the few people who even feel empowered enough to speak up about how they were abused don't have enough money to defend themselves in a court of law.
As I explained earlier this week, the response from the mainstream media (which was also shown on some of the Internet sites I've visited) to the recent story of a mother who had murdered her children was socially irresponsible. The claim was that this murder was indicative of the needs for more and better supports for both autistic children and the mentally ill (based on the mother's state of mind).
Both groups have been unjustly described as violent with little or no evidence to substantiate the claim. Traditionally, if people are interested in getting support for either of these groups, they are more inclined to be successful with legislation that provides evidence that the aid which the law provides them will reduce their violent actions. Unfortunately, too many in the general public have accepted the false claim that these groups are violent and denied the inherent problem that these claims have traditionally caused.
The small portion of people who have the resources to be seen as proper citizens get drunk, abuse drugs, get diagnosed with mental illness, take pharmaceuticals, and are violent. While these things may influence a state that statistics show is associated with violence, their resources will protect their class from being seen as violent. The rest of the population must be much more careful. We should never fool ourselves into believing we have this luxury.
We are given more subtle messages that our lives are worth less and that violence against ourselves is a natural product of the lack of self-respect we deserve. We must never accept this false projection.
Violence is an evil act. It is an act of will. However uncontrollable the state of the persons brain and central nervous system may be, we as a part of the population which is meant to be eliminated for our bad habits cannot afford to excuse being violent under any circumstance.
The popular theories of Malthus and Darwin which have been used to promote the agenda of population control are directed towards eliminating people who are thought to be from inferior races and creating the illusion that an inferior and disabled race has been created from our own ignorance and unwillingness to be civil.
It's important for understanding the point I'm trying to make to remember two things about American history:
The history of psychiatry and it's affect on cultural values
1.Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence is considered the "Father of American
Psychiatry", published the first textbook on the subject
in the United States, Medical Inquiries and Observations
upon the Diseases of the Mind (1812).
Wikipedia says this about him:"In 1792 Dr Benjamin Rush, one of the 'Founding Fathers' of
the USA, presented a paper before the American
Philosophical Society which argued that the 'color' and
'figure' of blacks were derived from a form of leprosy. He
was convinced that with proper treatment, blacks could be
cured (i.e. become white) and eventually... assimilated
into the general population" (Omi & Winant 1986: 148). Omi,
M. and H. Winant (1986). Racial formation in the United
States : from the 1960s to the 1980s. New York ; London,
Routledge & Kegan Paul."
AND:
"He proposed that being black was a hereditary skin disease,
which he called "negroidism," and that it might be cured.
Rush drew the conclusion that "Whites should not tyrannize
over [blacks], for their disease should entitle them to a
double portion of humanity. However, by the same token,
whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend
to infect posterity with the 'disorder'... attempts must be
made to cure the disease."
Mad-In-AmericaJun03c[1]
2. One of the men who studied under Dr. Rush was Dr.Samuel Cartwright.
His contribution to psychiatry was, drapetomania,
"a mental disorder akin to alienation. He said that slaves should
be kept in a submissive state and treated like children, with
"care, kindness, attention, and humanity to prevent and cure
them from running away." If they nonetheless became dissatisfied
with their condition,they should be whipped as a prevention
against running away.[2] In describing his theory and cure for
drapetomania, Cartwright relied on passages of scripture
dealing with slavery.
Cartwright also described another disorder, "Dysaethesia
aethiopica", a disease "affecting both mind and body."
Cartwright used his theory to explain the apparent lack of
work ethic among slaves.[3] Dysaethesia aethiopica, "called
by overseers 'rascality'," was characterized by partial
insensitivity of the skin and "so great a hebetude of the
intellectual faculties, as to be like a person half
asleep." Other symptoms included "lesions of the body
discoverable to the medical observer, which are always
present and sufficient to account for the symptoms."[4][5]
According to Cartwright, dysaethesia aethiopica was "much
more prevalent among free negroes living in clusters by
themselves, than among slaves on our plantations, and
attacks only such slaves as live like free negroes in
regard to diet, drinks, exercise, etc." — indeed, according
to Cartwright, "nearly all [free negroes] are more or less
afflicted with it, that have not got some white person to
direct and to take care of them."
3. In this article :Will Obama End 'War on Drugs'?
Sherwood Ross says:
"Drug offenses account for about half the 200,000 Federal prison inmates behind bars, compared to just 15 percent of prisoners convicted of violent crimes involving weapons, explosives, or arson. If America leads the world with 2.3 million prisoners in all its prisons, jails, and assorted lock-ups, it is largely because we have criminalized drug addiction, not treated it."
I see the obvious intent here as being not only to provide certain portions of the population with drugs that kill them but also to use this as a source for encouraging violence within this group (much the way identity politics does), incarcerating them, and attacking their character.
Attacking the character of minorities is always sensationally used by the mainstream media. As much as it is wrong to claim that people with economic challenges are more prone to violence due to any genetic flaw or ingested substance it's much more important to realize that the victims of this violence are not outside this group but are instead in it.
They are the women and children who were less likely to be able to defend themselves. They are all the most vulnerable people within our own community. Their attackers have been oppressed and learned to oppress and be violent from how they've been treated rather than seeing how they can act more civilly than those who are automatically claimed to be better due to their social status. The violence unfortunately aids in our own destruction.
We need to teach people within our own communities not to follow in the footsteps of our oppressors and not to accept the degrading evaluation of our worth, which is falsely advertised in all our media and entertainment. We need to teach the more dominant and resourceful groups in our society that we are peacefully resisting injustice rather than looking for ways to excuse it when it's done to us or when we do it to each other.
Comments