Wednesday, October 22, 2014


This article doesn't even consider exploitation and destruction of the life of a talented, motivated person from the lower income brackets.

Belief in the American Dream has died, and it’s no surprise why. This patriotic philosophy that anyone who gets an education and works hard can find success needs to actually pan out more often than it does in order to keep hope alive. Instead, the United States has developed an economic system where effort and education are secondary to being born with a silver spoon.

As research continues to confirm that kids born into rich families continue to reap the benefits well into adulthood. Meanwhile, those without affluent parents are far more likely to stay poor throughout their lives, even when they “do everything right” by working hard and getting an education. While it’s not impossible to break out of the cycle of poverty, it’s far more difficult than we’d like to imagine.

Based on research by Isabel Sawhill and Richard Reeves. A poor college graduate is equally as likely to end up as someone in the bottom 20% of income earners at age 40 as a high school dropout from an affluent background. Glancing at the top of the chart(not shown here) is even more unsettling. A high school flunky raised by a rich family is almost as likely to become one of the top country’s highest paid workers as a college graduate raised in a poor family is to stay one of the country’s worst paid workers. Where is the fairness in that?

The main perpetuator of inequality appears to be inheritance – children of richer parents often receive money and property (even before their parents are dead) that set them up for an easier, more secure lifestyle. Other grown children take over the family business or get hired to a hard-to-attain job due to parental connections. These are all traits that bypass the need for education, while simultaneously being out of reach to the kids of poor parents.

It’s also worth noting that rich kids have much easier access to education. Their parents have legacies and colleagues that can help get them into elite colleges, as well as the finances to pay the extreme tuitions. The fact that those who skip out on these obvious advantages can still find better rates of success anyway is what’s troubling.

Actually, the process of young poor people putting themselves through college is another big reason for inequality. In order to attend college without the necessary resources, poor students develop massive debts that last for decades. Staying afloat post-graduation generally means taking any job available and moving back to a poor neighborhood, where jobs with better incomes are few and far between

Sunday, October 12, 2014

What it is like to be a political prisoner in fascist amerika.

Decades of long research shows that "people with power tend to behave like patients with brain damage to the brain's frontal lobes, a condition that can cause overly impulsive and insensitive behavior" (psychopathic).  Really?!  I could never have guessed that.
In terms of their victims,  "the reigning fear narrows focus onto threats and makes the powerless keen observers of those who have power over them.  The victims know the powerful better than the powerful know themselves.  It's a natural channel for self-preservation".  As I said many times, I know a lot about torture, mental terrorism, psychopathic behavior and behavioral psychology because I had to learn the otherwise useless knowledge in order to survive.

What is like to be a political prisoner(victim) in fascist amerika:
I often heard comments during the really hard times of my ordeal to the effect that people questioned how I was able to survive in such a hostile environment.  Of course, the whole purpose of the terror and torture by the crazies was that I would not be able to survive - but I did.  So what is it like being a political prisoner in a brutal, barbaric state?

I compare being a political prisoner and/or a victim in a political fight to being a soccer ball in a soccer game.  In the game you have two teams, or sides of a political battle whose only concern is winning the game; and that's exactly what it is to the players, a game.  These teams KICK the ball up and down the field with little success, but the fun for the players is in kicking the ball.  Sometimes one side gets lucky and scores a point and that side of the political battle feels good for a moment and then both sides go back to kicking the ball.  Of course, the ball is just the inanimate object which is essential to play the game, but which has no say in the direction or outcome of the game.

After a considerable time of being kicked around, the ball becomes battered, deflated and is no longer any use to the teams playing the game.  Often the ball just deflates and falls apart(the victim dies).  If the ball does survive, but is in bad condition, the ball is tossed aside on a junk pile with other previously used balls.  The teams which have to continue playing their games, find a new gleaming ball to kick around and the game continues.  The old ball is ignored and left on the junk pile to quietly expire.

As a result of being the ball, I learned to despise both sides in their game of power, but I hold a special, total and complete contempt for those on the side that worship power and believe and practice the lowest level of moral development of "might is right". 

Einstein was caught in the "might is right" dilemma to which he responded,  "you may be right, but I wouldn't want to live in such a world".  Because of who he was, Einstein escaped.  I didn't have a choice.

BULLETIN:  Wow, right now on TV, a woman is talking about being caught in the "horrors of Hitler's Hell".  Of her ordeal, she states that God didn't do this(her ordeal), PEOPLE DID THIS. AMEN!

Sunday, October 5, 2014


America vs the Bible:  These are the things you are to do: Speak the TRUTH TO ONE ANOTHER, and render true and sound judgment in your courts;  That is the Biblical admonition; now compare that to what is done in amerika.

Gandhi stated that the powerful and the elite are "drunk on the red wine of power".   Everyone knows that some people who are drunk on alcohol do stupid things.  When they do these stupid things, they usually end up injuring and/or destroying themselves and on occasions they destroy the lives of innocent victims with their stupidity.  For example, when a drunk drives on the wrong side of a freeway and crashes, he or she frequently destroy the lives of innocent victims they hit or run off the road.

In contrast, when the powerful and elite do something stupid while drunk on the red wine of power, frequently the lives of thousands even millions of people are destroyed.  However, unlike the alcohol drunk(s) that did a stupid action, the power drunks are immune from any consequences of their actions and they go on their merry way to commit more stupid acts.  You see this sequence of actions almost every day in the news.
Both alcoholic drunks and power drunks have poor judgment, lack rational thought, believe they are indestructible and do stupid things.  The difference is that alcoholic drunks usually pay for their acts while power dunks are immune from the consequences of their stupid acts.

Back to social engineering:
Did you know that with elderly couples, women are the abusers and committers of domestic violence against men.  It seems that many men become disabled or incapacitated from years of hard labor or years of working in toxic, poisonous environments.  The allows the woman in the relationship to become physically dominant and they use this advantage to commit domestic violence, but it is almost never reported by the media.  It is all about power.

So why not start a campaign against all forms of violence and abuse in amerika.  There is violence in the workplace, in nursing homes, in marriages, in relationships, and in the streets.   Why single out violence just against women?

Of course, there is sexual violence in the military.   And everyone wants to protect the countries' fighting women.  However, did you know, according to statistics I saw last week, most attacks in the military involve men against men.  It is only shocking to you because the media would never report those attacks and any male victim knows that the system would not offer him any support or sympathy.  I know it was only a movie, but you know what happened to a soldier in "A Few Good Men" when a "Code Red" was issued.

Of course a male assaulting a male in the military would imply homosexual activity and that definitely is a forbidden subject.  And that brings me to the initial topic of this post(stupidity).  What brilliant minds decided that they should introduce females into an environment where you have virile, young men about 16-20 years old, who are taught that violence and killing is the way to get what you want?  The old adage "to the victors go the spoils" is fundamental to the military.  These are young male minds  whose brains are still developing.  Do you think that shouting "KILL" over three thousand times during marine basic training has an effect on those young men's neural pathways?  So who thought throwing a few young attractive women into pot was a great idea and there would be no consequences???

And if you think male on male assault is unexpected, let's look at another situation where you have a large, younger all-male population in close quarters.  Prisons!  They are notorious for male on male assaults - and the external controls over the male prison population is probably greater than it is in the military.   Can you imagine what would happen if you mixed in female prisoners - oops, I better not give those ruling elite any ideas.  I'm sure somebody will think that is a good way to save(make) money!