Wednesday, June 20, 2007


Global Poverty

I have read your editorial (28 May 2007) and the comments by Mr. Douglas Hubbard (letters 4 Jun 2007). On my blog, “” I have discussed the poverty, the globalization and the new world order at length for the past few years, here are a few other items to consider in the light of the so called “The New World Order”.

(Please also read “ Death for America, the economy” and the “New World Order, 2003” else where in this blog for more discussion of this topic)

Give or take a few hundred million, today the earth is inhabited by about six and a half billion people. That is estimated to be as many people as have ever inhabited this planet over the millennia since its existence. With the technology, and medicine people are living healthier and longer lives, there are probably more millionaires, per capita than ever, we have bigger houses, more cars, more airplanes, etc, etc. In sheer numbers though we also have more poor, more starvation and more people who are sicker than ever at any one time in our history.

Whether you are a fan of global warming or not, that is a totally different issue, there are other consequences of this population boom that do not bode well for our future, that is the future of the mankind as a whole. I wish that the global warming was the only threat to our future. And any way there are arguments on both sides of the issue. But we have a bigger problem, a problem that no one seems to want to confront, in the United States or the world wide, the problem is population. Left unchecked we can not be certain as to what the future of humanity will be, there are no guarantees. As the globalist plan for a future where the world is being controlled by a chosen few, we seem to forget the admonition of the scriptures that, “ the meek shall inherit the earth”, so then what do we do if the meek do end up inheriting the earth?

Even as we claim that we need more people to take care of the elderly, we need more people to pay taxes, we claim that more people today live in freedom than ever, the only true truth is that we don’t give a damn about the poor and their miserable lives, we don’t give a damn about poverty, the humanity. We are the verge of having to make the euthanasia a matter of policy, as well as genetic selections and population controls because in truth the “money” does not matter any more, there is no “real money”!

If your are reading this, then you are on a computer, meaning that you are probably in the top twenty percent of population of the world in availability of the resources. Be you a liberal or a conservative, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or an atheist, you don’t have a genuine feeling about the poor and their misery. We believe in our own lies, and pretend to be sympathetic, we talk about adopting the poor children, we talk about the sanctity of life, we pretend that abortion is sinful, we proclaim that we have programs for the poor, and I say we are all full of --it. Generally speaking, there are not too many people in this world who even have a clue about the problems faced by the humanity, let alone the enormity of these problems that will not be resolved. And if you say that “GOD” will take care of everything. Then let me tell you that “HE” is not going to.

The truth of the matter is, and we know, that poor kids are more likely to grow up poor, poor are more apt to commit crimes, get involved in drugs and prostitution, more likely to make babies that ill forever live in poverty.

Our hypocrisy is self evident, or why else do we rush our plants and our factories and other jobs to the poor lands? Is it to bring up the lot of these poor up in life, heck no, we just want to pay less and less to the poor to do the things that we need to get done. We need a cheaper car, a cheaper TV etc, then why not have a poorer sob make it in a far away land so that we don’t have to pay a poor sob here a living wage, and still feel good about it, while we destroy his environment, his traditions and his family. Oh yes we do pay them a wage marginally above the prevailing wage in his country so he can buy more and make the rest poorer by raising the price of goods.

The religious will argue that it is God’s will that they should be poor. And some liberal will argue that at least we do help some of them out of poverty, but the negative effects of our moving jobs overseas out weigh any benefits to the people over there and the people that make a living in this country.

Is it not a fact that as the poverty increases so does the crime and the sickness and all the other ills of society? Such as child abuse, domestic violence, theft, prostitution, assault, and of course class distinction, and yes civil wars, you name it. A society where people live in moderately equal status and where the greed has not yet taken over the minds of the elite does not fall into chaos, regardless of their religious and political beliefs. This is also something that the upper classes in India and China and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and yes in the United States must keep in mind.

But, for long we have used the poor to generate “jobs” right. As the poverty increases, there is more need for social workers, jailers, police officers, and the courts and the lawyers and the judges, the doctors and we could go on. Even the programs created to help the poor actually spend more money on people in “ helping professions” than is spent on the needy.

The first salvo in our new class wars was not lobbed by John Edwards, our esteemed President Reagan was the first one to try to dehumanize the poor and pan the working classes. Reagan was a sell out, starting from modest beginnings he became anti poor and anti working class when he came in to the Hollywood money a forgot his roots.

We as humans are programmed to forget about the things we don’t see, when we see an eighty year old when we are forty, we tell ourselves oh, I have another forty years to live, always forgetting the ones that we bury each day, the ones that die in their teens and twenties. We all are always thinking about seeing our grand children, forgetting about those next door that just buried their own child. When Reagan gave the example of the welfare ladies in their Cadillac’s buying steaks, he did not mention the more than ninety percent of the food stamp recipients that really need the help to feed their children.

In our new found wealth, we forget the needs of others, we think that poor are stupid, lazy and a burden on society, and this mind set is becoming pervasive among the upper classes from India and China, the Islamic Countries, to the United States and Mexico.

The United States used to be held up as a model of the “NEW SOCIETY“, where the success was rewarded handsomely, any one could make it, and you got to keep more of your money because of lower taxes. But today that is no longer true. As it has become easier for a few to become millionaires and multi multi-millionaires, it must be acknowledged that it makes the others only poorer. We have arrived at a time when being “average” has become being less than adequate, where it takes to be arriving in the top tenth percentile to be able to make ends meet.

Let’s look at something, Ok so we are all for a free market, right, and the poor and the working should be able to meet their own needs. I agree. If you listen to the mouth pieces of the right say Neil Boortz, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh etc ( the three stooges of the Republican Party), they will tell you that the poor are poor because they are stupid, now tell me this, let’s say that a person has just graduated from a high school and went to trade school to learn to be a mechanic, he is punctual and a hard worker and he goes to work for an auto motive dealership in say New York city. The dealer pays him by the schedule hours for maintenance and he must pay for his own life insurance, health insurance, health care savings account, save for his retirement, contribute to his 401k, and pay for his mortgage on a house ( can he really buy a house?), make a car payment and save for his children’s college, now tell me what he should be paid. But we live in a service economy right, say he becomes and assistant manager at a Burger King , now how much will you pay him? Sadly the stupid people that run these shows are themselves not capable of thinking.

If this is the situation in the United States, and the number of workers keeps increasing as it does elsewhere in the world, ( and what to make of the immigrants coming in from Mexico) the down ward pressure on the wages will keep increasing. Or we must admit that we need these poor to keep the jails filled, to run the drug trade, to keep the prostitution going, to employ the social workers, and the lawyers and the police in their own jobs, and of course we need the volunteers for the military.

And I also agree that there is too much spending on welfare programs, and we pay too much in taxes to support the poor who are stupid and that they are poor because they chose to be poor so what is the solution?

Under our current system we pay the poor for being stupid, actually, if a girl gets pregnant we offer her “free” medical care , “free” child care, “free” education, and “free” meals. We can then just go ahead and admit that we are using her to keep the people in the “ helping Professions” employed, that we are helping unscrupulous land lords in money, we are making millionaires out of developers of the subsidized housing, we need our criminals and the gangsters and the prostitutes, and so on.

Or we can start paying every young girl from the age of , say thirteen a stipend, of say three hundred dollars a month for as long as she does not get pregnant, if she gets pregnant the money goes away, immediately. This will also be an incentive to her guardians to either watch over her or get her on contraceptives to keep the money (help) coming. Also if she stays in school all her education will be paid for even thru college, she can keep her stipend even after the college until she has a child at what ever age that might be. Only thing is that a, the stipend should be large enough to mean something and b, that all help must cease once she gets pregnant, this will also keep the boys from knocking her up for the stamps.

This idea could even be implemented world wide.

Monday, June 18, 2007

meaning of words

1. if a "boyfriend" means the guy that you are having sex with, then what you think your daughter will do with her boy friend, (hint, age is not a barrier, please!)

2. If you are out looking for sex, rest assured your daughter/son is finding it at home, on her /his own

3. if you are thirty-five and bring a boy friend to your home, your fifteen year old will screw her boyfriend in your home

4. if you are a "daddy" and you are out looking for a younger slut, then you have one at your home already, yeah the one that you raised

5. if you have no boundries, morals, standards, "because I am (number of years) old", then your children have none also, regardless of their age

6. If you know for sure that your fifteen year old son is having sex and you are allowing it, then rest assured that your 12 year old daughter will soon, also, be getting fucked

Tuesday, June 12, 2007


It is so easy and comforting to accept and to internalize the faith of our fathers and fore fathers, it is also intellectually lazy and disingenuous. And it is so painful and time consuming to actually seek the truth.