Showing posts with label NPR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NPR. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The New World Order Aims to Outlaw Arguments in France
France is in the process of making "psychological violence" the same as physical violence in the eyes of the law, for married couples. Some of the examples of exactly what types of scenarios would qualify under this new invasive legislation, consist of things like a woman telling a man that she should have married someone with more money, or a man telling a woman that he was better off with his first wife. We're told not to worry about excessive use of this nifty new law, though:
"[Martine] Billard rejects critics who say the new law would allow couples to be hauled in for having an argument. She says it must be proved that the abuse is repeated and done with the intention of destroying the victim's dignity." - NPR
But what qualifies as "repeated?" What if the police arrive, and your nosy neighbor mentions that this isn't the first time she's heard that couple fight? Does that qualify, or is it necessary for separate, documented incidences to occur? And if so, how many? Two? Three? Also, who determines what is and is not "done with the intention of destroying the victim's dignity?" Many questions, and I'm willing to bet we wouldn't like the honest answers very much.
While it would be lovely to have the power, either legally or personally, to stop this sort of mean and unsavory behavior, the simple truth is that any attempt to legislate this aspect of human life is ridiculous on its face, and an obvious vehicle for government to extend its influence over our private lives even further. Anyone who's experienced anything even remotely close to romantic love would agree that ugly fights are often par for the course and in the end, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, can contribute to the process of emotional understanding and bonding that is love. In other words, love is a refining process, and argumentative clashes, for most people, play some role in that.
My heart, of course, goes out to any women in France who are truly being verbally/emotionally victimized. But this is precisely why I'm critical of this type of legislation, as it's in no way geared toward helping anyone, rather toward setting the precedent for Big Brother's immediate intervention in any conduct that violates the establishment's set norms. The globalists understand that naturally healthy relationships have both ups and downs, and hence it'd be unrealistic to enforce this sort of behavioral control on healthy human beings. Which is why they need us on their drugs, if not directly through prescription, then to a considerable extent, through our water and food supply. They've succeeded in training almost all people, the world over, to ignore politics and show disdain for all but the shallowest features of social life. Now they're taking the first steps toward applying this same code of docility and conformity within the home.
Obviously, in cases of genuine psychological abuse, intervention on the clinical, and not the law enforcement level of society is needed. Hopefully France, who once stood alongside us as a worldwide beacon for liberty, will muster the willpower to strike down this oppressive and easily abusable legislation.
Read the NPR article.
"[Martine] Billard rejects critics who say the new law would allow couples to be hauled in for having an argument. She says it must be proved that the abuse is repeated and done with the intention of destroying the victim's dignity." - NPR
But what qualifies as "repeated?" What if the police arrive, and your nosy neighbor mentions that this isn't the first time she's heard that couple fight? Does that qualify, or is it necessary for separate, documented incidences to occur? And if so, how many? Two? Three? Also, who determines what is and is not "done with the intention of destroying the victim's dignity?" Many questions, and I'm willing to bet we wouldn't like the honest answers very much.
While it would be lovely to have the power, either legally or personally, to stop this sort of mean and unsavory behavior, the simple truth is that any attempt to legislate this aspect of human life is ridiculous on its face, and an obvious vehicle for government to extend its influence over our private lives even further. Anyone who's experienced anything even remotely close to romantic love would agree that ugly fights are often par for the course and in the end, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, can contribute to the process of emotional understanding and bonding that is love. In other words, love is a refining process, and argumentative clashes, for most people, play some role in that.
My heart, of course, goes out to any women in France who are truly being verbally/emotionally victimized. But this is precisely why I'm critical of this type of legislation, as it's in no way geared toward helping anyone, rather toward setting the precedent for Big Brother's immediate intervention in any conduct that violates the establishment's set norms. The globalists understand that naturally healthy relationships have both ups and downs, and hence it'd be unrealistic to enforce this sort of behavioral control on healthy human beings. Which is why they need us on their drugs, if not directly through prescription, then to a considerable extent, through our water and food supply. They've succeeded in training almost all people, the world over, to ignore politics and show disdain for all but the shallowest features of social life. Now they're taking the first steps toward applying this same code of docility and conformity within the home.
Obviously, in cases of genuine psychological abuse, intervention on the clinical, and not the law enforcement level of society is needed. Hopefully France, who once stood alongside us as a worldwide beacon for liberty, will muster the willpower to strike down this oppressive and easily abusable legislation.
Read the NPR article.
Monday, November 16, 2009
2012 And The Mainstream Media
The mainstream eunuchs, NPR especially, have really been laying on the adolescent condescension and non sequiturs on the topic of 2012 this week. Here's a couple of points about how their approach to the question was both factually inaccurate and dismissive.
The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.
Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.
The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.
My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.
The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.
Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.
The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.
My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch, Battle 2
The Gibroney Hunter: Virtually all vaccine safety research has been conducted by the vaccine producers themselves. The FDA does not conduct its own independent studies on this issue. Therefore, the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves are the sole source of information. Also, double-blind studies, which are essential to any good science, have never been conducted. Watch the documentary "vaccine nation." It should be on youtube. The mainstream scientific community is just another corrupt and toxic institution.
The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.
Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.
Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.
The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.
Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.
A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.
The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."
DUDE. Come ON. Really?
Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?
The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"
What an articulate and well formulated response.
You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.
The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.
Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.
The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.
"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."
Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.
Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.
Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.
The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.
Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.
Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.
The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.
Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.
A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.
The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."
DUDE. Come ON. Really?
Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?
The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"
What an articulate and well formulated response.
You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.
The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.
Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.
The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.
"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."
Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.
Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.
Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Gibroney of the Week: NPR
National Public Radio, or "No Penis Radio," as Stephen Colbert has titled it, is an important part of the Establishment's propaganda machine. It serves as a false beacon for many people in this country, masquerading as a valid alternative to mainstream media, when in reality offering very little in substance, sometimes even less than the other news sources they criticize. The effect NPR has is particularly dangerous because it can divert potentially informed people away from the truth. This is something they accomplish in two ways.
First, they drop just enough morsels of truth for the listener to remain enticed (at least by FM radio standards), then they spend the majority of the rest of their time flattering their audience's egos and reinforcing the image they have of themselves, which is that of a well informed and proactive citizen. Perhaps we should scrap NPR and start an entirely new national radio network. One in which the staff were voted in or out by the listeners. Maybe that would put some spark into those gibroneys to actually be an excellent source for news and information, instead of simply being the best on the dial, and then resting on their laurels.
They're doing an okay job with human interest stories, focusing on the hardships individuals are facing as a result of this economic hijacking. But then again, what good is that when NPR's blackout of the important issues is part of the reason we're suffering in the first place. Then there's the most repugnant aspect of it all. The pledge drive. This is when they ask us to pay them for their services to society. This is what really gets my goat. Not only do they try just as hard as the networks to keep us confused and feeling disempowered, but they expect us to pay them for it.
They seem to have no problem digging deep when a story involves a Hollywood actor or a musician, but they suddenly lose their nuts when the issue of politics or the erosion of the constitution arises. Except on rare occasions I find them to be among the most insidious of the gatekeepers.
First, they drop just enough morsels of truth for the listener to remain enticed (at least by FM radio standards), then they spend the majority of the rest of their time flattering their audience's egos and reinforcing the image they have of themselves, which is that of a well informed and proactive citizen. Perhaps we should scrap NPR and start an entirely new national radio network. One in which the staff were voted in or out by the listeners. Maybe that would put some spark into those gibroneys to actually be an excellent source for news and information, instead of simply being the best on the dial, and then resting on their laurels.
They're doing an okay job with human interest stories, focusing on the hardships individuals are facing as a result of this economic hijacking. But then again, what good is that when NPR's blackout of the important issues is part of the reason we're suffering in the first place. Then there's the most repugnant aspect of it all. The pledge drive. This is when they ask us to pay them for their services to society. This is what really gets my goat. Not only do they try just as hard as the networks to keep us confused and feeling disempowered, but they expect us to pay them for it.
They seem to have no problem digging deep when a story involves a Hollywood actor or a musician, but they suddenly lose their nuts when the issue of politics or the erosion of the constitution arises. Except on rare occasions I find them to be among the most insidious of the gatekeepers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
