Here we begin a brief exercise in American history that I have exerted many hours to create.  I hope it can truthfully be called a "semi-organized and honest analysis of some aspects of the thing that is America."  This great nation. 

 Well "great" is a little misleading; some things about this nation are great, and other things are not so great.  Freedom of Speech and deep fried bread; f#$$ing great.  Land of the free, home of the largest and most recent prison and slave populations in world history: not so great.  At least Stalin starved and froze his millions of slaves into short lives.  America bred its cheap labor like horses to make for generations and generations of slaves.  

And never forget how greatly the nation treated the Native Americans.  The good Christian settlers, they meant to cover the blankets with love as a gift to their new neighbors.  They swear to God on high that the smallpox was an accident. 

A nation whose expansion was reliant on the genocide of a people! That's totally great.  The great American's (like Mr. Hannity) are now saying, "hey you can't call it genocide.  We never meant to nearly annihilate them. It just sort of happened."  Yea that's right, we only meant to take all their land and use them for cheap labor in the great Western society, but the stubborn bastards just wouldn't be good, hardworking, land-pillaging Americans.  They had to be all free and in touch with nature. 

Ignoring the timescale and official declaration of "I'm out to end you and your race," (trivial details in the genocidal engagement) the interaction of European settlers and Native Americans is nothing less than genocide.  And if you're going to rate the "success" of a genocidal effort by the percentage of unwanted population removed, America’s campaign of extermination was more successful than Hitler and Himmler's. This great nation.  

Instead of "great", I posit the less euphemistic word "powerful."  This powerful nation.  We have many kinds of power.  Creative power.  As in Americans invented mechanical computing, communication technology, etc.  Military power.  As in the American Military can blow the shit out of any location on earth (like Russia.)  Media Power. As I control the distribution of information and perception of conspiracy. People power. As in the kind of power we haven't had much of.  And of course, the f#$$ing great part, the power of the individual to say and think as he pleases.  You'd think this would imply people power, but people are either A OK with being used, or are too stupid to realize. (Most likely the latter.)  I don't know which is more American, exploiting others for material gain or being exploited for material gain. The centuries old tradition of taking the taxpayers for all they can be taken for short of inciting some form of resistance your media and police infrastructure cannot suppress.  


Speaking of taking the taxpayers for all they can be taken for, we have a War on Terror.  You better support the war on terror and be a good terror warrior, if you’re not with us, you’re against us. This country is full of people that are so smart that they think being against the War on Terror is equivalent to being pro terror.  You know, like how all the people that aren't in the pro-life camp (you mean anti-abortion?) are pro-death.



F#$$ the F#$$ed up language. It's not a war on Terror.  How the f#$$ do you wage war on an emotional response anyways? I again would like to posit some different language. The global War against "people who so hate the United States that they would spend their time trying to indiscriminately kill its people."  You see this more accurate description used all the time in the media because it begs the question "Why do they hate us?" And CNN, MSNBC and FOXNEWS are all about engaging the viewer in a thoughtful learning experience that exercises critical analysis.  You know, that thing you do to "determine" stuff, say like if you’re in some kind of danger that isn't immediate.

How is it a person actually determines what is dangerous, or what constitutes a threat? Usually, the only threat the individual spends time trying to ascertain is the threat of foreign genital activity in what's supposed to be your sovereign lands.  People don't have time to decide what threat they should be worrying about for themselves; we're too busy drinking, watching TV, worrying, fucking, or otherwise trying to fill the hopeless emotional void. We the people expect to be told what to look out for by our government.  After all, how the f#$$ am I supposed to know what's happening in Mongolia?  What if some psychopathic yet charismatic genocidal maniac assumes power in some nation and decides he wants to see us dead?  We pay the government to work full time on keeping us informed.  You know, the "Intelligence" institutions.  The problem is that the people who get hired to determine the threats do a f#$$ing shitty job. Like you'd fire them on the spot if it wasn't some bureaucracy you can't seem to touch.

To illustrate this point, I'd like to make an analogy.  Pretend you were born 10,000 years ago, and you live in a small nomadic group of people.  It's like a miniature society.  It has it's alpha male, or leader or system of government or whatever you want to call it. And of course your society also has its subjects to be led, the huddled masses who do what they are told because the leader knows best. So one day you notice a rampaging man-eating bear that’s very very hungry, but the leader hasn't caught sight of it yet.  He is too busy captivating the group with the dangers of being struck by lightning and is not interested in what you think. He's already convinced most the people in your group of how they need to protect themselves from lightning. 

"It hates us for our freedoms, and will not rest until you live in tyranny and terror.  It must be stopped.  As long I am your leader and you give me the power to pursue lightning, we will be victorious.  But in order to keep lightning on the run, I'm gonna need 76 billion dollars.  So pay the f#$$ up or I'll sick the IRS on you."  You can almost hear the sounds of people being eaten over his amplified speech on lightning.  But not quite. 

So the debate of leadership and what needs to be done goes modern civilizations. Of all the shit that people worry about, some of it is more genuine, or threatening than the rest. There are people who would rather see a global "War on spiders" or a "war on high places" instead of a "war on terror." Don't forget the disciples of Hannity and O'Reilly, with all their wisdom and insight. All the genuinely patriotic, terrorist-hating, military industrial complex-cheerleading Americans, they have their righteous "war on liberals."  But these threats and fears are a little too diverse and personal, and thus can't be used to unite the nation in a stand against something. And that's the point, because it's an "I win" button in leadership.  What's this? Your administration is accused of widespread corruption, incompetence, and carrying out blatant executive and federal power grabs which are contrary to the constitution AND the taxpayers want their money back?  I WIN.  Enron, Scooter Libby, and Hurricane Katrina? I WIN. I WIN. I WIN.

Back to the threats. So we have all the things we fear because they threaten us in someway, like tight places or terrorists or commitments or liberals or fascists.  Then there are many things we should be very afraid of, but aren't for some reason.  Personally, I'd like to know where our multi hundred billion dollar "War on Shitty Driving" is. 

TheChristian right is spending all its time on the threat posed by liberals, with all their gay, Islamic, abortion-loving evolutionary theory, and then you have the liberals who are all hung up on the renunciation of the constitution.  With all the bickering, it's very hard to tell what is threatening our freedom.  But were going to try anyways. 

 Danger! DANGER Will Robinson DANGER! (Someone build a robot to do it for us)

To start, we are going define what threat is, as in "a threat is some thing that...” I like the finish "causes sudden death." That is about as straightforward and operational a definition as you can get.  Of course I know you can threaten things other then life, like marriage and Jesus and the Bill of Rights, but really, how about we deal with the shit that could kill us first, and then worry about the notions and ideals?  What good are values when your dead anyways?

Oh yea, the whole "soul and eternal life" thing.  Those clever people who think values determine whether you spend your afterlife in a lake of fire or in a really, really, really pleasant place called heaven.  As most of us who have already burst this moronic bubble know, the only chance you have at heaven is right now, and it's hard to accept because "right now" is often f#$$ed up.  Like how we have the evangelical Christian authorities telling their faithful followers, "we won't have to ride the bus in heaven, everyone will have a car." Like that makes any f#$$ing sense.  I'm pretty sure god hates cars anyways. F#$$ cars. In my heaven you do something like snowboard to where ever you’re trying to go. I'm working on the design.  You see, this is the only way to come closer to heaven; your imagination and passion might be blessed enough to create.

Back to the point; if you think any of your memories, emotion or other appendages of perception survive the decomposition of your brain, do for us a little experiment and put a high caliber bullet through your head. And you know, high caliber because you don't want to end up like one of the many veterans of Iraq who survived a similar situation.  

So you, you do that and the rest of us will carefully observe and take notes.  BANG! Ok subject spits something through forehead, didn't quite look like a soul...most likely pieces of brain. Hmmm nothing else seems to be happening. Well if his perception is still around somewhere, I'm sure he'll get back to us. No that's a little harsh; I don't really think people who believe that their perception continues in time after death should blow their brains out.  Some people really need to believe in themselves living happily ever after, or otherwise they'd just wander around screaming all the time.  You have to put a dogmatic cap on the powder keg of panic to keep your shit together  (Props Maron.)  Just fucking grow up a little. Please? So we can get passed this dumb f#$$ing heritage.  And by "dumb f#$$ing heritage" I of course don’t mean all religion and spirituality, although a lot of it is pretty f#$$ing stupid. 

The f#$$ing stupidest thing of all (afterlife for your emotion and memories a close 2nd) is the belief that religious texts are the literal word of god, as in the words you are reading in the Bible are selected, formulated, and composed by god himself. Or herself, but these people generally like to subjugate their women so probably not. And even if my desire, or faith, or whatever the f#$$ it is you want to call it, was volatile enough to enable me to ignore the fossil record, the universe, the lost gospels and added stories, other religions, you know, the reasons why God almost certainly did not oversee each sentence going into the Bible, even if my faith was strong enough to deny all that reason, I'd personally be a little disappointed with his work.  Your telling me GOD wrote this book?  It's kind of slow.... I mean, I would at least expect God and his ultimate truth to command my attention as well as Chrichton or McCarthy.

 My favorite aspect of the "literal word of god" bullshit is that it's oh so conducive to the oh so benevolent form of human interaction.  I think you know the pattern;

"Yes yes yes God is great, in fact he spoke to me while I as praying the other day." 

"No, no no, I know what has trying to say, your messing it all up!  You must not pervert god's message!"

"No I'm not, your the one whose all f#$$ed up, f#$$ing Satan worshipping f#$$!"

"F#$$ you you F#$$ing infidel!"

"No, F#$$ YOU! Where is my AK?!" 

Except they don't usually curse, because cursing gets you on God's naughty list.  But go ahead and saw that infidel's head off.

"What's this? You say you have a systematic means of assessing belief we should all be able to agree upon?"

"Yea you see there are these things called math and probability and focused observations, and you can use them to learn things"

"I don't like how you assessed those beliefs.  Who are you to say my soul is dependent on my brain for perception and I share a common ancestor with a Chimp.  F#$$ you buddy."

"I'm sorry, but the experiments are reproducible and we have no better explanation for the fossil record and DNA."

"Well then, I'm just gonna have to teach my kids to hate science."

"But you watch so much TV! Don't you owe science a little for that?"

"The "(Insert religious test here)" is the word of GOD. And science ain't gonna change that."

 I'm sorry; just because you want it to be true does not make it so.  Just because you feel it doesn't mean its there, as Mr. York put it; I kind of assumed this was something we all learned in life, but apparently we really struggle with it.  Who knew?

 If the whole "oh my god I can't handle the fact that I die" has you all depressed, and it will if you've never faced the fact and fear, know that the first few steps are always the hardest. But facing death is integral to developing higher forms of perception. What would life be like without death? Pretty f#$$ing boring.  And that sexual repression is holding you back too; there's a reason why one of the Skull and Bones rites is jerking off while laying in a coffin.

If the religion bashing has you offended, I'm sorry you've been lied too.  Christianity has been used and abused horribly throughout history; I hate this fact, not Christianity itself.  In fact, some of my favorite people are Christian, and I hold many philosophies of the "Lamb of God" in the highest regard. 

 Another thing this country seems like it needs to learn is that happiness is not conditioned.  If all those businesses that have provided products which "enhance" your life, why do isolated and primitive communities around the world smile a lot more when they haven't had their lives likely "enhanced"?  Wait a second...  Many people are stuck at "if only I could get enough money so that I could stop worrying about how much money I have, I'd be happy."  They are always low on money because they spend so much on shit that is really doing nothing for them (a.k.a "enhancing" their lives.) 

Like the enhancement that comes from drinking bottled and branded water. Much of which is distilled, to give you "pure water," which is actually terrible for you. As in there are at least 30 different substances in natural water that are meant to be there, and drinking distilled water leeches nourishing minerals from your body.  Thus people give up their hours to "enhance" their lives with dead bottles of shit because it's packaged.  Yet for some reason (shiny stuff, workout equipment, phones, computers, foodstuffs, etc) we can't seem to pay the bills. 

Getting back to the point about values and life, worry about shit that will kill actually people before exerting yourself trying to save an idea from a horribly brutal and cruel fate.  Don't get me wrong, some ideas are very good, maybe even worth dying for, but the fact that they don't writhe in pain and bleed when inflicted with harm should set your priorities.  So our definition of a threat is something that causes sudden death.  And if it's a threat discussed in the mainstream media, the implication is that we should be worrying, thinking and doing something about it, like forking over hundreds of billions of dollars. 

The totally unfunny thing about terrorism, is that it should be near the BOTTOM of your f#$$ing threat countdown. Like way below sexual behaviors (what the f#$$?) and near slipping on bathroom tile.

For a little perspective on what is threatening you, our definition clearly implies the best thing you could start out with is finding out what the f#$$ is actually killing people.  Holy shit, someone puts out a chart for this!  Let's see...on this one the first, second and third place reaper awards go to cancer, heart disease, and medicine.  Cancer and clogged tickers, for the most part don't fit our "sudden" definition of a threat though.  Chances are, you are the one who sat on your lazy ass, smoked cigarettes and ate cheese steak twinkies while watching TV all your life. So we aren't gonna work to save you when you can save yourself (as in GET UP OFF THAT F#$$ING COUCH, STOP EATING THAT F$##ING PROCESSED GARBAGE AND SHUT OFF THAT F#$$ING IDIOT BOX!)

But medical mistakes, now those are some untimely deaths, and might even be the #1 killer in this country.  So many thousands of people go to the hospital thinking, "oh, finally I'm gonna feel better.  Maybe I'll even feel good enough to start being active again." The last scene in the movie of this person's life would be the responsible medical personnel; "Well as far as we can tell, the treatment started off well, but then we accidentally removed a vital organ." I don't have a clue how the medical establishment manages to get so many people killed. I do know that adverse reactions to prescription pills kill upwards of 30,000 every year, so how about we have a war on our busted as f#$$ pharmaceutical and medical industry? 

Oh yea, our politicians are getting cash out of that racket, and we all know America has a strict moral code against doing things that get politicians less money.  Especially if those things are right.  Booze kills thousands and thousands and thousands of people annually, and were gonna advertise that shit. Drink responsibly. Yea right. Drink malignant shit. It will get you laid! And no death is more sudden or preventable then a drunk driving death.  Your kidding right? F#$$ing 16,000 people are getting brutally smeared on the roads every year in accidents that involve alcohol, and your gonna fight a war on terror?  That makes about as much sense as the pleasant place/lake of fire. 

The tragedy at the Twin Towers killed about 3,000 people.  Including all other acts of terrorism against US citizens, we are still pretty close to that number. Terrorism targeting the United States citizens has been going on for a while; I'm going to ignore FALN and say two decades.  That gives us an annual toll of about 150 deaths.  A hundred and fifty a year? Our shitfaced drivers consistently kill 100 times that many people. And we’re gonna fight a War on Terror?

Also note that Terrorism is wound which is constantly picked at by the federal government's military and defense industry actions.  Rest assured if there had never been a War on Terror, the whole "people who so hate the United States that they would spend their time trying to indiscriminately kill it's citizens" situation would be doing a lot better.

So your government is totally compliant with threats that are far more dangerous than what it spends all your money waging war on.  And then there's those people who have been instilled with the contemporary history prowess of Limbaugh and Hannity, those who will without trepidation march against reality and assert that we must continue spending money fighting terrorists rather than f#$$ing pills and drunk drivers.

You know, the people with Support our Troops bumper stickers.  What the f#$$ does that mean anyways? How does the individual support somebody on the other side of the planet? What they're really trying to say is "support our war" or "don't badmouth the war." Or they are just really smart, and thus make the completely rational equivocation of "the War on Terror is senseless" and "the troops did a bad job and are bad people."  Dumbasses.

Listen, if you have anything less than love and respect for the person that is going to risk their life for your peace and comfort, you're not worth the gift.  "I'm going into harms way and risking bloody violent death so that you can keep enjoying life."  And these bumper-stickered motherf#$$ers are gonna go, "Yea, I support that."  F#$$.  You better rage against the f#$$ers who would abuse this gift. It is a horrible tragedy, and if you want to do something for the troops, tell the proponents of the terror war to f#$$ off.

Those who indoctrinately continue to defend the terror war will reason that the terrorists haven't killed more people because we are on the offense, "fighting them there instead of here."  They are premising the Terror War on the totally hypothetical notion of attacks prevented, or "lives saved."  Meanwhile tens and thousands of corpses and anti-American sentiments are piling up in the streets.  That's what you call ironic hypocrisy.

The people for which "we are on offense" is satisfactory justification for war are the same people who have no real grasp of why terrorism exists.  "Because they are evil and hate freedom."  Way to go dude, you must have thought real hard about that one while you were wasting your life watching f#$$ing reality shows and sitcom reruns.  And not even a good sitcom, one that is so forgettable that it's actually going to disappear from the historical record. Like the definition and fate of the empire. 



 If so many people didn't squander all their time in front of the idiot box and say, read history books on the subject instead, they would understand that the only reason there are crazy anti-American terrorists in the first place is this thing call "F#$$ed up foreign policy." Our federal government has given a lot of people around the world a lot of very real reasons to hate over the years, and the funny thing is, they represent us.  Like covertly removing democratically elected leaders of other nations because they wouldn't allow our multinational corporations to commence with the pillaging of their populace?  And there's the likes of our 200 million dollar man Saddam Hussein, standing up for America's interests in the Middle East.  Or at least whoever brokered the arms deal must of thought as much.  Then he got a million people killed in a f#$$ing dumbass war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, and finally we decided we could use him as a bomb target in 2003.

Selling a tyrannical fascist chemical and biological weapons that can be used to further consolidate his power?  What could possibly go wrong?  It's like this, imagine you sell guns.  It ain't an ethical business, but hey, somebody's gotta cover the market Russia can't. So you sell a gun to the first guy, who then proceeds to blow the second guy away with it, and then a friend of the second guy, who doesn't have a gun to shoot back with, looks at you and goes "What the f#$$!??" and then your response is, "I don't get it.  Why don't you love me and my country?" 

And we do it all over the globe. The world bank, that great part of the UN that loans out money to African nations (a.k.a regimes) if they promise to not spend any of the money on their people and cut off some more funding to schools (please do check out our catalog "Fascist Gentleman Billionaire Monthly.")  So we keep giving these power-hungry psychopaths "foreign aid" and we pay them with weapons so that we can commence with a little multi-national corporate pillaging. And then the huddled masses starve, no infrastructure is built (not even an electric stove) and there's genocide.  Oh, what a tragedy.  If only we could do something.

Africa isn't actually poor; it's just that other countries (like China, Russia and America) own the means of raw materials production.  It's a tough market to break into these days, the way we keep paying the African leaders with our old machine guns and fighter jets.  It'd be like a dream come true for a tyrannical African fascist, and I'd bet he's way to busy playing with his new toys to worry about whatever f#$$ing metal they were going to mine.  He'd never heard of it anyway, and he's got another batch of uppity rebellers (something about mining monopolies) who need to be put in their place.  The regime responsible for the hundreds of thousands of raped, starving and dead people in Darfur?  At least Sudan is China's regime and not ours. Gotta love the oil. 

And then there's the wonderful piece of irony, the story of Sayyid Kutb, the founder of the modern fundamentalist Islamic movement.  He was a student in the states in the fifties, and returned to Egypt thinking America was seriously f#$$ed up, that it's culture of consumerism and sexual enslavement reduced many people to animals, emotionally overdriven, completely out of touch with nature and God.  I kind of feel him a little. Don't you get the sense that humanity's demons are being yoked to a money machine?  If you're in that kind of advertisement or marketing, just kill yourself.  There’s no Justification for what you do *(props Hicks).  Inspiring false hopes and manufacturing false needs and wasting all kinds of time and life for the sake of your net worth. And that's why capitalism is so great, because it isn't about whether or not the goods or service do anything positive for anyone.  The only relevant question is "does it sell?" 

Correction; "can we make it sell?"  

"Right here! Chemical and biological weapons! Get'em while they're hot, only 200 million dollars a set.  Comes with complete materials for a dozen fully functioning and totally killer missiles, some assembly necessary *(necessary for legality.) Mass death and destruction, guaranteed! Get the respect you deserve while you still can! Weapons are going fast and salesmen are standing by at www.jesuscannons.com"

And America invented the "public relations" firm and made a business out of "Propaganda ministry," that irreplaceable tool of the Third Reich.  See, if we just allow people to form an independent opinion of our business from an "unattended" perspective, they tend to get the idea that we need to be stopped.  So I got us this great public relations firm.  We pay them to attend to the masses' perspective, and through their magic, everyone thinks we've been out giving toys to poor kids instead of poisoning the water supply.  And it’s funny because were actually using poor kids in China for cheap labor to cut costs.  But hey, at least were dumping all of our poison manufacturing byproduct shit in China instead of New Jersey.  The people of America should be thanking us. 

Back in Egypt this guy Sayyid Kutb begins a political party, the Moslem Brotherhood, which gains popular support in its denunciations of the corrupt government and (virtually synonymous) American influences in Egypt.  But he is a little bit too successful, to the point that his nonviolent political activism is threatening our guy in Egypt, Anwar Sadat, who is totally down with corruption and the perks of allowing American corporations to do business *(a.k.a. "pillage the populace.") So the CIA trains and installs a "security force" to maintain Anwar Sadat's grip on Egypt. 

Gee wiz, the thugs America hooked Anwar Sadat up with arrest and torture Sayyid Kutb, who had done nothing wrong at this point.  He's released and does not relent his f#$$ing NONVIOLENT POPULARLY SUPPORTED political activism.  Sadat was out of patience *(like most tyrannical fascists are) so Sayyid Kutb was arrested and summarily executed. Thus the friends and followers of Sayyid Kutb looked our way with that familiar "WHAT THE F#$$!?" expression.  This was followed by the appropriate American response:

"What? What happened? You’re talking to me? OH F#$$ YOU TO BUDDY! NOBODY BADMOUTHS AMERICA!! YOU WANNA FIGHT? BRING IT!"

Now we have a new lot of young people with dead friends and relatives in the US and the Middle East thinking "WHAT THE F#$$!" Pick at that festering wound you f#$$ing dumbass.

 So if you get one of these terror warriors to acknowledge that, that is "ok ok America is only targeted by terrorism because of the foreign policy it implemented in the first place, and every attempt at a military solution has only exacerbated the issue of Anti-American sentiment abroad."  Some of these idiots will actually exert the effort to think themselves that far and then just stop, "but we are where we are now, all this history doesn't change the fact that terrorism is more of a threat now than it ever was."  The latter part of that statement is sadly true, but WRONG, historical precedent implies you should drop it like it's losing you money. Because it is, unless you're Gene Ray, CEO of TITAN corp., who has seen tens of millions of dollars flow into his pocket as a direct result of the war in Iraq.  And there are dozens just like him.  War is not a racket.  Right.

Then the terror warriors, when confronted with numbers, like military industrial CEO incomes and the causes of death in this country, they retort, "you can't just judge the threat of terrorism based on who is killed.  You have to take into account the economic damage an attack like September 11th does."

First of all, the billions of dollars of production that the nation lost on 9/11 was mostly due to our government's own inept response.  Grounding every flight in the nation? That might be the worst idea I have ever heard of!  Anybody who hated America and its productivity definitely found that amusing.  Second of all, take your blood money and shove it up your ass.  Dollars of production lost being appraised in value against lives lost?  Jesus would approve.

Something your going to have to swallow if you want in on reality is that the vast majority of wars the United States entered were never waged in the interest of protecting it's average citizen from harm or loss of rights.  If your interest was protecting people from physical harm, clearly there are numerous issues you would deal with before terrorism. If your interest is protecting freedom, surely you wouldn't dismantle the constitution. 




Wait a second, what does this mean?  People are getting tricked into paying for and being compliant with a war against things that really pose no serious threat to them while their civil rights are rendered (a.k.a. Nazi Germany.) This is some crazy shit.  J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI for close to half a century, had this to say.  You can be damn sure he knew what was up.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

And he's talking WWII, Korea and Vietnam eras (when he was director.)  But where is this concealed plot he speaks of?  It's been half a century, wouldn't we have heard about a “monstrous conspiracy” occurring in American history?  It's right the F#$$ IN FRONT OF YOU!  It's all one and the same; that rabbit hole of leadership runs straight to hell. How else are you going to have one of the most respected military men in US history writing a book called "War is a Racket" in the 1930's, and yet, look at the great nation go!  What would General Butler know; he was only the person who executed the invasion and occupation of several South American countries.

Suddenly all this stuff that used to make no f#$$ing sense becomes clear.  Like Drug policy.  Oh so that’s why alcohol is legal, it puts the user in a stupid, emotionally overdriven state, and that's the way they like you to be.  Humans rather enjoy altering their state of perception, and all cultures have their rules of engagement with psychoactive substances.  In this great nation, you're shown alcohol and nicotine and then discouraged from trying anything else.  And all those other really bad, bad psychedelic drugs, you know the ones that, assuming you have no demons to face, leave you lying on your back outside, gazing into the sky thinking OH MY GOD I love EVERYTHING (after the laughing fit of course); these drugs are against the law.  We can't have people lying around experiencing universal love, that f#$$s with our ability to convince people of the dangers of commies and terrorists.  And obviously if your gonna dupe people into hating and waging a war that isn't in their interest, you're gonna need less pot, shrooms and LSD *(props hicks.) 

Also, you can keep more profit for yourself if it's illegal and you are able to function outside the law.  Don't think for a second that all the drug law enforcement does anything to keep people from using and abusing drugs.  Observe the state of drug abuse in this nation. Observe other nations that spend no money on enforcement or incarceration.  You'd assume that all those hundreds of billions of dollars spent pursuing and locking up drug users would do something to end the scourge of drug ABuse, but nope.  In fact, if you do the exact opposite of the drug wars method and provide heroine to people who are hopelessly addicted, out of money, and ready to get violent in order to satisfy their craving, you will observe a drop in crime.  It's called a methadone clinic. 

See here is where you have to keep in mind that the purpose of federal government is to conduce profits and control the people generating those profits, not to serve and protect.  And people can fear drug-crazed addicts, so methadone clinics are out. And then you have people going to prison for years, years and years of their life spent in a f#$$ing tiny little room for being involved with pot.  Sure, if your mentally unstable pot can induce psychotic disorders, but if your already kind of f#$$ed up in the head, psychedelics are not for you. Marijuana, the use of which has killed nobody, ever, the fed is going to use all kinds of your money to keep this stuff from influencing the thoughts of people. 

And the other dumb shit that gets spouted against pot, "It's a gateway drug, its terrible (just like alcohol). It has its good for nothing ABusers (just like alcohol).  Lots of people enjoy it (just like alcohol).   I'm not saying a person should use substances or not try non-addictive psychedelics; just that you should more often be sober than not.    

Then you have alcohol and cigarettes and prescription pills, which kill more people than all other illegal narcotics combined (multiplied by some very large number) and those things are good old pieces of down home American culture.  It's a means of control and a racket, like most federal tentacles. 

And Reagan, that great bastion of Republicanism since the 1980's, he was the one who got away with initiating the unconstitutional and dumb f#$$ing (oh you thought it was gonna work...have you heard of Prohibition?) Drug war. So from here on out, the great republican president must be known as Reagan the Ass-raper (it has a certain ring to it.)  He did get millions and millions of innocent people put in prison, and thus is the only way Reagan really made something happen for the lower classes (a.k.a. "90% of the population.") He was able to touch so many lives...

I think, seeing as how Reagan initiated the propaganda and police war against drug use, we should pay him back by putting up a giant plaque at his presidential library that tells a positive drug story which undoubtedly happened many times in the 60's.  Reagan obviously never experienced it or thought it to be worth the people's attention.

"Today, a young man on acid realized, with the help of Maxwell and Einstein, that all matter is condensed energy, and that this energy, which is the fundamental substrate of all creation, is inextricably linked and connected, propagating into and become of itself.  In this way, existence is singular.  It is only our perception that we are alone; the truth is that there is no such thing as time and death, as are generally conceived.  The self is only an illusion." *(respect Hicks)

Drugs are bad, mmmkay? This is your brain on drugs. This is you “above the influence.”  Well you may be scared of the influence, and ignorant of it, but above? When people who actually use drugs refer to the psychoactive effect as "getting high?"  

There are these videos of military research conducted by the government, and the experiment was giving a small team of commandos a hefty dose of LSD and then sending them on a training operation.  Soon the commandos were climbing trees and attempting to feed birds.  The commando’s found it hilarious when they were reminded these activities were not part of their mission.

Federal drug policy is just a part of a series of synergetic rackets that robs people of their lives. "Wait wait wait George I got it. We make drugs illegal "officially" while still maintaining control of some major supply lines.  So we can sell without taxes as well as using the state to suppress our competition.  The bonus is that we can then charge the people to lock up our customers in a place that makes it more likely for that person to do more product!  GENIOUS!  Don't even get me started on what I have planned for the legal pharmaceuticals.  

Do you feel sad or anxious sometimes?  Well you should be happy and comfortable all the time, so ask your doctor if "This Great Nation" is right for you.  It will make you feel like the system is working for everyone *(respect Maron.) 

Was there a popular vote on any of this shit? No. Is its viability (i.e. can the police stop people from using or abusing substances?) discussed in any detail? No.  It just happens because America is great and certain people want it to happen. Legislation is quietly pushed through and laws change without a person in congress noticing.  Like the act that says you have no right to a trial in a real court if the president so decides. Some honest congressman actually read it (after voting to enact it) and was like, "holy shit, this is totally unconstitutional.  Somebody better do something."








Liberals want to bring back and live in the Soviet Union while conservatives wish the United States would have allied with Germany in WWII.   Liberals want a welfare state with free handouts for everyone and conservatives want a state run by a wealthy elitists who exploit the rest of the people.   Liberal’s want an efficient and effective public education system with all the resources a good teacher could want, and conservatives want the government to be as small possible and still effectively carry out important tasks, like making sure somebody isn’t haphazardly poisoning your drinking water by doing business.  Maybe we’re getting somewhere.

We're all f#$$ing human.  But we humans are social creatures, and the first thing we look for when stepping onto a scene is "where are my people?" We like having people that think and act like us, it justifies the stupid shit we say and do.  We tend to define social groups by racial or physical characteristics because it's emotional and simple minded.  They look and dress like me.  Therefore they are my people.  And once you have found "your group," it can then begin resenting the other groups it has to share the scene with.  Of course the second thing you look for is f#$$ables in the group.  You can finally start getting jealous and violent once you've convinced yourselves the other groups are out to end yours by stealing your women.

Being on a team and having a "people" satisfies a fundamental emotional need.  And that fundamental emotional need is the desire for purpose and meaning; the power of and struggle for identity.  If you’re not on a team that is fighting another team, life can really get to people. By being involved with some struggle that proves your people are better than some other people in some way, we convince ourselves our lives have meaning and purpose.  We're number One!  We're number One! Never mind where the powerful sense of national identity has taken most people emotional enough to come under its sway.


I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.” 


So each group has it's military on the international stage, and here goes the search for purpose.  HOLY SHIT LOOKOUT! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! We need more people doing the hard work of having a team on the world stage though; the volunteer Military is starting to run thin.  So we’re gonna spend taxpayer's dollars to convince people how great and awesome our military is by showing some dude sword fight a giant fire monster, or speed boating to Godsmack. In a World where your an Army of One. The defender, whose mighty blade protects us from constant threat of giant fire monsters, keeping freedom and liberty safe for another day. What a tragic fairytale.  Didn't you know every war is fought by liberators?  Like how Hitler waged war to liberate Europe from the Jews. 

But the whole "operation Iraqi freedom" didn't liberate its people like we had been told to hope. So we the people are unhappy with the status quo (like we usually are) and want change. So the candidates tell the people "for I can feel the change coming, like a changing change." *thunderous applause* I'm gonna try and keep it simple, but the discussions (a.k.a. the political debate) need two basic components;

Here problem; 

Here how fix problem; 

Here problem; the current elections do not generate candidates that have anything approximating a real solution to a real problem.  The act of being a senator and running for elections and being a "politician" does next to nothing to prepare a person for solving problems, or more importantly figuring what the f#$$ing problem is. 

 Here how fix problem; create an election system that is centered on a candidate (and his team) explaining exactly what the problem is and how they are going to fix it.  And then let the people judge what they hear and see for themselves.  Post-game show analysis is illegal.   No talking heads analyzing the debate like it was a f#$$ing football game on ESPN, saying totally redundant bullshit that promotes confusion instead of understanding.

We need to know what the candidate is going to do about global warming.  OH MY GOD the climate is changing! Consume for your lives! Except the climate is always changing.  World Melt.  World Freeze.  High Ocean, Desertification and Tropical Storm Age.  Ice Age.  We cannot do shit to stop what is coming even if we emitted no more carbon dioxide.  Despite this latter sentence, the media debate is treating the issue with the following two-component format:

Here problem; the climate is changing

Here how fix problem; cut carbon emissions

Other academics would recast the issue;

Here problem; in the coming decades, hundreds of millions of people's homes and lands which feed and support them are destined to become tide pools, barren deserts, and hurricane hotspots.

Here how fix problem; figure out what the f#$$ your going to do to help the displaced masses.  


But the debate will never get to this point, because of America's strict moral code (you can't get more money and help people at the same time.)  Thus we don’t treat global warming with this academic “reality speak.”

 And we have the "hot" issue of immigration.  We must do something about immigration!  News flash!  If you’re white, you're an immigrant.  So stop resenting immigrants. There's no good reason for it (der takin er jerbs!) and its total hypocrisy.  However you do need to secure the borders.  You should be much less worried about people as you are about things.  It would probably be easier than shit to get a nuclear weapon into this country from some obscure place in Pakistan, because the alpha males, very alarmingly, have done nothing to make sure imports are inspected.  But no, were talking about "illegal alien" Mexicans for some dumbass reason.  Have you heard of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo? Jesus would approve.

But Noooooooo.  Nobody is talking about corporate empires.  The president needs to stand and say, "if you like this country, stop buying shit made in China." The fact that they poisoned your dog and then put poison on your children's playthings means nothing to you?  This might warrant a statement; China is poisonous.  In fact our pristine west Coast beaches have new poisons showing in them...and they floated all the way across the Pacific.

 In fact, your somewhat retarded if you don't take the time shop at locally owned stores stocked with locally produced goods whenever it's a viable option (that is, unless you resent the place you live.)  If it's never a viable option, move to a better city.  Oh all that wealth skimmed out of your community just became a Wal-Mart executive's private island in the south Pacific.  Better luck next community.  Little do the consumers know that they yield absolute power with where they spend their dollar, and could watch the corporations shrivel up and die (like a parasite cut off from it's host.) 

 There are many problems and they must be prioritized.  If we try to fix everything at once it will probably blow up in our face.  We said the causes of death are a pretty logical place to start with your prioritization. And, as we have learned, be very skeptical whenever you create agencies to find out what the problem is, lest you get duped into authorizing arms sales (like poor Jimmy Carter) or wars (like Lyndon B. Johnson) for no good reason.

Politics as seen on TV is a fucking joke of a drama.  Its level of detail is such that it could be a reality TV show about elections rather than the democratic process of leadership, and we wouldn't know the difference.  It has its writers.  "This year were gonna bring back global warming, next year were going to release more MONARCH snipers.  That should keep the f#$$ers distracted until the next terrorist attack."  Let's hope it's not that bad.  But we do know it's pretty bad.  Like Zapruder film bad.





Have you ever watched President Kennedy's brains slosh around after having his skull blown open in front of his wife?  Oh what a tragedy, if it wasn't for that crazy lone nut Oswald, Kennedy could have finished withdrawing from Vietnam.  Oh you didn't know president Kennedy was involved with Vietnam?  Actually, America had intelligence agents helping the French maintain their colonial control in Vietnam right after WWII ended.  And we never left.  It was a real colonial shit hole, and there are these things called "the pentagon papers" that summarize America's (and thus JFK's) dealings with poor poor Vietnam. 

 He had decided to give no more taxpayer money to prop up Diem's failing regime. Kennedy would withdraw American support and surrender colonial South Vietnam to the agitating North (he and his advisors knew the situation would escalate just like the Korean Civil War.)  But the CIA didn't like history or the idea of Kennedy ending their operations in Vietnam. 

 They (Allen Dulles) were also none too happy when Kennedy fired CIA director Allen Dulles and a few others after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion (that's right, you do need the president's authorization to invade Cuba, Mr. Dulles) And what’s this? CIA personnel known to be involved with the Bay of Pigs invasion are also known to be in Dallas the day of Kennedy's assassination?  Oh, there's more? E. Howard Hunt tried to sue Esquire magazine for slander when it alleged that he and the CIA were involved in the killing and he LOST in court? Allen Dulles is on the Warren Commission; Oswald was murdered before a trial could take place.  That string of circumstantial evidence doesn't mean anything. It was half a century ago.  We'll never know what happened, it's all conspiracy.

 The Vietnam War happened and proved to be a horribly brutal blunder of a war waged to maintain control over an economic interest.  It is shown that Kennedy had planned to end America's involvement in Vietnam.  Don’t forget what President Eisenhower said in his 1961 farewell address:


"We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."


MI COMPLEX:  But we had to stop the commies! They are really sneaky you see, they work just like dominoes, because if Vietnam falls to the Chinese-backed North the whole world will become communist and steal all of our precious moonney! nOOOO!!!


"Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment."


MI COMPLX: "expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia, we are supporting all necessary action to protect our Armed Forces." But really, trust me, Lyndon B. Johnson "seeks no wider war."


"we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions...This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."


MI COMPLEX: "At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations, to (disarm Iraq), to (free its people), and to (defend the world from grave danger.)"  Mr. Bush under the reality speak translation; (create chaos so billions in oil can be stolen), (distract masses from executive power grabs), (get billions in defense contracts)

Thus Eisenhower delivers his little known warning about the paranoid retards at the helm of the military industrial complex.  Paranoid and/or willing to start wars on the profit motive.  What other American saint was murdered for standing up to Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex"? Martin Luther King Jr. The fact that he was the leading voice in protest against the Vietnam War and was planning on running for president?  Totally unrelated.  We all know it has been shown that his killer was another lone nut.

 "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." Did somebody say something about the Great Depression, powerful American Nazis, and a coup against FDR? Yea, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton and Smedly Butler did.  Don't you think it's funny that Germany lost World War One, and merely two decades later it’s a military industrial superpower threatening domination of a large portion of the globe?  There is another suppressed chapter of history explaining this, that is “the American enablers of the Third Reich."  Like how "Blitzkrieg Efficiency" could more accurately be called "International Business Machines."


In closing, I’d like to remind us that some people have dreamt of a better way.  Somebody better do something.


Good Luck.  











PS:  The Universe is teeming with life.  Thank you from Bill Hicks to Edwin Black, Mark Maron to Antony Sutton.  To all the authors and creators that spent all the countless hours trying to figure something out so we could learn quickly.