Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Agents Provocateurs: Today's COINTELPRO In Action

Please watch the following YouTube Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

True, the guy is convinced they're cops without hard evidence, but look at the way they're acting as they're openly accused of being cops. Logically, I would think that, if they're some kind of "militant terrorist" group, they would be INSULTED at being called cops. Or that they would have something... anything... to say for themselves. Instead they're just acting all sheepish, doing a half-assed job of trying to do their job: which is to provoke the crowd, causing rioting and mass arrests.

Once some form of violence is achieved, the protest will be dutifully reported by the Obedia (Mainstream Media) as, you guessed it, an unlawful riot by unruly youth. Joe and Jane North American will then watch this with apprehension and fear and beg the state to "do something about it," even if it means, "giving up some more freedoms to get more security," from these lawless hooligans. This strategy worked wonders in the 60s and 70s to scare the Red-State Americans into following LBJ's and Nixon's disastrous path in Vietnam without question.

This type of activity is what is used to justify massive police presences at all peaceful protests. In the future it will be used to justify the outlawing of ALL organised gatherings not sanctioned first by the North American Union.
(If that link seems too "conspiracy theorist" and not "mainstream" enough, how about CNN's Lou Dobbs? He is the only Obedia "journalist" covering this life-altering issue).

Saturday, August 18, 2007

The Internet Endgame

New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture

This is it: the Internet Endgame. We're seeing why the Internet was sold to us so quickly and why there have been virtually no laws passed to protect Internet users. It was planned from its inception (as the US military's ARPANET) as a tool to capture all our personal information.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

NASA Wouldn't Lie... Would They?

Reference article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/

For years, I was a faithful supporter of the idea that humans, through irresponsible use of polluting chemicals and fuels, were causing a greenhouse effect on this planet, risking our very future for short-term profit.

Now, I must admit, that I am not so sure any more... I would have stayed the course, but for the mainstream media (MSM)'s sudden all-out backing of the Global Warming paradigm. Within one year, the MSM went from making fun of anyone who propounded these ideas to making it a sin to argue against them! When was the last time you
ever saw these self-serving fools do that?

Wait... it's coming to me now... Ah yes... How about when the Washington Times printed afront-page story which outlined the beginnings of an investigation into a child gay child prostitution ring that featured boys rounded up in the famous Boys Town Catholic orphanage (made familiar and pleasant in a Mickey Rooney movie)? They had sudden change of heart - they never printed another story about it again. There was also a documentary that was made for the Discovery channel. They ran ads for it for two weeks. Then, two days before airing, it was pulled, and the videotapes bought by an outside firm. The videotapes were destroyed. But, a pre-edit print was recued by someone on the crew, and, thank God, you can see it on Google Video.

This article is not about Bush-level paedophilia (I already did that: See "Sex Rings & NGOs - The Key?" below) but rather I point this out to show that the MSM only change their minds when serving an agenda.
Why did they pull the stories? Because they were paid or coerced into doing so. Because continuing to reveal the truth would have cost someone their job... or worse.

So why would they suddenly do a complete 180 about Global Warming? Because they were paid or coerced into doing so? Because continuing to reveal the truth would have cost someone their job... or worse? Because they benefited from telling a new myth? Correct on all counts.

After practically electing Al Gore to president without his even running, the MSM have more-or-less completely stood behind all major assertions in An Inconvenient Truth. AMong the most important data are the figures from NASA showing that we are now living in the warmest times in history and it's only getting worse...

Except, it turns out today that NASA
forgot to apply some basic, standard math to the figures. After correcting for this error, it turns out that there is NO warming trend, and the hottest decade in N. America was, in fact, the 1930s!!! Ooooops.

But, surely NASA must have made an innocent error. Perhaps. But, then again, NASA is a strange organisation which can hardly be seen as benevolent or as even serving the public interest. In fact, the best comparison one can make of NASA's organisational structure and operations is with CIA.
NASA experiences plenty of oversight for its high-profile space missions, but has an entirely separate and off-the-books budget for many other operations. Many of its facilities and personnel are within these "black" arenas.
Even the publicly-funded and supposedly over-seen missions have inexplicable levels of secrecy. Take planetary imaging, for instance: Despite having all the facilities and manpower needed to do it themselves, NASA outsources to a private company, the imaging equipment and its output. This company. Malin Space Science Systems, was created by Michael Malin, who, as part of his exclusive contract with NASA,
personally oversees all images taken with his equipment, and gets to hold back release of any image he wishes for up to 6 months. NASA can then hold the images as long as it wants too.
And you wonder why all these theories develop about life on Mars and UFOs and such. With such inexplicable secrecy, what else are people going to think?

NASA also participates fully with all US intelligence agencies and helps to implement Star Wars space programs.

There is another reason to wonder if NASA could possibly be used as a force to instill fear in us
all: (This will sound kooky at first, bear with me) NASA is absolutley rife with Nazis. Most people aren't aware of this. Take Verner Von Braun (please!). Considered "America's father of rocketry," Von Braun was a Nazi. A Hardcore, top-level Nazi who should have faced a war crime tribunal. Instead, while other sacrificial lambs faced (what has turned out to be hypocritical) "justice," Verner and many of his closest fascist friends were very quietly flown to the US and South America as part of what has proven to be called Operation Paperclip.

Just what kind of organisation would have been created with high-level Nazis not only working in it, but
running it? Do I really even have to answer that for you? Simply look at what they created in Germany in the 30s.

(In an ironic coincidence, the only decade warmer than this one was... the 1930s! Perhaps Global Warming is caused by Nazis)

So now it turns out that, right in time for this huge paradigm shift on Global Warming, NASA started pumping out exactly what was needed to get everybody all hyped up and following good-ole Al Gore. NASA
forgot to do simlpe and obvious math that a reader discovered and corrected for! So, after all, there has not been a consistent warming trend since the turn of the century.

In a world further terrorised by an end-of-the-world Global Warming scenario, we will be forced into making all sorts of choices on this new skewed playing field. We will buy into
any alternative fuel schemes that don't involve fossil fuels - no matter how hair-brained (take hydrogen - it takes many times the power to create is as it gives, plus we would need to build a complete infrastructure of filling stations and supply lines all over again, and, as a final kicker, the hydrogen tank is a massive, explosive time bomb sitting underneath your car).

If the true intent was to clean up transportation and power, we would a) all be driving the EV1
electric car that GM produced just a couple of years ago that simply plugs in overnight. But, wait... GM suddenly recalled and destroyed all the EV1s it ever made and sold! That's right, even the models that it sold (the cars sold out immediately upon their release, even at their relatively high price-point, with a 2-year waiting list). Didn't hear about this car? Try seeing the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car?

Monday, July 23, 2007

What? Are We In Slow-Mo here?

So I'm reading today that the USA is going to strike at bin Laden in Pakitsan, where the "alleged architect" of the 911 "attack" has "found a safe haven."

Pakistan rejects 'Bin Laden raid'

"Alleged architect?!?" What does that mean?

First, I thought that bin Laden was the "mastermind." Now we are told that
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the "mastermind" and bin Laden is the "architect." What exactly are the definitions of these terms? Are there different penalties for terrorist architecture, as opposed to terrorist master-minding? If bin Laden is not the mastermind, why are we looking for him still? Who is in charge, the architect or the mastermind?

"Found a safe haven?!" Instead of the movie version of events that you are asked to believe, try to imagine the supposed events
on the ground in real-time:

Imagine you are bin Laden. You are running this "insurgency," or "jihad," or "war of terror," or whatever the hell it's called now... and you are doing your best to attack US troops as well as hide. (Let's not complicate things by including annoying real-wrold detials sucj as the facts that you have renal failure and need dialysis, or that you died several years ago).
Now, you have been waging war from giant Dr. No-style underground, 10-story mountain bases. Oddly, you choose to do useless attacks of only a few men at a time, or pointlessly set roadside bombs.
But the US is looking for you. You need to move. Would you take
six years to find an acceptable spot?!? Would you just slide on over a few feet to the right into Pakistan? I mean, how obvious can you get? Supposedly, Al-Qaeda is a hydra-like, all-powerful, cell of highly-trained, expert terrorists capable of defeating the entire US military more or less at will.

We are being asked to believe that, for six years the US knew where bin Laden was: he was in Afghanistan, in mountain complexes. Yet , with their unlimited resources, they could not find him (many newspapers and the CIA had no trouble finding him, though). Why does it take years for bin Laden to move to a new base? Is he moving in slow-mo?
How does America know where he is
again? Obviously it doesn't even matter if the US knows where he is. They knew for years where he was and could (would) not apprehend him.

So I ask, are we in slow motion here? It is inexplicable how the (supposedly) greatest armed force in the history of creation, and the (supposedly) international terrorist enemy could be moving so bloody slowly!

The truth most likely is: bin Laden is dead and has been for years. The bin Laden's are the Bush's closest Saudi friends. They hatched a deal with them to use Osama's face and name (either because he's dead or because he's a family black sheep). There is no terrorist enemy at all. There are actually terrorist friends of the Coalition's national intelligence agencies, launching false-flag attacks on a perfect schedule to make the situation seem grave enough for us to give up oour liberties and continue to prosecute the most brazenly illegal war since WWII.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Sneak Oil

Why Peak Oil Is Wrong

Yet another stunning effort by the venerable Greg Palast.

If those shills that pose as "journalists" in the mainstream media had to even come close to matching Palast's standards of research, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Who Should Lead the Mounties? Why, A Non-Policeman, of Course!

Well, I guess it's the end of the Mounties as we knew them.

Government draws new RCMP head from civilian ranks

Although, that might be over-reactionary... the RCMP was probably "over as we knew it" when CSIS was created to take over foreign security from the RCMP Foreign Liaison desk. While some bristle at one agency handling both domestic and international security and intelligence, I, and many others, actually preferred having the RCMP in charge of both. All we need to do is look to the States, who supposedly split up their security into the FBI (domestic intelligence & security) and CIA (foreign intelligence & security) immediately following WWII with their National Security Act.

All this did was to create the idea that the FBI would not act on foreign soil and the CIA would not spy on its own people. The FBI and CIA, in fact, continued to do both - except after the Security Act, it could now be considered "conspiracy theory" to even suggest that the CIA would, say, spy on its own people.

With the creation of CSIS in Canada, we received our own CIA. Unlike the States, CSIS is free to act as it sees fit domestically and abroad, as long as it can produce the slightest evidence of a "national security threat;" that classic phrase that has greased the war machines and coffers of the military/industrial complex and filled concentration camps for centuries.

With its latest move, Canada's Harper government (think George W. Bush, except not as much fun) has filled the head seat of the national police force with a man who has no police experience. In fact, the opposite: he's a lawyer! William Elliot has served as chief-of-staff to the Deputy Prime Minister during Brian Mulroney's (think George H. W. Bush with a bigger chin) reign of terror. This being the same Mulroney who secretly sold Canada's sovereignty to the US in the NAFTA agreements.
Elliot also served as National Security Adviser to the previous Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin. This point
is brought up by the current, Conservative, government to show that Elliot is fair and balanced. He has worked for both Liberal and Conservative governments, after all.

We all know by now this is hooey. Here in Canada, politicians switch parties like underwear - whichever party is most likely to get them elected, they will jump to that one; only to leave after one term to take a lucrative lobbying/CEO job right after (Belinda Stronach anyone?) In the US, this rarely happens, though by now most of us can see that there's simply no reason to: the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable.

Specifically, Paul Martin's government was, in most standard ways of measuring such things, if anything, more conservative than the Conservatives; showing far less concern over national sovereignty and dignity than do the
Conservatives. So there is no reason to think Elliot somehow immune to political pressure - in fact, the opposite: he's been granted a post politically! Now that the RCMP Comission is just another political appointment that can be filled by anyone, why wouldn't he feel political pressure?

William Elliot being posted as commissioner of the RCMP is like making Henry Kissinger head of the FBI. Or Tony Blair Chief of Scotland Yard.

When I checked with my ex-RCMP friends, I was told that this is "the beginning of the end of the force as we know it," because the commissioner has the power to appoint senior officials all the way down the chain of command. Hmmm.... what does that remind you of? Sure reminds me of der fuhrer's SS.

I would like to thank the RCMP for all the work they have done to keep this country one of the safest (if not the safest) in the world. You've done well, but no (earthly) institutions last forever, it seems.

Live Earth: Raising Fearness

Live Earth is a series of concerts held today to "raise awareness" of "climate change."

When I try to raise my awareness of something, I look into the issue from all angles, gather the best, most verifiable facts, and form an opinion based upon those facts. Isn't that "awareness?"

I'm starting to react negatively to anything that is supposed to "raise awareness" of an issue. Think about it: what have been the major "awareness raisings" that we've had over the last couple of decades?

AIDS: When all facts are in, there is actually NO proof that HIV causes AIDS; no definitive proof that it is viral in nature, and, even if it is a virus, that the virus was deliberately inserted into both African and Gay populations (the smallpox and hepatitis B vaccines, respectively). There is certainly no proof whatsoever that AIDS can be transferred by heterosexual relations. Yet how many ribbon and concert programs and ads have we been subjected to for decades telling us the exact opposite?
BTW: With AIDS, the medico-pharma complex is guaranteed an average of $USD100,000 per AIDS victim before their inevitable painful, and tragic deaths (which starts immediately upon starting these cursed drugs - many too toxic to have been approved the last time they were up for federal approval). At 930,000 American AIDS diagnoses by 2003 and rising, that equals $USD93,000,000,000. That is 93 billion dollars in twenty years.

DRUGS: While Reagan and Bush Sr. declared their unprecedented War On Drugs; hammering us over and over with "Public Service Announcements" featuring A-List Hollywood stars, it has been conclusively proven, through internal documentation, that the CIA's major source of "black" (i.e., off-the-books) financing has been illicit drug trafficking. This cannot be disputed anymore. Major, "respectable" media outlets in America itself have published many articles proving this already.
So, while black men in America are getting life sentences for selling a couple grams of coke, Bush Sr. and Clinton were running thousands of tons of cocaine into Arkansas! The CIA was not simply skimming a little off the top of corrupt foreign dictators' sales of drugs to foreign citizens, but rather was the major conduit for domestic illicit drug supply! Drugs like crack cocaine - formerly unknown in most of the USA - became an epidemic in its cities.
Obviously, there was no "War On Drugs," just a war on America.

CANCER: After so many decades of the "War On Cancer," where are we really? It turns out that researchers can't even agree on what cancer is - some say it is viral some say environmentally caused, some say other causes. At the end of the day, Cancer-as-a-virus is a theory and nothing but a theory.
As we pour billions upon billions of dollars into such NGOs as the American Cancer Society, what have they done with these almost governmental levels of funding? They've managed to triple the cancer rates across the board in all countries that they operate out of! They've had their 5-6 decades to help - and it's only gotten worse.
Any amount of research shows that these NGOs all operate side by side with the mind-numbingly huge pharmaceutical industry - who benefit directly from sales of "chemotherapy" and "radiation therapy" drugs and machines to the tune of (again) $USD100,000 per cancer victim. It would actually be in the American Cancer Society's worst interests to ever find a cure. The CEO of the American Cancer Society makes over $USD750,000 per year! Why would this guy ever give up such a sinecure?

BTW: Cancer is the ultimate payout for the medico/pharma complex. While it is hard to gauge an exact average cost for cancer patients, $100,000 for all but the simplest cancers is fair, as costs can soar far above these levels for, say, bone marrow transplants. Cancer has incidence rates in the millions per year. Millions times hundreds of thousands = 100s of billions per year.

Which brings me to "raising awareness of Earth climate change."

It is indisputable that humans are making a massive mess of the Earth. Dioxins are found in seal meat at the North Pole. Huge clouds of smog sit over cities. Entire ecosystems are destroyed forever to build more houses and strip-malls than we could ever need. The impact of this mindless growth is devastating to the World over the long term. These and so many other issues need to be addressed. And the sooner the better, I say.

Yet, after decades of arguing vociferously, all of a sudden the news media and big business are now suddenly unanimously united behind the humans-are-creating-a-greenhouse-effect line. Since we know that nothing gets continuously reported in the news media unless there is a beneficial angle for those who own the media, we have to ask: What happened?

Only two years ago, it was normal to see a piece attacking global warming advocates as "conspiracy theorists" or "kooks." Expert after expert was paraded out to prove that there was nothing to global warming. Then, right in time for Gore's big comeback, ALL TV stations and newspapers changed their tune and a massive campaign has been underway ever since to establish as an unassailable fact that human consumption of fossil fuel is the only reason the Earth is warming up.

I used to believe this - until my studies took me into alternate history research, such as Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods. It turns out there are many different mechanisms at play in our universe, and many different ways that the Earth can experience climate change. That fossil fuels are causing all of the observed changes is, simply, a theory. Other theories include natural shifts in our planet's orbit, natural Jet Stream/Gulf Stream changes, magnetic pole reversals, etc.

It is too soon to judge objectively what is causing the supposed rampant changes in our environment.

Besides, we've got some much more intense problems on our plate. Let's start with white collar crime: crime that is stealing billions of dollars every year and corrupting our political processes! And let's stop killing citizens of foreign, sovereign states!

What good will "raising awareness" do when all mechanism for changes are owned by the global elite?

Instead, like all the other "good causes" that have come before, the only "awareness" that they wish to be raised is the awareness of how scary the world is and how much you will need their help and their rules to save you.

You will also need their cures and their solutions - just like their "solutions" for AIDS, CANCER, and DRUGS. I guarantee that they will cost far more than their considerable price tags.

Don't Worry... They'll Run Out Soon

After looking at some stats:


I have good news: all the "coalition" forces have to do in Iraq is... nothing! Just sit back and wait. Even though the stakes are high, and obviously, there are some "insurgents" in Iraq that are willing to strap explosive devices to themselves (to what end, who knows), there could only be so many that will be willing to do this.

Therefore, they will run out of people. And soon.

I mean, even in a society as axiomatic and organised as Imperial Japan was during WWII, they were only able to come up with so many kamikazes. They had, at most liberal estimate, 2-4000 kamikazes available. And they started to run out in the last year of the war. This from a population of many millions.

The "insurgents" in Iraq & Afghanistan are supposedly from at least four distinct and competing groups: Sunni, Shia, Taliban and/or Al Qaeda... plus in Afghanistan, we have dozens of local warlords, each staking their claims.

One thing is for sure, there aren't many of these people. They are small by military standards; surrounding themselves with only their trusted best and few. They run small, one-time guerrilla operations against the "coalition" forces. The never amass for battle as an organised force (which is strange... this is how one defeats one's enemy in an insurgency/guerrilla war. It was these large-scale offensives which brought the US to its knees in Vietnam). If there were more than just a few scattered thousands of each, they would amass and both take control of territory and launch effective strikes against the "coalition forces."

But they do not.

Instead, they send their best troops, one after the other, to blow themselves up. They send an incredible (in the truest sense of the word) amount of their soldiers to their useless deaths. By my count, there have been almost one thousand five hundred of these "suicide bombings" in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. And this is simply a quick overview. The real number is probably far higher.

That is over 30 individuals blowing themselves up every month for four years! Has a single suicide bombing ever produced any result other than escalation of troop presence and greater repression and cruelty? Are we to believe that these crafty devils - the same ones who planned for and defeated the mighty US Air Force on 911 - cannot come up with anything more effective than running screaming into the streets to blow themselves up? Knowing that their deaths will obviously be completely in vain?

What, do you think, is a fair percentage to assign to the success of recruiting suicide bombers? Do you think that 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 would agree to horribly shred themselves to death, in public, leaving their loved ones and family to fend for themselves?
I would tend to think that only the very hardest-core of the hardcore would even entertain this as an option. I would pick 1 in 1000. Of course, the "coalition" leaders would like to pick 1 in 10. Let's meet in the middle and pick 1 in 100 "insurgents" being talked into becoming screaming, fanatical suicide bombers.

It's simple math: 1500 x 100 = 150,000 insurgents. Since the suicide bombing don't seem to be anywhere near being over, there must be many more than the 1500 who have already blown themselves up. If there are that many again, we're looking at 300,000 insurgents.

I don't care how angry, how incensed, how outraged, a people can get: these people are humans. Humans are scared to die. Under some circumstances, people can be ideologically motivated enough to get over these fears, but not without hope to motivate. Suicide bombing will go down in history as the least effective war strategy in history!

If we take the far more reasonable number of 1 in 1000 people being talked into becoming suicide bombers, we end up with the mind-numbing figures of 1,500,000 - 3,000,000 insurgents. This is pure fantasy, of course. This is the population of several Iraqi cities put together. We can see from "news" images that, obviously, most Iraqis are trying to get on with life the best they can (bless their souls) and can't possibly be signing up en masse for "insurgency."

The "insurgents" have managed, through word-of-mouth and impromptu planning, since the start of the insurgency, to sign up 1500 suicide bombers - almost as many as the kamikazes in WWII. This is truly impressive. Imperial Japan had complete control of its home territory throughout the war, retaining airtight control over all media and propaganda, with recruiters and offices all over the country and a perfectly structured and organised military leadership with which to control their personnel. They were able to make 2000, perhaps 4000 kamikaze pilots from a huge standing army.
"Insurgents" in Iraq have managed to make 1500 attacks (so, 1500 suicide bombers) to date. There must be that many again ready to go, or their strategy would have changed by now. Problem is: they're going to run out of people. Obviously there aren't 3 million insurgents. There aren't even the 150,000 that the low-end of the math dictates!

So don't worry, "coalition forces," the end is in sight. The enemy is obviously intent on blowing itself to kingdom come - for nothing.

Sit back, have a smoke and don't worry, they'll run out soon.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

This Blog Is Not Yet Rated

This blog is based upon recently watching This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated. Oddly enough, it's slipped by the internal censors at Rogers video (Canadian version of Blockbuster) and was available on their New Release wall. If you have not seen this, you must. It might be one of the most important movies you have ever seen. Why?

We live in a free society, right? One that is democratic and values freedom of speech and expression above all else. We are not ever to be arrested for speaking out... never to be tortured for our views... never to censure books and films. The "Free Market" is supposed to be the ultimate decider. If you have a "controversial" movie, just put it out there! If anyone wants to se it they can - if no-one wants to, fine. You'll go broke and probably won't make another movie like that.

Well, wrong. We don't live in a free society. We don't even live in a "Free Market / Capitalist" society! Sorry, it's just not the case. We're much closer to fascism or state communism than you think. "
fascism or state communism?!?" you say, "Come on, Enjneer, you gotta to be kidding." "Those kind of states have dictators and no freedom of speech with secret police running around jailing people for no reason other than political ends or to silence dissent." Follow the links for proof that we are, in fact, in a fascist state. Communist when you consider that, for all their belching about "free-markets," and "competition," all major corporations now strive to a) monopolise their markets and/or b) ensure that they receive massive contracts/funding/underwriting from the government. That, my friends, is communsim.

NOTE: You Canadian readers might wonder why, if I am Canadian, do I have all these links to US policy and history? Please note: we have many examples up here of similar behaviour - from unwarranted arrests to sieges of innocent Canadians who confront the government - it's simply lower-key. Also the intense counter-analysis of US media and policy make it easier to find supporting URLs. As for the cultural aspects of media control, there is no difference to speak of anymore between the US and Canada; we watch the same shows, speak the same language, have the same divorce rate, etc).

This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated reminded me that it isn't unfamiliar to me to hear Valenti and CIA in the same sentence. Man, if I wanted to create a cultural filter - how better to do it than setup up a fascist system of cronyism like that. The ONLY other organisation that operates in secrecy = CIA. Hmmm....
I'm having trouble lately containing my feelings of, "this culture is bankrupt and the world is going to end... badly."

So you've got the 7 studios (another "Seven Sisters"?) Which are actually just 2 companies controlling 90% of EVERYTHING that we see. And if that weren't enough, they made this MPAA up out of cloth to make sure they catch everything before it hits our eyes and ears.

American movies have taken every chance to show us tit and ass, keeping malkes horny all the time, but not allowing women to have any sexual expression whatsoever - except for vaguely giving head or getting raped. So no wonder, after starting out as a puritanical society, then shifting into this heavily anti-sex media culture, women don't know WTF they want! All they know is cute girl and raped girl. And no wonder more than half of them can't come - they don't learn what it's like or that it's even possible from the mellow, slowly gyrating sex scenes in movies.

And we wonder why men and women are so fucked up.

There is so much proof building for an elite conspiracy to destroy our psyches - mostly by destroying the family (at the risk of sounding like the Moral Majority). But not in the ways that we've been 'allowed' to debate it. We need to remember that Arron Russo stated clearly that Rockerfeller told him, in person, that feminism was co-opted by his 'foundation' and other media that he and his friends radically influenced the movement, in order to destroy the modern family and get women out into wage slavery in numbers equal to men (Google Video link). This is a long talk Russo gave after screening his film. He drops the Rockefeller bombshell during that talk). It was irking Rockefeller and his ilk that women were spending their lives at home doing such trivial and unproductive work as child-rearing and running the household when they all could be working too!
The end result is... well, our lives. Look around you. Everyone feels this almost subconscious need to get married and have a "family" like we see on sitcoms and soap operas - except women now are not only denigrated as useless child-bearing machines and surgically-altered sperm receptacles, but they also now get to feel guilty if they decide to fulfill their roles as mothers because they're supposed to be out there having a 'career' as well!

The very real result is entire generations of women (not to mention men - who are now just as bewildered) who are fundamentally unhappy - with no way out. Stay at home and mother your children? You're nothing. Go out and work while dumping your kids off at a daycare to get ignored and abused by some teenagers who might as well be 'caring for' a grill full of Whoppers? You're nothing. You're now a bad mother. What are these ladies supposed to do?
And what are men supposed to do? We can't fill the outrageous roles that are expected of us either. Be a gangster... be a warrior... don't show weakness... yet be gentle and understanding... What?!?
Women now are becoming more notorious cheaters than men - I suspect it's because they want Conan the Barbarian and Dr. Spock rolled up into one. No man can be two types of people. So the women stray. No woman can be a virgin and a whore. SO the men stray. Marriages fall apart. Families are destroyed.

Thank you Mr. Rockerfeller.