Dissecting the techno cheerleaders in the media

Humanity is on an inexorable march towards transhumanism. Led by the likes of ‘futurist’ Ray Kurzweil, the transhumanist propaganda machine utilizes the media to its full potential  and employs a small army of writers, bloggers, and media personalities. A big part of this propaganda push is to continually hammer home a number of themes, such as technological progress is always positive (or at least that the benefits always outweigh the negative consequences). In close tandem with this notion is the idea that anyone who opposes the new is better paradigm is an old-fashioned, out-of-touch fuddy-duddy.

The relentlessly upbeat cheerleading that accompanies articles about technology, especially stories discussing the release of updated smartphones and related gadgets, can be seen in all mass market magazines and newspapers. There is no subtlety or nuance in most of these articles, no shades of grey.

Let’s examine a recent article in the mass media to see how this brainwashing works. The article is titled, oddly enough, “The Idiot Box,” and I found it in a glossy magazine marketed to wealthy expatriates in Southeast Asia. The author, some guy named Michael Arnold, opines that modern technological gadgets such as the Ipad are great for kids because they give them unlimited knowledge at their fingertips. Arnold tries, quite awkwardly and unconvincingly, to knit the history of  television into his argument and even manages to throw out the epithet ‘luddite’ to discredit people who question the transhumanist juggernaut.

The author begins by stating that he finds arguments against humanity’s overreliance on technology to be not ‘particularly compelling.’ He then goes on to say that arguments against the Ipad are the same arguments used against the personal computer, the world wide web and the television. The inference here is that since all those inventions have turned out so wonderfully for humanity, why worry about putting Ipads into the hands of five-year-olds?

According to Arnold, we humans have not become too reliant on machines and technology and in fact we need more!  Perhaps he missed the story last week of the guy who drove his car off a cliff because he was using his GPS instead of his eyes, a map, and common sense. Or maybe he missed the story of the three men who have died recently in Taiwan after gaming for  days in internet cafes without food, drink, or water. He hasn’t  noticed stories  of kids around the world who literally go into severe withdrawal when their digital toys are taken from them? Perhaps he hasn’t  seen, as I have, people who cannot sleep at night unless the television screen is playing in front of their bed. Did he not catch the recent story from China  which stated that the Chinese government has recognized internet addiction as one of the most serious crises facing the youth of China and has taken measures to combat it, including setting up treatment centers for hooked teenagers?

Arnold says that those of us who question the technological juggernaut have a ‘fear of change’ and since change is the defining characteristic of our age, we need to get over it. Indeed, change does define the 20th century, but this change didn’t just happen by accident. It was planned, and the results of that change have been the destruction of the family and the disintegration of society.

The next paragraph is where Mr. Arnold really outs himself. He writes that parents who ban television in the home are ‘extreme’ and that television was ‘the greatest medium of communication’ of our parents’ age. Television, according to Arnold, gave us ‘unprecedented exposure to human drama, stories with actual morals, and information about the outside world.’ What’s more, those silly cartoons taught him ‘how to have the strength to forgive.’ Now, I don’t know if  he really believes all this or if he is just reading from a template, but this is naive and absurd beyond belief. Does Mr. Arnold know who really invented television, and for what purposes? Does he know anything about Walt Disney and his shady background, including his links to Intelligence and occult societies?  Has he not read Aldous Huxley, Neil Postman, or Jerry Mander? Does he know who Edward Bernays was?

Arnold then blithely states that ‘rather less credence is given to the demonization of television nowadays.’ Oh, really? And from where did he pull that fact? Actually, the evidence demonstrating the destructive influence of television is far greater and more compelling than it was 50 years ago when intellectuals and concerned parents were complaining about it.

Now that his mask is off, Arnold cannot help himself and starts to really lay it on thick, gleefully stating that we (the television generation) are ‘eager for our kids to enjoy the kind of quality entertainment we remember having back then.’ Wow. Quality entertainment?? What is this guy talking about?

He doesn’t wish for his kids to spend their time reading the classics, or going to museums, or playing outside, or doing sports, or hiking in nature. Instead, he wants them inside watching reruns of ‘quality’ entertainment, such as Happy Days and Starsky and Hutch. 


No, they’re not doing math or reading biology. They’re playing games. Sorry, parents.


I would love to send the author a copy of Mark Bauerlein’s 2009 book titled The Dumbest Generation, in which he thoroughly demolishes the argument put forward by techno enthusiasts that Ipads, computers, and smart phones make kids smarter and improve their academic performance.

Finally, Arnold relates the story of Steve Jobs not allowing his kids to play with the Ipad. To mention this story is a risky move , as it might blow a hole in his ‘tech gadgets are cool’ argument. He spins it my calling Jobs a ‘notorious hippie,’ and then, in a bizarre turn of logic, casts himself as risk taker by allowing his kids to use these devices. Come again? Let’s see if we can wrap our brains around that one. Arnold says that he is not following the example set by Jobs, and is therefore going his own way. He’s a conformist, but kind of a rebel at the same time. Get it?

In fact, this guy is doing what 99.99 percent of all parents are doing nowadays: letting their kids run loose with tech gadgets from  infancy onwards and hoping for the best. Arnold and people like him are the worst kind of spineless conformists, cloaking their naivete, ignorance  and cowardice in a thin veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.


Mass tourism’s devastating impact

When we look at all of the problems facing humanity and the environment , including nuclear radiation from Fukushima, oil spills, toxic chemicals, GMO contamination of our food supply, overcrowded cities,  polluted groundwater, fracking, and EMF pollution,  mass tourism’s effect on the environment  seems a minor one in comparison. But its impact-on native cultures, ancient ruins,  and natural landscapes- is significant and governments need to rethink their policies in regard to this.

Many thoughtful observers, especially older ones who have seen the impact that tourism has wrought on famous sites  over the last three decades, have bemoaned the degradation. If you were lucky enough to visit Angkor Wat fifteen years ago, Koh Phi Phi twenty years ago, Bali twenty five years ago, or Machu Picchu thirty years ago, consider yourself lucky. As many distraught and disheartened travelers have noticed  ,  those once semi-pristine places have been irrevocably changed, for the worse. We could, of course, add dozens more to this list. Chambers of commerce, travel agents, tour operators, and hotel owners try their best to put a positive spin on the changes, using phrases like ‘more choice,’ ‘superior accommodations,’ ‘better infrastructure,’ ‘reliable transportation,’  and so on, but it’s just the same old public relations. No honest observer, comparing any of those places today with how they were thirty years ago, would choose today’s version. What good is a five star hotel when you are looking out from your balcony onto a beach strewn with trash and covered with thousands of tourists,  tossing their plastic water bottles onto the sand and taking selfies with a selfie stick?

Mass numbers of tourists tend to have a corrosive and corrupting effect on small  ethnic tribes, regardless of how respectful the tourists try to be. Take the Sacred Valley of Peru, for instance. As the millions of tourists wind their way around the ancient ruins in tour buses, the local Quechua speaking people wait dutifully for them at the rest stops so that the tourists can snap a photo with them, along with the family’s alpaca.  We, the tourists, are supposed to give them  a small donation as a gesture of thanks for the photo-op. What could be more cynical than this? This scene is repeated at hundreds of other places all over the world. Many ethnic tribes which have adopted modern Western clothing will don their native garb when the tour bus rolls into town and throw it off the minute  the buses pull away. Many ethnic groups now rely on the small amount of money they earn performing for tourists, enacting ‘traditional’ dances and such.

The impact on relics and ruins is substantial as well. The Cambodian government has allowed tourists to scamper, unsupervised,  all over the ruins of Angkor Wat for decades now. It wasn’t a big deal when only a few thousand people even knew about Angkor, but today when the tens of millions descend upon the ruins yearly, the impact is far greater.

If you are going to invite millions of tourists to visit a place, then you need to build the infrastructure to feed and house them. Hence, surrounding areas are methodically stripped of forest cover and natural ground cover  in order to construct hotels, resorts, restaurants and boutiques to serve the masses. Siem Reap, the small city adjacent to Angkor Wat, was a sleepy village just twenty years ago. Now, it is a mini boom town and new hotels are sprouting up every year. Meanwhile, the water table underlying the city is falling rapidly and could affect the ruins themselves in a short time. Aguas Calientes, at the foot of Machu Picchu, has grown in proportion to the exploding numbers of visitors to that popular site. There is not much room for it to grow except into the surrounding mountains, which contain some of the most beautiful scenery in the world.



The global tourism industry has now grown so large, producing  billions of dollars in profits and supplying millions of jobs, that it now  generates its own momentum, just as a  hurricane makes its own weather. It’s not like you can just slam on the brakes and say ‘no more.’  One billion people now travel annually. With the Chinese market growing by leaps and bounds, we can expect this trend of increasing tourist numbers to continue into at least the near future.

Everyone who has been to an overcrowded holiday destination recognizes the problem, but nobody is willing to give up their dream or change their lifestyle because of it. People who have the means and the opportunity want to experience Paris and the Eiffel Tower. We now accept the fact that we must ‘experience’ Paris  while rubbing shoulders with a few million other tourists, all visiting the same sites,  taking the same photos, staying at the same hotels and eating the same food. Most of us accept this as a minor irritation  to be endured for the privilege of seeing such a spectacular place.



I’ve never been to Paris but I suppose it might be possible for the city to absorb all these tourists without crimping its style and still offer a worthwhile  experience. The same goes for Venice, Florence, Rome and Barcelona. Strong government regulations and a solid tourist infrastructure can mitigate at least some of the negative impacts.

When we look at other popular sites located much further away from major population centers, in developing countries, and with inadequate infrastructure, the problems become more severe and the solutions considerably more complex. In the rush to milk the tourist cow, governments and corporations tend to cut many corners with building codes, safety regulations, and historical preservation.


Floodwaters washing away overdevelopment at Aguas Calientes, Peru:


In fact, governments, which comprise mostly bureaucrats, technocrats, and functionaries, are generally clueless about how to deal with the demands of tourism. There are exceptions to the rule, Thailand being one. Here in Viet Nam, the apparatchiks in the government could learn a thing or two from their neighbors. Many tourists associate Viet Nam with Ha Long Bay, the most iconic site in the country. Unfortunately, Ha Long Bay has become a poster child for the disastrous effects of unregulated mass tourism. Thousands of tour boats ply the waters there, accommodating the millions who want to see the stunning landscape. The boats, alas, are mostly unsupervised  and dump their waste and trash directly  into the bay which suffers accordingly. If that’s not bad enough, tourists are accosted by  rude, pushy,  and obnoxious vendors when the boats pull ashore. And the government does nothing.

Where does all this depressing news leave the curious traveler? If you don’t want to be part of the problem, is it better to just stay home? Do eco-tourism, ‘responsible’ tourism, or volunteering offer more authentic experiences? They’re definitely worth exploring. If you’re looking for an authentic experience, then don’t count on finding it at a place like Machu Picchu or Angkor Wat. I feel fortunate to have visited both of these places, but I can only dream about what it would have been like to experience them without the hordes. Perhaps there are those people who are able to block out the distraction of other tourists, but I’m not one of them. Imagine what secrets these awesome places might whisper in our ears if only we had the peace and solitude to listen.

I wouldn’t discourage anyone from visiting these places. Any experience of Machu Picchu or Angkor is better than no experience at all, but my recommendation of these places comes with a heavy qualification.





CIA moles in the media- a case study

It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when the CIA gained complete control of the media, although it’s clear that at least by the 1960s it exerted considerable  leverage, and often dominated  most of the major media organizations  in the United States. As Intelligence has tightened its grip on all information dissemination, it has formed an unholy alliance with Zionist interests based in Tel Aviv, Washington D.C., Wall Street, and Hollywood.

I recently came across an excellent and provocative series of articles by a writer who has done extensive research on the role of Intelligence in media and its use of moles to manipulate and form public opinion. He suggested that we, the people, should ‘out’ these fake journalists, writers, artists, actors, novelists, and celebrities whenever we can. With a little background knowledge,  including an understanding of how moles work and how they get promoted, we can apply some basic analysis and ferret out these clowns who prance around the world stage pretending to be something they are not- authentic people.

I think that’s a brilliant idea and I will nominate a writer who I used to enjoy not that long ago who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle. The man’s name is Mark Morford and he pens a column for the paper once or twice a week and has been a regular contributor for ten years. I say ‘used to enjoy’ because when I first came across his columns back in 2005, I thought he was ‘edgy’ and had a certain knack for turning a phrase. I liked his musings on wine, sake, drugs, San Francisco, Burning Man and other subjects with which I had a passing interest. I didn’t agree much with his political opinions which consisted mostly of cynical attacks on the Tea Party and Republican Party. Over time, his pose struck me as someone who was living in the middle of Sodom, and enjoying it tremendously -with plenty of booze, drugs and hedonism- and thumbing his nose at middle America. It was rather juvenile, especially for a man approaching 40. I eventually lost interest in his writings and forgot about him. But going back and looking at his work with fresh eyes, and with a new appreciation and understanding of CIA infiltration into the media, I sense something far more sinister than just a flaunting of San Francisco liberalism and licentiousness.

If we look at what the social controllers and engineers have been trying to achieve in post World War II America, and what Morford writes about (and encourages) , it’s a perfect fit.

It’s clear by now to anyone with eyes half-open that there is indeed a  gay agenda. The agenda has a number of facets, but the most prominent is a pushing of a gay ‘lifestyle’ on the young via pop stars and celebrities. Brokeback Mountain, ‘I kissed a girl,’ Madonna kissing Britney Spears on stage and pretty much every young star singing about ‘experimenting’ give proof to this. Morford does his part by celebrating gay culture in many of his articles. He relentlessly attacks anyone against gay marriage as being hopelessly outdated Mid-America yokels, worthy only of scorn and pity.

Intelligence has been trying to flood the American landscape with drugs since even before the 1960s, in an effort to destroy the hippie movement, the Left, and any sort of coherent, youth-led revolution against the status quo. Alcohol plays a major role in the drug trade. Again, here we see Morford doing his duty by relentlessly singing the praises of alcohol (and other drugs),  encouraging his readers to imbibe. Of course, he dresses it up in hip language and talks about the finest brands of sake and whiskey, and throwing up a patina of urban sophistication to cover his agenda.

Finally, the elites and their intelligence apparatus have been using the age-old tactic of divide and conquer with devastating success on the American people. With the United States having such a diverse population to begin with, getting the various groups at each other’s throats is child’s play for elite groups with an understanding of human psychology and having the latest modern technology at their disposal. Once more, we see Morford playing the role by hyping his liberal bona-fides and telling his followers that they have nothing in common with the rest of America. It’s the old Left vs. Right game.

The rest of America, with the exception of perhaps New York and Seattle, is just a giant wasteland of rednecks and Republicans, according to Morford;  hipsters from San Francisco shouldn’t waste their time  talking with them. Remember, real movements for change, whether originating from the right or the left, have always focused on bridge building. Once people discover their common humanity and that the fight  is really about the tyranny of the 1%, it’s all over. The elites don’t want that to happen and will do anything to keep people fighting on the basis of skin color, religion, and political ideology. Morford doesn’t tell his readers to go out and build bridges with members of the Tea Party or Republican Party. He advises to ignore them. Or better yet, to mock them. As Miles  Mathis says, if it looks like CIA, sounds like CIA and smells like CIA, it’s probably CIA.

When the American people started to wake up in 2009 and 2010 about Barack Obama, Morford was used as damage control. He tirelessly defended Obama, and still does. Morford’s defense of Obama verges on the worshipful. “Obama is really great and is doing great things!! Really! Trust me. You may not  see it, but those great things are happening behind the scenes. All the negative stuff you hear about Obama is just sour grapes coming from the redneck Republicans.” He was saying all of this, and more, long after Obama was exposed, after ALL of the broken promises, the continuing wars,  and the cozy relationship with Israeli zionists and Wall Street insiders.

And finally, we might ask, and indeed should ask, how did Morford get hired to write a column for the San Francisco Chronicle? He was just another wannabe musician, a Bay Area hipster with mediocre writing talent and almost no resume when he was hired. The Chronicle is an old-school, mainstream newspaper,  operated as a mouthpiece for big business and big government. As a policy, they hire as few journalists and reporters as possible. I was a journalism school graduate back in the day and I’m somewhat familiar with the hiring practices of big city newspapers in the USA. The thought that this young kid just walked into the Chronicle and got hired as a columnist to write edgy, counter-culture articles to leftist San Francisco is laughable. It doesn’t work that way. But if we see that we was planted there, it makes perfect sense.







Adidas goes all out with neon.

My running shoes are nearing the end of their useful life and so last week I wandered into an Adidas store to browse the selection. To my dismay,  athletic shoes, at least those made by Adidas,  have undergone a drastic style makeover from just a year ago. Whereas previously, the tacky neon styles were reserved mostly for kids and a few pseudo-artsy types, now almost every athletic shoe had neon stripes. Some styles had neon stripes and shoelaces. Some, just the shoelaces. For many, the entire shoe was spray-painted neon.

For adults like me who have no need or desire to dress like a child or appear cool, we are simply SOL. Adidas no longer cares to make shoes for grown-ups. It wants to dress everyone like a child. To try to  examine this phenomenon from an isolated viewpoint would be an exercise in frustration. It doesn’t make any sense. Why would Adidas try to alienate a large segment of their consumer base? Yet if we step back and look at their broader cultural trends of the last ten to twenty years, this marketing decision makes all the sense in the world.

The vast program of social engineering being orchestrated by the CIA, Tavistock Institute, Hollywood, and of course advertising agencies, has been trying to infantilize the population, especially adult males. It’s sad to say, but the average adult male today has the  emotional and intellectual maturity of 13-year-old. And that’s exactly the way they want it. Dressed in children’s clothing, playing video games all day and speaking with a pre-teen’s vocabulary, adults are now ‘adult’ in name only. They may have the physical bodies of 30-. 40-, 50-, or 60- year olds, but they are content to exist in the inner (and outer) world of a teenager.

It’s beyond me how any self-respecting adult could walk around in these fluorescent shoes. Do they want to dress exactly like their children? The old saying “Who wears the pants in the house?” had a meaning behind it. The adult male figure in the household wore pants while the children wore shorter trousers and this was symbolic. Now of course those symbolic markers have been obliterated. Neon shoes are only one example of this trend and we could add dozens more. Professional sports team jerseys, bling, ill-fitting pants, and just about anything related to hip-hop fashion fall into this category.

In the meantime, I will continue my search for shoes that don’t glow in the dark and look like they were fished out of a nuclear waste dump.


The West, Putin, and Russia- the fight for minds

You have to tip your hat to the Western corporate media. Their willingness and determination to turn reality upside down and give a false impression of the world is unmatched in history. Even in the darkest days of the Soviet Union with its tightly controlled media organs, we never saw such blatant and transparent government propaganda as we now see in the United States and Western Europe.

With each passing month, we see the corporate presstitutes reach new lows in their ability to not only write blatant lies, but also create stories out of thin air when it suits them. Nothing is beneath them. Whether it is standing in front of a green screen in the newsroom pretending to be ‘reporting live from the scene’ or interviewing crisis actors at false flag events (see ‘Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon etc.) , the mainstream lackeys work full-time to keep the illusion of the matrix going full-tilt. The victims in this sad drama are the general public, the citizens who sadly still rely on the old guard press for their understanding of world events.

Recently, I came across a copy of the ‘Economist,’ an elite-sponsored rag published by and for Wall-Street criminals and their zionist bankster handlers.  The cover shows a photo of Vladimir Putin, glaring intently at the reader with an outstretched arm holding strings on each finger which we are led to believe are attached to puppets. The caption reads: “Putin’s War on the West.” The image, likely photoshopped,  and the caption leave nothing to chance. The Economist is telling you, the gullible reader, who the enemy is and who you should be fearing. Using a cover like this , the Economist is dispensing with any pretense at objectivity and is showing us that it is a proud and willing supporter of U.S. empire-building and world hegemony.


For a citizen who has a few minutes to research and possesses a map, a computer, and a basic grasp of recent history, the notion of Putin and Russia ‘waging war’ against the U.S. falls somewhere between laughable and absurd. The U.S. military is, at this very moment, encircling Russia with military bases equipped with long range ballistic missiles capable of striking Moscow within minutes. The U.S. military, along with zionist controlled NATO, is actively and aggressively provoking Russia by conducting large-scale military exercises in the Baltic countries, on Russia’s doorstep. The U.S. government, led by the psychopathic warmongers Hillary ‘We came, we saw, he died’ Clinton and John Kerry, along with Benjamin ‘Bibby’ Netanyahu, instigated and funded the coup d’etat in Ukraine. The NATO gangsters are now trying to set up a fully compliant government in Ukraine, on Russia’s border,  and construct  yet more military bases with which to strike at Russia. The United States government is filled with Russophobes, most notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, who want nothing more than to see Russia wiped off the map, or at least crippled beyond repair. Brzezinski has long been one of Obama’s top foreign affairs advisors.

Russia is the only power standing in the way of U.S./Israeli domination of the Middle East and global hegemony. China is powerful, but not yet ready, willing, and able to take on the U.S. military. Russia is a different story. Russia is ready, willing, and able.

Forget what comes out of the mouths of politicians. It’s all lies. Watch their actions. The United States military is moving toward war against Russia. Study the troop movements, the war games, the exercises and all the rest. The propaganda is simply part of the march to war. Hence, Putin must be demonized, at all costs. Media organs such at the New York Times, the Economist, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, and CNN have been told to use the meme “the new Hitler” to brand Putin in Westerner’s minds. In the reality of the zionist media, the U.S. is not conducting war against Russia. Oh no. Russia is conducting war against the U.S.