2012 END OF THE WORLD PREDICTIONS: “If your not with us your against us!”
Put your deep-water goggles on for this, although its not that unbelievable.
First it is to mention that it(whatever said the world will end on 21/12/12) says the end of the world “as you know it.” Imagine a world where it wasn’t enough to get people to agree with you but they have to imply the answer that you’ve already come up with. I am talking about the reasoning of a Nation.
The word on the street is that government is worried that Iran has Nuclear power and they will use it, firing a ‘bomb’ deep into the atmosphere then we intercept the missile and the explosion implodes our electrical transmitters, and bringing an end to life “as we know it.”
But is it impossible to believe that J.W. Booth followed and believed Kennedy and wanted to free the slaves, or that the twin towers were really rigged to blow by the people sworn to protect be protecting it? So is it so hard to believe that U.S. would bully Iran and the east into action (on a cataclismic level), after all if the electrical transmitter were blown it would create jobs, boost the economy, give America free-reign over the world (claiming ‘if your not with us your against us’.)
If a war did appear in the future the stock market would boom from all the government spending on Defense and the corporations like GM and anyone thoroughly involved with the Efforts would profit greatly! Thus FURTHER increasing the political circle of thinking that leads to further economic inequality, more government spending on welfare-like programs coupled with more tax incentives for the super-rich and upper-middle class — which leads to higher crime and unease in urban areas. Then is it too much to think that would lead to an increase in federal police and control based on the crime charts, but the real problem would be the political incentive to build an economic advantage out of self-induced crisis. Further the problem would be even less trust towards congress and the State because of the decreasing level of income relative to the rising-economy and the mega-boost the stock market would experience ( even more drastically increasing the economic inequality b/c only half the people have the know-how and the means to invest in stcoks.)
Then the question is why would economic inequality lead to social inequality? ( In the vacuum a poor man should have as much say as a C.E.O.) Is it when the rich start imposing ideas on the ‘non-profit’ agency (congress in this case) to benefit their own well-being? It could be that the poor people don’t have the schooling to see the whole movie, or it could be that it is being edited.
Till the kitchen sinks,
P.s.- OCCUPY is mostly an internet organized movement, weather with it or against it, it would be wrong to censor the internet in an effort to consrict the movement. You can have your own opinion on the methods of the movement regaurding attracting attention to their cause, but I think we can all agree that Internet free speech is the same as Free speech. And that taking that away would be like book-banning or Beatles White ablum burning… just wrong.
From → Politics