How Evil Is Comedy Central?

On "The Daily Show Ridicules Anarchists", dionysusal pointed out that Comedy Central is owned by a bunch of statists. That is true for the entire mainstream media cartel.

Jon Stewart is a liberal pro-State troll. When he was criticizing Bush and Cheney, he was showing certain anti-State tendencies. Now, his show is one big ****job for Obama.

Jon Stewart says "WTF? Healthcare reform!" instead of "The actual healthcare 'reform' proposal was thinly disguised corporate welfare. The real problem is the AMA/State licensing cartel, along with other damaging regulations."

How evil is Stephen Colbert? He's a liberal statist pretending to be a conservative statist. However, he sometimes lets out bits of the truth. His "Prescott Pharmaceuticals" bit is the best criticism of the drug industry I've seen anywhere. He mentions his reptilian-humanoid financial advisor Gorlak. Most "financial planners" are parasites stealing your savings. They usually get a fee/kickback for the funds they "advise" you to buy.

The creators of South Park allegedly are (L)libertarians. However, Libertarians are sometimes the worst pro-State trolls, because they say that a government taxation/violence monopoly is necessary. South Park has some bits that are pro-State trolling. There also is some good stuff.

South Park got started via a video they self-published on the Internet. It was popular and they got a mainstream media contract. Almost any other channel would have refused to air South Park.

I'm planning to try self-publishing videos on the Internet. However, I'm not holding my breath waiting for a mainstream media contract. The best way to make it profitable is to promote myself on the Internet, and then sell tickets to live performances.

There's a "debate ceiling". Comedy Central is pushing the limits of the "debate ceiling". At the same time, they're pro-State trolling.

George Carlin had many anti-State bits. However, he didn't go around saying "All taxation is theft!" Does that make him evil? George Carlin pushed the limits of the "debate ceiling". It's one thing to go on TV and say forbidden words. That's a prerequisite for mentioning forbidden ideas, such as "Taxation is theft!"

The Sarah Silverman Show had some good anti-State bits in the last two episodes. She elected "May Kadoody", who turned out to be evil. She got herself a job as State content censor, and then pointed out that the real problem is that the viewers are stupid.

It's tough to judge morality in the context of a completely corrupt system. Like the rest of the mainstream media, Comedy Central is owned and controlled by statists. However, they are making slow progress in the direction of the truth. A non-corrupt mainstream media would be better. Comedy Central is one of the most freedom-oriented networks right now. In the context of nonfiction and comedy, bits of the truth slip out.

Comedy Central is pushing the limits of the "debate ceiling". Ridiculing anarchists is progress compared to not mentioning them at all.

There is a growing sense that the economic and political system isn't working. There have been recent mainstream media polls suggesting that. Many insiders are aware of escalating problems, although they won't admit it publicly.

The problem with the USA is increasing corruption. It's more profitable to steal via the State than to produce something useful. The Internet allows people to directly share information and bypass State mainstream media censorship. Abuses that would have been covered up 30 years ago are now shared via the Internet.

Perhaps, it will soon be acceptable for a mainstream media comedian/journalist to say "All taxation is theft!"

Comedy Central is owned and controlled by a bunch of pro-State trolls, like the entire mainstream media. However, they are pushing the limits of the "debate ceiling". A non-corrupt mainstream media would be better, but Comedy Central is the best alternative available right now. Sometimes, they accidentally say part of the truth.

John Patrick Bedell

This story was interesting. John Patrick Bedell shot at two policemen outside the Pentagon. The police shot and killed him. The policemen were only slightly injured.

After researching his background, my conclusion is "This is an example of 'suicide by cop'." He happened to choose the Pentagon, but that's an irrelevant detail.

John Patrick Bedell had a history of "mental illness", as this story indicates. He was hospitalized/tortured 4 times. (I was involuntarily hospitalized 6 times.) If there's anyone to blame for the incident, it's his psychiatrist and the manufacturer of any drugs he was taking.

When you are involuntarily hospitalized for a "mental illness", you are *NOT* released unless you are drugged.

There is a lot of evidence that John Patrick Bedell was taking psychiatric drugs recently. He was taking classes part-time at San Jose State University, but did not enroll for the Spring 2010 semester. When I was taking psychiatric drugs, I was not motivated to do anything.

John Patrick Bedell had published several anti-government posts on the Internet. However, all the posts cited were several years old. It is suspicious that there were no recent posts. When taking psychiatric drugs, you have less motivation to do things.

I didn't see any articles that said exactly which psychiatric drugs John Patrick Bedell was taking. That detail will probably be covered up, lest the manufacturer of the drugs lose customers.

I noticed this as a pattern. If there's a mental health patient who commits a crime, there is no public disclosure of exactly which drugs they were taking. The mainstream media is concerned that the patients/victims will realize the drugs are harmful, and stop taking them. The pro-State troll excuse is "We don't want patients to stop taking their medicine. Those drugs are proven safe. We don't want to falsely alarm people." The main concern is to create fear for people labeled with a "mental illness", so they can be forcibly drugged.

One story said that John Patrick Bedell was very intelligent. If you're very intelligent, you're at greater risk for mental illness. You're more likely to notice the Matrix.

Other sources said that John Patrick Bedell smoked marijuana. Marijuana is dangerous and addictive, for the same reason that psychiatric drugs are dangerous and addictive. Any drug that alters your brain chemistry is harmful. If you're smoking marijuana *AND* taking psychiatric drugs, that's a very dangerous combination.

Even if he was taking psychiatric drugs, but stopped taking them recently, that does not prove those drugs are beneficial. The withdrawal process is *NASTY* and lengthy. I was last forcibly drugged 10 moths ago. I feel much more alert, even compared to 3 months ago.

For example, my software writing ability is much greater right now than when I started my current wage slave job 3.5 months ago. It's a noticeable difference.

Unfortunately, there was no mainstream media disclosure of which drugs he was taking. That detail will probably be suppressed, to protect pharmaceutical industry profits. Otherwise, people taking the poison might realize it's bad for them.

Hopefully, the State police investigating the incident will pursue the "psychiatric drug" angle. I doubt it.

It's a proven scientific fact that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, lobbyists for the homicide industry are too influential. Competing drug-free mental health treatments are illegal.

If John Patrick Bedell had received competent mental health treatment, then this incident might have been avoided.

Allegedly, he was a reader/contributor on lewrockwell.com and mises.org. Hopefully, this incident won't be used as an excuse to crack down on people who write about freedom.

It's an amusing evil fnord. The headline is "A man who made anti-government rants on the Internet attacked the Pentagon." A more accurate statement is "A man who received inappropriate mental health treatment committed 'suicide by cop'." State parasites are concerned that the Internet allows intelligent slaves to discover the truth.

For example, this story says "The Death of Colonel James Sabow - The Cause of Pentagon Shooting?" This is a coverup of the correct reason, the fact that John Patrick Bedell received inappropriate and harmful mental health treatment.

There were some conspiracy theories that John Patrick Bedell was following. However, the main explanation is "suicide by cop facilitated by a corrupt mental health industry". For completeness, I'll explain the conspiracy theories he wrote about several years ago.

He was a believer of "9/11 was an inside job!" I mostly disagree with that, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm inclined to believe "incompetence by State police". State parasites did exploit the incident afterwards. That leads to the impression they intentionally organized it.

John Patrick Bedell wrote about Colonel James Sabow. This link had an decent summary. Colonel James Sabow was a marine. Allegedly, he discovered that some soldiers were supporting drug dealers and making a nice profit. He was fired from his military job. He then committed suicide.

There are plenty of ways to kill someone and make it look like an accident or a suicide. Are there people who would kill someone, if they could profit and get away with it? Definitely. Did that happen in this case? It's impossible to be sure.

James Sabow's relatives pressured the Marines to do a more serious investigation. They didn't try too hard. This is the problem with the State police monopoly. If a policeman is accused of misconduct, the other policemen don't want to investigate. Members of a criminal gang protect each other. "Internal affairs" is merely an evil fnord, providing the illusion that someone is making sure the police are honest. The best way to ensure honest police is free market competition.

There is another possibility. James Sabow realized that the military was in fact a huge criminal/terrorist organization. He started cracking his pro-State brainwashing. The shock of the discovery made him commit suicide.

Everyone reacts differently, when they crack their pro-State brainwashing. In my case, I got scared and ran away. I never seriously considered injuring myself or anyone else. The only time I was really suicidal was when I was taking psychiatric drugs. I thought I was seriously and permanently damaged. Fortunately, the harmful side-effects went away when I stopped taking the poison.

Other people wind up committing a murder-suicide or straight suicide. Some people dull their senses with marijuana or alcohol or tobacco or cocaine. The people who are the most intelligent are most at risk for noticing the Matrix.

John Patrick Bedell's assault on the Pentagon really is "suicide by cop". He probably was under the influence of psychiatric drugs. He might have been using both psychiatric drugs and marijuana, a very dangerous combination.

If John Patrick Bedell took psychiatric drugs anytime in the past year, that was a contributing factor in his suicide. The mainstream media intentionally covers up the harmful affects of psychiatric drugs, due to marketing and lobbying by pharmaceutical corporation executives. It would be interesting to know specifically which drug he was taking, but that detail wasn't publicly disclosed.

If you stop taking psychiatric drugs, the withdrawal takes 1 year or longer. Physical withdrawal is a week or two, but it takes awhile for your brain to recover its natural neurotransmitter balance. You have to deal with withdrawal, in addition to your original problem. This creates the illusion that psychiatric drugs are beneficial and necessary. If you stop taking psychiatric drugs, you initially get worse before you get better. It took me 4+ years to crack my pro-State brainwashing, after I first was involuntarily hospitalized, and I'm not fully recovered yet.

John Patrick Bedell's suicide was caused by a corrupt mental health industry. He almost definitely was under the influence of psychiatric drugs at the time, or suffering withdrawal. That detail was not emphasized in mainstream media coverage of the incident.

January and February AdBrite Summary

January and February were somewhat disappointing months. I had 4491 Absolute Unique Visitors in January and 4387 in February, down from 5077 in December 2009.

My AdBrite earnings were $7.56 in January but only $4.53 in February. My page eCPM went down from $0.67 to $0.40!

Maybe I should shop around for other ad networks, but I'm not interested in wasting time on that right now. At least AdBrite is sending me a check! The payout threshold is only $5, which I make almost every month.

I'm still a bit off from my goal of $20/month, so I can pay for hosting. There's a lot of variance, so I probably would want to go over $20 several months in a row.

Right now, most of my time goes to my wage slave job. I'm actually getting decent experience at managing a UNIX web environment at work, so I'm looking forward to buying a Linode.

It's obvious now that blogging is never going to be a full-time source of income. I'm going to have to expand to other things, if I want to start my own business.

I feel my overall alertness is increasing. The withdrawal period for psychiatric drugs definitely is at least a year.

The Serious Fraud Office

This article was pretty funny.

The Serious Fraud Office has shifted the focus of its investigation into the Bernie Madoff investment scandal from the UK arm of his empire to some of the feeder funds that channelled investments to the multibillion-pound fraudster.

"The Serious Fraud Office"? That sounds like a bit from a Monty Python sketch.

When I read "Serious Fraud Office", I thought "The Serious Fraud Office is the part of the government responsible for helping insiders commit serious fraud."

Judith Warner Promotes Murder

This book review in the NY Times was really offensive. Judith Warner planned on writing a book about inappropriate use of drugs in children. While researching the book, she discovered that psychiatrists and teachers and parents do a diligent job. The drugs are actually wonderful and help the children!

What a fraud! I'm really offended by such lies.

Do psychiatric drugs actually improve children's grades? Obviously, psychiatric drugs interfere with learning. However, if "grades in school" are uncorrelated or anti-correlated with learning, then it's possible that psychiatric drugs improve grades.

Judith Warner said "Psychiatrists don't bully parents into taking drugs." Both parents are working 50+ hour weeks. The student's teacher says there's a problem. The psychiatrist says drugs will help. At this point, most parents will follow the path of least resistance and drug their child. They won't consider the possibility that the psychiatrist is wrong and the drugs are harmful.

As an adult, I had a hard time convincing others "These drugs are hurting me! I don't want to take them!" It would be a lot harder for a child to complain about being poisoned.

If you lie and say "These drugs are beneficial!", when they're really harmful, that's a type of coercion. Fraud is a crime. Fraud is a type of coercion. It's a type of coercion when the teacher in school refers your child to a psychiatrist/murderer. The State licensing cartel for psychiatrists and mental health workers makes it hard for someone to start a drug-free mental health treatment business.

The psychiatrist thinks that he's really helping the child. The parent makes the decision, but they're deferring to the fake expert. The psychiatrist has a State license, which makes it seem legitimate. The psychiatrist believes his own lies, which makes the process seem legitimate.

I certainly was the victim of coercion. I was forced to take drugs against my will. When I suggested to my psychiatrist "These drugs aren't helping me!", then he got abusive and started using emotional intimidation. Fortunately, when I wasn't hospitalized, my psychiatrist couldn't legally force me to take his poison. Once I realized that my psychiatrist was a fraud, he couldn't hurt me anymore.

There were a lot of other points the book could have mentioned, but did not. Marketers for pharmaceutical corporations encourage psychiatrists to prescribe drugs to children "off label". Psychiatrists receive kickbacks from drug companies based on how much of each drug they prescribe.

The biggest point glossed over in the book was "Are the drugs actually beneficial?" Superficially, the drug makes the child more calm. In order to prove "drug better than placebo", you would have to track both groups over 10+ years. I don't know of any psychiatry research that has compared drug to placebo for 10+ years. Most drug research is for only 6-12 weeks. That's invalid when the victims are forced to take the poison for years and decades.

When I was in the mental health clinic, I saw parents there with young children. I felt like saying "WTF? Why are you murdering your child?", but I was concerned for my own safety. I noticed something weird about the children in the mental health clinic. They were much less energetic compared to other children. A psychiatrist would say "That's good! The drugs are working as intended!" I say that's evidence that the drugs are severely injuring the child.

On the other hand, why should I care if parents murder their children? If stupid parents are tricked into murdering their children, that's more opportunity for me and my children. It's hard to not be offended by mass murder, given the illusion of legitimacy by the State.

"A certain percentage of children are defective and need to be drugged!" is obviously stupid.

The people murdered by the psychiatry industry probably are the most intelligent people. They're the ones most resistant to their pro-State brainwashing. Many of the people who would be most receptive to the truth are forcibly drugged and silenced.

The psychiatry industry is one huge crime. I predict that scientists 50 years from now will consider "Treat illness with symptom-suppressing drugs!" to be as barbaric as using leeches.

If I wrote a book explaining why the mental health industry is one big fraud, the NY Times would not promote it. Drug company executives spend a lot of money on marketing. They buy a lot of ads in newspapers like the NY Times. In addition to explicit ads, this bribe money buys hidden ads. Articles promoting murder are then hyped as "news".

Federal Reserve Flagrant Fraud

I was preparing the 2009 version of "Real GDP is Decreasing", and I noticed something that made me say "WTF? Shenanigans!"

As part of that post, I use M2 as published by the Federal Reserve. I updated my Excel spreadsheet for 2009, and I noticed something bizarre. All the values changed!

Year	Raw M2 (Mar 2010)	Raw M2 (Mar 2009)	% diff
1990-Jan.	3176.2	3176.6	-0.01%
1991-Jan.	3294.3	3296	-0.05%
1992-Jan.	3387.7	3389.7	-0.06%
1993-Jan.	3429.1	3431.5	-0.07%
1994-Jan.	3486.8	3489.6	-0.08%
1995-Jan.	3504.8	3508.7	-0.11%
1996-Jan.	3662	3665	-0.08%
1997-Jan.	3838.1	3842.5	-0.11%
1998-Jan.	4062.2	4068.2	-0.15%
1999-Jan.	4407.8	4416.9	-0.21%
2000-Jan.	4671.3	4680.5	-0.20%
2001-Jan.	4975	4981.6	-0.13%
2002-Jan.	5458.8	5458.5	0.01%
2003-Jan.	5803.7	5798.2	0.09%
2004-Jan.	6061.6	6058.6	0.05%
2005-Jan.	6401.3	6408.4	-0.11%
2006-Jan.	6701	6705.8	-0.07%
2007-Jan.	7099.6	7056.3	0.61%
2008-Jan.	7529.1	7484.4	0.60%
2009-Jan.	8296.9	8224.4	0.88%
2010-Jan.	8452.3

WTF is up with that? I could understand them adjusting the 2009 value or even the 2008 value. Why did they change every value all the way back to 1990? Why wasn't there a footnote explaining the change? That was the "raw M2" column, with no seasonal adjustment?

It's only a 1% difference. Still, I'm disturbed that the numbers changed. Why did they change?

The Jan 2010 value is suspiciously low. I expected it would be a lot higher. Can you trust statistics published by State bureaucrats?

I also checked the raw GDP numbers. They also changed all of them, all the way back to 1990! This is raw GDP (no inflation adjustment). WTF is up with that?

Are State bureaucrats just making up whatever numbers they feel like? Then, if the lies aren't believable anymore, they retroactively change them?

Tiger Woods' Lame Apology

I saw excerpts of Tiger Woods' apology. It was really lame. He looked like a wimp. It was obvious that he was reading a statement prepared by a PR firm. It's almost as if the people writing the apology wanted him to look bad.

Instead, he should have said "I'm Tiger Woods! Of course I'm going to have sex with as many women as I can! Isn't that the whole point of being a superstar golfer and celebrity!"

Just once, I wish a celebrity caught in a sex scandal would adopt such an attitude.

The entire incident is an evil fnord reinforcing "Monogamy is mandatory!" The more I see evil fnords supporting monogamy, the more I realize it probably isn't natural.

According to natural law, slavery contracts aren't valid. A monogamous marriage contract is a type of slavery contract. If you are tricked into signing a slavery contract, it isn't immoral to break it later. If you're married and your partner starts acting like a jerk, you're SOL. Even if you are married, it isn't immoral to change your mind.

Another interesting bit is that Tiger Woods' wife was not at the press conference. She has the parasitic personality type, based on a picture I saw. Tiger Woods has the "abused productive" personality type. However, some of the women he dated had the "abused productive" personality type. With a "supermodel", Tiger Woods can play the submissive role. With an otherwise unknown woman, Tiger Woods would play the dominant role.

I never understood the attraction of supermodels. "Anorexic with plastic surgery" isn't that attractive. I can usually tell when someone had plastic surgery. When you crack your pro-State brainwashing, plastic surgery looks ugly and unnatural. It's very obvious to me now.

By falsely promoting ugly people as attractive, that makes it easier to sell products. It's the Matrix at work. By making everyone think they're ugly, it's easier to control them and make them buy stuff. I'm noticing a correlation between women's appearance and intelligence, but "who FSK thinks is attractive" does not match the majority opinion. Women with high logical intelligence and low emotional intelligence have very little self-confidence. They usually wind up with a parasite.

I remember one really evil parasite I worked with. There was a dinner where everyone brought their wife/spouse. I expected his wife to be really ugly, but she actually looked intelligent. At the time, that really confused me. Now, I understand. A really evil parasite usually has a wife with high logical intelligence and low emotional intelligence. At that same dinner, there was an intelligent woman who liked to talk about her super-awesome boyfriend; he actually was a jerk. At the time, I was really confused. Now, I see that's how the Matrix works.

Tiger Woods' apology is an evil fnord, along with the mainstream media hype. It emphasizes the desirability of monogamy. The more I see evil fnords supporting monogamy, the more I realize it probably isn't natural.

Tiger Woods' apology seemed unnatural. It would have seemed more natural if he said "Of course I'm going to be with as many women as I can! You would do that if you were me!" Unfortunately, the mainstream media cartel and his PR advisers won't let him tell the truth.