May 28, 2017

The New Orders for More Disorder?

The list below, seems to indicate the “new orders” for the ordering of more disorder.

From the Council on Foreign Disorder:

“Tensions Between Saudi Arabia and Iran”

“Ecuador’s Oil Dependency”

“Divide in Cyprus”

“New Order of Disorder for Libya”

“The Strange Tale of Sino-Pakistani Friendship”

..and my favorite:  “The Zika Virus Isn’t Just an Epidemic.  It’s Here To Stay”

 

Share

Schults, Hillary, Schumer – Caught Off Guard

Another distraction! “Can you tell me what the difference is between a democrat and a socialist?” It seems that the Media is getting “tingles” (think Chris Matthews) over the notion that the chair of the Democratic National Convention couldn’t or wouldn’t or can’t make the distinction. Hilarious Hillary was asked the question and the response was the same. And now, Chris Matthews asked Chuck Schumer to tell his listeners the difference between a democrat and a socialist. He refused to engage, but did reply with, “Oh, it depends how you define each one, doesn’t it?”

Oh, it certainly does!

Before I explain, let me remind readers that I don’t recall anyone in Media asking anybody the differences between republican and democrat, or independent and republican, independent and democrat. Nor have I heard the question asked as to the differences between libertarians and republicans or libertarians and democrats. I could go on.

Perhaps those asked the question were caught off guard. I contend that if a similar questions was asked of members of another fake political party, they would react much the same way.

I hold these truths to be self-evident! What I mean is that these political clowns, these pond scum, the cream of corruption, the perpetrators of all things evil, the authors of psyops and the perpetrators of the lies about democrats, republicans, left and right, liberal and conservative, themselves believing that the differences are self-evident, that there should no longer be a need to explain or define differences in any label of political persuasion. The brainwashing in that area is complete in the minds of idiots like Wasserman-Schultz, Hillary Rodham and Chucky Schumer. Therefore, there is no need to ask for a difference. By now people must remember the bullshit they have been taught. Answering this question may somehow reveal shortcomings in the systems of mind control, propaganda, psychological operations and outright brainwashing.

I am sure the Media did not intend to “trip-up” those they asked the question to. They thought it was benign. Those being asked weren’t prepared because, well, who would ask such a stupid question, the answer to which is self-evident…to a brainwashed subject/slave.

But…don’t go look!

 

Share

Tavistock and the Aquarian Conspiracy

The Tavistock Institute in London was responsible in the 1960’s for launching a mass psychological warfare operation (PSYOPS) on Western Culture throughout the world, in order to create a New Age paradigm of post-industrial Malthusianism with a rock-drug-sex culture, threatening the very existence of the nation and western Judeo-Christian civilisation. The Carter administrationwas an organising centre for Tavistock’s New Age, which itself was the test-tube creation of networks associated with the (British) Crown’s psychological warfare capability centred in London’s Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. The Carter administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski was a top propagandist for the “post-industrial” new age society. Today is a key advisor to Barack Obama and the White House.

The Aquarian Conspiracy “psyop” was launched around about the time President John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Between 1964-66, the networks associated with Tavistock moved to shut down the space program and launch the Aquarian Conspiracy, a massive long-term brainwashing campaign to shift the underlying values and moral outlook of the American people. To accomplish this, an assault was launched on that quality that which defines man in the image of the Creator and distinguishes him from the beast – his capacity for creative reason.

At the end of World War II, Tavistock called for the creation of “psychological shock troops”, which through the use of mass brainwashing techniques, would become the real controllers of society. The method by which the masses would be psychologically reprogrammed would be through a process called “social turbulence.” Remember the so-called “credit crunch” social engineering controlled demolition of the middle classes in the United States and other parts of the word?  Remember what happened to Greece, Ireland, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Detroit?

The premise of the technique is that a series of sharp and universal, cathartic shocks will destabilise a targeted  population, plunging a whole society into a form of managed psychosis. If the shocks are repeated over a period of years, there will be a shift in mental capacity to more infantile forms of reasoning. The psychotic adaptations of values would become “normative” or accepted; what was once thought to be abnormal (e.g. high unemployment, scarcity, destruction of personal savings and assets), would become normal. <<<Source>>>

Share

“Justly” Infringing on Rights

*Editor’s Note* – The Editorial Board of the Portland Press Herald is a shining example of many years of misinformation, disinformation, brainwashing and psychological operations by sinister power brokers aiming at the destruction of the United States, at least what we thought it used to be.

A right is a right, or it should be. It’s not a right when governments and nongovernmental organizations and individuals are allowed to destroy those rights, “without infringing unjustly” on them. If the Second Amendment were truly a right, then how can an editorial board of a newspaper, or anybody else, claim that infringing on a right can be done “justly?”

“Infringe” means to actively break the terms of a law – in this case the Second Amendment. Once a right is infringed upon, it is no longer a right. We should never break the terms of a right.

What I also find amazing is that people, like this editorial board, will waste words in their own newspaper lamenting the failures, corruption, hypocrisy, double standards, etc. of Government, but call upon Government to solve what they deem a problem.

You see, the problem is that this editorial board and millions of people just like them, demand things like new studies and data that supports their misguided ideology. Because of all the things I mentioned above, i.e. misinformation, disinformation, brainwashing and PSYOPs, these people cannot and will not see that what they have been told to do and say is not an answer to anything.

The brainwashing really shows off well when someone, like the editorial board, thinks Government can solve this problem. Government can’t solve anything. Examine the major “wars on” failures, by the public’s standards, on such things as drugs, terror, poverty, etc. For countless years these programs, that taxpayers continue to pay for, have failed miserably. We have nothing to show for it except higher taxes.

The editorial board believes that if people like the NRA would leave the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) alone, they could come up with some data that would surely point the way to end gun violence. Have they forgotten that the CDC is the Government?

We know that science has been bastardized at all levels for profit and agenda promotion. No “scientific” study can be trusted anymore. None! To call upon perhaps the most corrupt government and those that control it, to solve the violence problem in this country, is insanity.

The one constant that keeps this nation from falling 100% into the throes of tyranny, is the Second Amendment. The Founders, we are told, devised the Second Amendment for the protection FROM government tyranny. Please understand that. They new over 250 years ago that without a deterrent, like the Second Amendment, government tyranny would prevail. Today, we find ourselves asking Government to take away our guns. Mad!

About all that is left is the preservation of the Second Amendment. When that is gone, so are we as a free nation…or at least what is left of it.

It is ignorant to claim that infringing on the Second Amendment can be done justly. It is the result of brainwashing to think that crooked government can solve anything.

What the editorial board is really asking for here is for those of us who understand the actual value of the Second Amendment to stand down and let those opposed to liberty and freedom FROM tyranny, cook up the science to support their claims – claims that have never been able to be substantiated.

Ignoring the existing facts and refusing to accept the history of guns and their effect on society, will not reduce gun violence.

Perhaps a nation that turns its attention to God and away from man/government worship, would do more to curb violence, drugs, terror, etc. than demanding one’s own way, rooted in ignorance and mind control.

It is possible that through good public policy, the United States can reduce the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries without infringing unjustly on Second Amendment rights.But to do that, just as has been done in other public health crises, policymakers need good data. And to get good data, agencies like the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be allowed to work without interference or fear of reprisal.

Source: Our View: U.S. should fund studies of causes of gun violence – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Share

The Push for a Population Reduction Civil War

ProtestViolenceIs there something in the air that might be causing a shift in how many “peaceful” American citizens view their constitutional rights? I know, and a few other people know, that there are continuous psychological warfare operations designed to influence the way people think and react to specific issues. The media plays the biggest role in this effort.

I believe that people who seriously cherish their liberty are the true liberals, not the Leftists who co opted the label for political gain. True liberals and most libertarians want and enjoy their rights and want to be left alone in doing so. They also do not attempt to force their ideals onto others.

The Left understands this and so, often turn to violence to push their agendas, knowing any push back will be only verbal.

Readers should understand I’m not supporting one side over the other necessarily, instead pointing out the differences and to say that these differences exist for reasons very few people understand. As the Left/Right paradigm is a contrived hoax, I’m sure leftist violence and libertarian passivity are also man-created for political purposes.

I’ve been watching the goings on in Oregon after the shooting and see some things that I find a bit troubling and also is causing me to ask myself a few questions.

We know that President Obama immediately politicized the shootings, pretending to be angry at a press conference and saying he was going to politicize the event for personal gain…sorry, I think he said to protect the American people. How noble. I guess that’s why he won the Noble Peace Prize.

We are in the throes of a presidential campaign – throes because it is a painful beginning to coming change. We heard candidate Ben Carson tell the world that if he were in a situation where someone put a gun to his head and asked him if he was a Christian, he wouldn’t give them an answer and instead would confront the shooter and fight back, all the while calling upon others present to join him in that attack.

Immediately much of the media jumped all over that comment accusing Carson of promoting violence while at the same time blaming the victims for being dead or wounded because they didn’t fight back. On the other side, even from law enforcement, we began to hear support for Carson’s point of confronting and imminent shooter.

What’s ironic here – if that’s actually the word I want to use – is the “left” pretended or ignorantly stood in opposition to Carson’s call for fighting back, i.e. violence, and yet the left is notorious for violence and killing to promote agendas. The “right,” historically passive in such matters, is supporting the action to stand up to mass shooters and fight back, i.e. violence.

But this debate is limited to gun issues…isn’t it? Do these same people react the same way when it comes to other issues?

First we must understand that anytime that there is a killing, with a gun, it’s a Second Amendment issue, nothing else, except of late there seems to be a movement of some kind to place the blame on mental illness. More than likely just another psychological warfare operation. Is there the same outward, emotional debate, when you or your neighbor are victims of Fourth Amendment violations? What about First Amendment, etc.?

This morning I was reading an Andrew McCarthy article published at Pajamas Media. In addressing the Oregon school shooting, he places the present time as a “post-constitutional republic.” He does a good job of explaining how people see things, but comes up a bit short as to why people see things the way they do. However, I don’t want to miss the point.

The author questions why there is debate over a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and yet states:

“Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.

Reading that I was reminded of the events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. I sat in front of my television in utter disbelief as I watched law enforcement march down a street, with armored vehicles, pointing weapons of all sizes into the faces of anybody inside a house daring to look outside. While this was going on, police went door to door, busting down doors if necessary, intruding into the homes of innocent people looking for someone they had labeled a terrorist bomber. But what totally disgusted me was later in the evening, after the police claimed to have captured one of the alleged bombers, as they drove out the street, hoards of onlookers stood and applauded the efforts to the police. Why? They trampled all over the Fourth Amendment. But, as the writer above says, “we would not abide a suggest that we reconsider whether the government may break into you home…” We would NOT reconsider that but only because we have been brainwashed to think under circumstances, even fake ones, it’s for our safety that government suspends the constitution.

I guess McCarthy was right when he said there isn’t “supposed to be much policy debate.” As he also points out later, Americans tend to lack conviction in their belief of constitutional rights. And that, my friends, is all about design. Something this magnanimous could not happen by chance.

Not to get lost from my point, the author doesn’t come right out and say it, but he is suggesting that those who do believe in the constitutional rights, should be willing to be more assertive and proud and stand up for those rights and not apologize for them. Is the author also suggesting that perhaps it might even become necessary to resort to violent push backs, only if necessary (wink, wink) against those wishing to destroy those rights? And if someone, the government, the media, a friend, a candidate tells you your rights are being taken away and you need to fight back, will you? Blindly?

Consider again what Ben Carson said about the Oregon shooting. He said he wouldn’t just stand or sit there and let some person blow his brains out without fighting back. And then consider the aftermath while keeping in perspective my assertion above that historically liberty-loving people seldom resort to violence, at least not in what might be deemed illegal ways.

The actions in the aftermath are the fruit of the gun control PSYOP. There may actually be overlapping PSYOPs taking place. The gun control actions are about stealing rights and instilling fear in people that guns kill people. It’s always the gun that kills, never the person pulling the trigger. Attack the guns. People are programmed to attack the gun and take away the right.

In Boston the people have been programmed to believe that suspending the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, was necessary for their safety. They welcomed it. After all, this has been drummed into the heads for how long? The Patriot Act is necessary for our safety – the Government said so and we believe it.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out the reason the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to ensure that government would not become too powerful and resort to tyranny. And today, the people cry out for government. They cry out for government to take away the guns that were meant to protect them FROM government. None of this makes sense. The more we give government power the less liberty we have. Why don’t we understand that?

Is the current presidential campaign becoming another means of shifting the way the peaceful right goes about their business? Enter Donald Trump. Trump, the master salesman, television personality, and fake regular guy, says what pissed off people want to hear. Understand that people have become pissed off because the plan was crafted to make all those people angry. It is all mostly fake, sold to America through the media. Years and years of manipulation of the minds of people and the world is full of hatred, distrust and anger. People like Trump come along and feed on that. They empower the angry. Finally there is hope, some exclaim. And yet, with no lessons learned, voters have forgotten Trump is corporate America, Trump is Wall Street, Trump is banking.

Newly empowered, some are standing up for what they believe are their rights where they wouldn’t have before. With somebody who will say what angry people want to hear, even if he doesn’t believe any of it for himself, how far will they go? Are these people actually being programmed to rise up against each other.

If Ben Carson and others believe that the right thing to do when you believe you are going to be shot anyway is to fight back, does that mean that same approach should be taken to issues where your life might be at stake? What if you believe that the actions of someone or something, maybe the government, is going to ultimately threaten your life? Do you go down fighting?

Again I ask, are we being programmed further and further toward violence? What is the end game?

Consider a comment left at the above article. This type of comment is commonly found by leftists who hate rightist’s ideology. They always attack with violence or the threat of violence. It’s what they know. It’s what they have been taught. Not necessarily by the right.

“I’m not going to shoot at the Army or LEO’s if the liberals are able to order gun seizures.

No, if we get to a point where there are gun seizures, I’m plan to target liberal pundits, liberal politicians, their wives, their children, their campaign donors, etc. These are all nice soft targets that won’t shoot back. This is the logical action to take, since these are the people people who are really at fault for the encroachment upon my civil liberties.”

Before we act and react, especially to the lies we are fed continuously by the media, we should all take a moment to really think about from what source is all the hatred coming from. It isn’t what you think.

Share

Shifting Paradigm: Changing How Gun Control is Discussed

*Editor’s Note* – Recall the old saying that if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

A link to this article was posted on the Face Book page of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine – and I’m not sure I understand why. I certainly hope it was not because they endorsed the content of the interview with a “shrink” professor at a university.

At points here and there in the interview, the good professor makes some points about how mental illness is not necessarily the factor behind the causes of mass killings by deranged people. However, the overall tone of the interview is advocating for more government control and more government god-playing in making determinations as to who can and cannot own a gun based upon some god-man sitting in judgement over others of which he or she should never be given authority to do.

To present an interview that readers are led to believe is to “dispel” the “myths” of mental disorders and mass killing, when it is only shifting the paradigm and changing the way we discuss gun control, should be recognized for what it is and nothing more.

While we should advocate for a healthy society, one that includes a serious reduction in the promotion of violence, i.e video games, movies, music, etc., we will never eliminate the occasional nut job who wants to kill for whatever the reasons. I understand that there is always a certain risk to life no matter what I do or where I go. However, it should be MY CHOICE to be able to be prepared to protect myself from those rare instances if I DECIDE that the risk is great enough.

For many years there has always been topics of discussion as to why Americans should have a right taken from them to self protection and to prohibit tyranny. Now that the paradigm is shifting, thanks to ignorant people like Donald Trump who now want to make gun rights about mental health, don’t be fooled into believing that the desire of the anti-gun crowd has actually changed. Imagine that the government determines your Second Amendment “right” by making a determination on your state of mental health. Remember both sides of the fake Left and Right believe those of opposite ideology are mentally ill.

Whatever it takes to remove the threat of tyranny, the ruling elite will accomplish no matter how many fake shootings and psyops they create. Propping them up only accelerates the end result.

To separate the facts from the media hype, we talked to Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, and one of the leading researchers on mental health and violence. Swanson talked about the dangers of passing laws in the wake of tragedy ? and which new violence-prevention strategies might actually work.

Here is a condensed version of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Source: Myths about mental health and violence, and what makes mass shootings more likely | BDN Maine

Share

MENTAL HEALTH

“It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyop specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being. They needed to, because:

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out front in inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).”

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
~ Dr. Allen Frances

https://jonrappoport.wordpress…

Share