Thursday, November 1, 2018

Dealings With My Blue-Pilled Family

NOTE TO READER:
Scroll down and read from bottom to top, as you would with any email string.
 
Jack wrote to all (except Fred, who voted early and asked me to stop sending him stuff):
10 Reasons Not to Vote
 
 
Jack wrote to Madeline: 
I’m happy for you to correct what you call my assumptions. However, if I have  formed an opinion or belief about anyone or anything it is always based on observable facts and an intuitive sensibility. If I am wrong I welcome whatever you offer to help me reassess whatever it is I have misinterpreted and misdiagnosed.
 
As for intra-family communication problems, those are always two-way. I dare say there are likely massive assumptions made about me by all of my siblings that are not accurate. And so I urge you to consider this before you take the high ground again and then fall back into self-referent ruminations on your work and your own therapeutic musings.
 
But I already doubt that this conversation will produce much in the way of understanding. I say that because my framework of reality and yours (and that of our siblings) are so radically different. I’ll listen, if you wish to tell me about yourself, which I think is more than you would offer me. I say this because the sense I get from your emails is that I am some sort of pathogenic entity that needs healing, instead of a whole individual who has chosen his own road-less-traveled but one that is just as viable none-the-less.
 
The only context you offer is my assumption that you loathe Christianity. Granted, “loathe” may have been too strong a descriptor. I might have phrased it differently, as in you all have rejected your Faith. Picking and choosing certain ethical guideposts that your Catholic upbringing provided to you is far from being a Christian who seeks to be true to the gospels of Jesus. Instead I see that you and your sisters have embraced a bundle of New Age diversions with perhaps some Buddhist overlays wrapped in a more secularist or modernist outlook. To me it has the flavor of spiritual materialism, but I don’t want to assume too much.
 
Your interpretation of Christ and being Christ-like in your daily life impresses me as being a good practice. I cannot agree more that being “up” and positive is preferable. What puzzles me is that this approach works best as long as you are moving in a circle within a bubble of your own comfort zone; step out of that and then what? It may provide support and foundational functioning in the world and it may not. We are always being tested and our experience is always undergoing re-evaluation. Humans are works-in-progress. The more we apprehend the more we must adjust our being to our "selves." I’d very much like to know how to face lunacy, injustice, violence and evil with a positive happy-face. Even Christ expressed righteous anger when throwing the money changers out of the Temple—even God rested on the seventh day.
 
All of this to say that your way, your path is fine for you but it’s your path; mine is different but not inherently or necessarily lesser. And I can do my own work, thank you. I don’t need you to do anything for me, Madeline. I have never asked you for much of anything, have I? And you know why? I’ve never seen you as a “giver.” And neither are my other siblings much good at being givers. It’s analogous to your sense that one must be in possession of oneself in a positive way in order to be of help to others—but “positive” in a more spiritual and charitable sense, I suppose.
 
So, I guess we better just forget trying to get anywhere with this… My writing is apparently too burdensome for you to even read, let alone to apply yourself in answering; and of course you must save your energy for your paying clients. I understand. My first response to your email: "Here's an email from my siblings with more than just a nonchalant shrug. It had some actual thinking and substance." When I encounter something like this I like to sit with it for a while and "ponder" it, perhaps re-reading it a few more times, giving myself some incubation time before formulating a response. I did this with an email that Claire sent me recently. I hope she shared that with you.
 
I know you do not wish me any harm Madeline and I do not mean to imply by this email that you do. But you must understand that I believe in myself as much as you do, with just as much passion and goodness, believe it or not.
 
Love,
Jack 
 
 
Madeline wrote: 
HI Jack-
I planned on responding to your email this morning.  With my schedule I didn't even have time to read it in full until today.  You probably are not aware, but when I work I see clients straight for 9 to 12 hours.  

I don't even know where to begin as far as a response.   In that email, you made so many assumptions that are not true.  It's no wonder there are communication problems between you and me--and you and the rest of the family.  I'm sorry if you saw my response to you as condescending.  I'm so amazed with all that I have learned and am learning (and EXPERIENCING) as far neuroplasticity in the brain that I want to share it with everyone.  I don't know what happened between your first response to my email and your second response to my email.  I suspect that initially you received it in the way I intended and in your second response you did too much thinking and assuming.  You created a negative narrative about me and my tone and intentions.  Negative assumptions like that create division instead of union.  I could go through and respond to the many things you said in your email but that would be a lot of work for me.  It feels like you want me to do your work for you-to prove myself to you.  I'm not interested in doing that.  You talk about our Catholic upbringing and you ASSUME that we have a loathing for it.  Where did that assumption come from?  I feel like I was able to cull many positive things from my Catholic upbringing.  As far as Christ, my view is that he was so loving of the goodness that is in all of us that people were healthy and whole when they were with him.  Everyday I start my morning with journaling about all of the people, things, events,  I appreciate; and sometimes I also meditate.  So when I go into my day I feel appreciative and loving and I have positive expectations.  Most of the time, my day flows smoothly and I have very satisfying and uplifting experiences with clients, family, strangers.  Now I feel like life is very  simple: when I awake in the morning-every morning-my intention is to feel loving and appreciative.  I'm aware that I will not always feel that way; and i'm aware that things will knock me off balance, but I always know how to realign myself.  I can't be of any help to my clients if I do not feel good.  I can also put this in Christian terms-and this was my thesis on the Canterbury Tales: in the Old Testament we followed God's commandments that came from outside of us.   In the New Testament we learn that we can internalize those commandments by connecting with that loving part of us-the law of love within.   That's all for now.  
 
Love,
Madeline
 

 
Jack wrote to Madeline:
No reply?
Vote Democrat:
Jack
 


Jack wrote to Madeline: 
Madeline,
 
After sparsely sparring with me, your comedic wit quickly gave way to the clinical approach and you offered neuroplasticity for what ails me. A bit condescending and presumptive yourself, don’t you think? That is, a pronouncement from on high (albeit well-intentioned) suggesting that I accept my siblings’ diagnosis that I am awash in hate and negativity and how I might cure myself in order to better cope, socially. I guess my “social credit score” has nose-dived, at least from the perspective of the family, to the “unacceptable” level. Of course that’s nothing new.
 
That first paragraph may sound condescending. But what if it is meant as a truthful observation, then what of it? By the way, I reviewed all of my comments in that last email string for condescending and presumptive language. I didn’t find much there. Though my remarks can be “biting” I would not classify them as you did. Do I respect my siblings? (I was a little rough on Susie and Jennifer.) I suppose that could make for an interesting topic, though bracketed for now.
 
I accept that there are effective treatment modalities for improving effectiveness in one’s career, better health, control and satisfaction in relationships, and contentment in general with one’s self in the world. I don’t doubt that self-training in neuroplasticity can be beneficial to get one out of a state of chronic negativity or depression. I recall you mentioning it before and I found it to be interesting. In fact, I had gotten myself into a real negative cul de sac early in my “research” (c. 2007-2012) as I uncovered tons of secret knowledge and assorted evil-doing. I found I had to stand back from that and be more cautious with my immersion, especially in exaggerated, unsourced, or speciously-sourced articles. In other words, I believe I was learning to hone my discernment ability and to place boundaries on my intuition and imagination (if the latter is possible, but I think you know what I’m trying to say).
 
Eventually, I brought myself out of my slough of despond and was ever on-guard afterwards against this sort of thing. Yes, you can become so entangled in conspiratorial thinking that your whole being gets all warped and mangled as you obsessively self-project outward onto the many boogeymen that are out there. I’m quite aware of this weird phenomenon. I had to learn the hard way via an experiential, heuristic-type of process. Is there some residual? Perhaps. When one studies areas that are by their nature occluded, hard evidence is often elusive, fragmentary, and circumstantial. (I have quite often wished that I had majored and specialized in symbology and art history like Dan Brown’s intrepid Prof. Robert Langdon character. But alas! I did not.)
 
All this to say that I still get carried away a bit by a righteous anger at the socio-cultural malaise that is upon us; that the people have essentially served (and daily offer themselves up) as guinea pigs of political engineering and corporate manipulation. To witness the harm it has done to us is to almost despair for the future. Instead, I find solace in my religio-spiritual convictions in the gospel of Jesus and the wisdom of the ages; in time-tested tradition topped off with a bit of psychonautical inner space exploration; in blues and Jimi Hendrix, as it were. Still, it is difficult to witness the many servitors of Mammon, witting and unwitting, of Earthly things, desires, in physical, mental and transhuman existence—all the while wondering just how I am really doing.
 
Currently. politics is at center stage, with the midterm elections just one week away. The family might extend some understanding of this and forgive me my trespasses, my exuberance and my excitement that maybe, just maybe we finally have a leader as solid as Andrew Jackson (who you refer to as a “buffoon”) and will finally get a motivated Congress behind him. If you think Trump is a buffoon then I seriously question how “well-informed” you are on his accomplishments to date. And if you are not well-informed, then neither will be your opinions.
 
Yes, we are each on his or her own path. I just find it hard to respect opinions that are so “Montgomery County.” Come up to Trump Country in Somerset, for example; drive a tractor-trailer through the Midwest and experience the friendly, “non-coastal, non-callous sophisticates” that live there; work in Asia and get a sense of what other places and cultures are like and what they have to offer (instead of the weak-kneed “multi-culturalism” foisted on Americans here); do some hard manual labor among Hispanics and less privileged whites—you’ll soon leave the Democrat “progressive” plantation, believe me.
 
My neural roadmap is less tied to the brain and inheres more in my Christian values. And candidly, one of the concerns that I have about my sisters (and Kip) is this new loathing you all have for the Faith of your upbringing in favor of dabbling in the occult, particularly in psychics and séances. As one who explored some more esoteric realms myself I can appreciate going down that road. However, it’s one thing to explore and another to be captivated. I heard rumors about the trip you all took to Ashville, NC recently. Of course none of you dare to share that with the likes of me or your other brothers. I wonder why. If you are worried about being mocked and derided you won’t get that from me. Instead I’d just like to know what you all discovered and find out why it is you are out there looking for such things. But I haven’t asked because it seems plain that it’s none of my business. All I know is that without a sound guide devoted to God, the occult can be a real bear trap.
 
And so, while I respect your paths (or group path) I don’t feel compelled to hold my tongue. I don’t think that I should pretend that I feel any other way than how I feel. I do try to be as courteous and sociable as I can. Respectful? I respect that you all have found your career paths and that you are courteous to me. But let’s face it, besides growing up together I find that I have very little else in common with any of my brothers and sisters. And none of you seem very interested in my life, my family, my interests, my books, my blogs, my spiritual or political beliefs—why pretend if there is not much of a sympatico there?
 
So, why do I email you what I find interesting? Am I trying to evangelize you all with my spiritual and “fascist” political beliefs? I guess I am and I suppose I shouldn’t. But I think it’s a natural tendency for one to want to share something of value with loved ones. And when that is ignored or rejected out-of-hand it’s more bad manners than anything else as far as I’m concerned. I try to ignore the benign neglect, probably as much as you all try to ignore my futile attempts to communicate insights into my world that I offer to you. I just keep forgetting that none of you are much interested in my world—or maybe you think I have an ulterior motive or I’m being pedantic—who knows? I’ll never really quite understand why that is. Sometimes I wonder if you all are envious (not of my poverty of course). Maybe I’ve just scared you all off just once too many times.
 
In any event, I don’t mean any of you any harm and I wish you all just the opposite. 

Love,
Jack 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer wrote:
 
Did that comment make you feel good?  Apparently what Madeline said or what anyone has said to you went over your head. 
 
Jack wrote:
ATTN: Madeline
Therapist needed at 5706 Bradley
 
 
Jennifer wrote:
Jack, sadly you have no idea that Jane apologized to me before she died.  She told me that she realized she was wrong about me. You can only hope your siblings will feel the same about you some day, but this is highly doubtful. Regardless of the incredibly terrible things you've done to me, I'm still respectful toward you.  I would have thought you would have outgrown your desperate need to belittle others in your futile attempt to feel powerful. All of us have outgrown this so isn't it time to let go of your continual attempts at "fake power".  It inevitably has the polar opposite affect - that of a fool. 
 
Madeline wrote:
Now why did you have to be critical and judgmental? Can’t you just observe and move on without making judgments? Or better yet, find something to appreciate about Susie.  Maybe you don’t realize what you’re doing? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. 
 
Jack wrote:
Classic Susie: wait until the controversy subsides somewhat, then come in with conciliatory fluff (except with regard to me; of course I'm full of hate and negativity). Thanks for ever guiding us, oh tepid eldest!  
 
Susie wrote:
Well I finally had time to read the stream.  I miss Jane - it's a pain in my heart.  So hard to believe it's been 10 years!  I talk to her on my walks and sometimes when I meditate.  I feel she is there with support, guidance, and love.  I agree wholeheartedly with Fred and Madeline - not feeling able to express my distress about the negativity and hatred you espouse, Jack.  Instead of this, can we please unite in our love and missing of our Jane?  Can we love each other and accept that we are different, but still respect and support each other?
Love to you all,
Susie
 
Jack wrote:
Now there's something worth pondering.
Thank you, Madeline!
 
Madeline wrote:
Jack-
     What is most unacceptable about your attitude that shows through in what you write and send is that you have no respect for your siblings.  You are condescending and presumptive.  Just because we don’t engage in discourse with you does not mean that we are not well informed and that we don’t have opinions.
 
      If you want to engage with us, approach us with positive expectation and appreciation.  I had a dream about Jane about 5 years ago.  In the dream she came out from behind a curtain and she was beautiful and beaming and she held open her arms and said “aren’t you going to hug me”?  After that I started on a new path that enriched my life immensely-that’s when I started my Appreciation blog.  I learned about the neuroplasticity of the brain and discovered that if you spend time in negative states you create neural pathways in your brain so that it’s easier and easier to get into negative states and stay there.  Also, the more you stay in negative states the less healthy you are-your heart rate variability goes down and that sets off an avalanche of negative biological responses that eventually lead to disease.  So I have learned to practice being in positive states by writing about things that bring up positive states-and by meditating-thereby creating new neural pathways in the brain and constant high heart rate variability.  And the other benefits are I have created an internal locus of control meaning that no matter what happens I am resilient-I know how to return to my center and restore homeostasis;  I spend more time being Present with others which feels deeply satisfying.  This is why I can see 10 or 11 clients a day and feel energized all day long.  These practices have also led to deeper, loving connections with people, with Nature-but most importantly with myself.  Also, research shows that when you are in more positive states you’re more creative-you find solutions to problems more easily.  AND research shows that people (and animals) want to be around you when you’re centered, present and feeling love and appreciation. I realize that you are on your path and I respect that-you have had experiences that have led you to where you are today.  But just realize we are all on our own paths which have led us to make choices and decisions.  Start to notice the contrast of how you feel when you are being judgmental or critical to how you feel when you are appreciative and understanding.  Maybe that one practice will spark something for you. 
Love, 
Madeline
--------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND CONTEXT 
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:42 AM Jack wrote:
She had your number for sure, Jennifer. It's good you didn't end up hating her for that. 
 
Jack wrote:
Fred,
It's funny. Jane's blunt remarks to me were often offensive and made me feel sad. She never hesitated to say what she meant---and she meant what she said. She held strong opinions about a lot of things, including my own personal failings. So she was hard to take, but I took it and wrestled with it. And I think she helped me understand certain things about myself over time. She had a strongly inquiring mind that went in many directions---income tax, ETs, supplements, nutrition---and she saw through the phoniness Democrat servitor frauds. Like many researchers, she may have been taken in by disinformation trolls, but at least she was exploring vistas of knowledge and wisdom traditions that are out there and worth looking at. She was never one to shrink from doing anything either, like landscaping her property or rehabbing her house. That's what I miss about Jane and those are qualities I admire.
 
I'm full of political energy because that's what's happening out there right now as we come up to the most pivotal election since 2016. I always hope and pray that those closest to me will somehow wake up, or at least engage me on issues instead of mouthing platitudes and simply hating Trump based on nothing but irrational personal animus. I stopped sending you most stuff long ago, Fred, due to your benign neglect. How far that goes I'll never know.
Jack    
 
 

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:26 AM Jennifer wrote:
I agree with you Fred, we’ll put!  I find pennies all of the time and place them in cracks in the cherry wood owl sculpture in our front yard that we created in Jane’s honor. I miss her too!

 
Jack wrote to Kip:
Et tu Brute it is then.
 
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:44 AM Kip wrote to Jack:
Yes, Donald, let’s generalize about liberals so we can de-humanize them enough to hate them, and then maybe even kill them.  Hail the Fuhrer!!
 
Jack wrote to Kip:
Et tu, Kip?

 
On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:44 PM, Fred wrote:
 
Jack, I really find it offensive and sad that in a forum where we are honoring the memory of our sister Jane, that you feel the need to inject your political thoughts. This is totally unacceptable and I think we all know your political leanings.   If you support your candidate and his party, fine - Vote for your candidates. But this over zealous and obsessive ranting is off-putting.  You seem to see everything through a your political  prism and espouse hate and condescension toward any who don’t agree with you. Frankly, I am sick and tired of your extremist crusade.   Please stop sending me your political emails and videos.   I already voted in the midterm election.  I voted for candidates I feel  best represent my views. You remind me of a religious evangelist trying to convert people to your religion, or even worse, a fascist.
 
Enough is enough....
 
Fred

 
Jack wrote:
Now I'm seeing where Claire got her propensity toward cheer-leading.
 
 

On Oct 29, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Rosemary wrote:
So nice Fred!
 

On Oct 29, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Fred wrote:
Me too.  I see her dreams often. Sometimes in a dream I just feel her presence.  I guess that’s the twin connection.
 
 
 
Jack wrote:
Excuse me?
What planet are you on?
I'd say it's quite the other way around.
But then, you still watch TV.
I understand your disability.
Shall we consult our dead relatives?
Jane, come in, your sisters need help! (Lots of it...)
 
 
Madeline wrote:         
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:29 PM Madeline wrote:
Yes!! Like a Buffoon of a president made   Impotent by a democratic house and senate!!!
 
 
Jack wrote:
Oh, it's Madeline!
Glad to know you've left the Ouija board long enough to hint at the possibility of belief in something more "uplifting."
 
 
Jack wrote:
Emogi-speak?
Come on Rosemary, you can do better than that!
 
 
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:35 PM Rosemary wrote:
[four emoji smiling faces]😂😂😂😂

 
 
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:21 PM Madeline wrote:
I’m pretty sure that Jane now has an omniscient view and is therefore a Democrat. 😇
 

On Oct 29, 2018, 7:15 PM Kip wrote:
I did think about Jane yesterday, and politics did not cross my mind in the least.
Kip


On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:11 PM, Jack wrote:
Way ahead of her time
 

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:07 PM Rosemary wrote:
My message is taken a detour.


On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Kip wrote:
Republicans have lost their way.

Kip


On Oct 29, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Jack wrote:
Jane would vote Republican if she were still alive today. For sure. And so should all of you---in her memory.

On Oct 29, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Rosemary wrote:

Yesterday was the 10 year anniversary of Jane’s death. I still find pennies in the oddest places and they always remind me of her.
I miss Jane so much!

Love,
Rosemary

Friday, October 12, 2018

Legal Propaganda: A Trumpian Double-Take?

Preliminary Note from The Dark Ages
Today’s Feast Day: Feast of St. Wilfrid, Bishop (died Oct. 12, 709)
“He had to combat the passions of wicked kings, the cowardice of worldly prelates, and the errors of holy men. He was twice exiled and once imprisoned; yet the battle which he fought was won.” (Lives of the Saints, Rev. Alban Butler, p.335 (Benziger Bros., Inc., 1955)
Take Note:

1.      The Establishment (Blue Pill) definition of “Fake News”: if news, opinion, articles, or videos haven’t been scrubbed by PRISM first, they are considered “fake.”

 
2.    The purpose of perception management is to get the other side to believe what one wishes it to believe, whatever the truth may be.
 
Question:  Does the latest National Defense Authorization Act (2019 NDAA) in any way change the authority of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to broadcast propaganda domestically and/or affect the legal status and use of propaganda by private media outlets? I presume the answer can be found somewhere in here as it relates to previous incarnations of the NDAA: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5515/text  President Trump signed it on August 13, 2018. 
NOTE: This blog entry was extracted from two American Intelligence Media articles and liberally paraphrased. See, https://aim4truth.org/2017/02/19/yellow-journalism-globalist-weapon-of-mass-deception/
 

Background: Where “The News” Comes From


We have all heard the “conspiracy theories” that the entire U. S. media is owned by six companies and those companies are owned by the Rothschild family; however, there is more to it than that. “Fake news” is actually partially correct, which is the way that yellow journalism delivers propaganda—full of half-truths and sensationalism with bloody red headlines that are eye-catching, but not backed by honest investigative research.

It is also said that there are only two news agencies that have a monopoly on U. S. news. This is basically true. The Associated Press and Reuters provide 95% of national and international news to the six major U. S. news agencies, which we call the “Media Cartel.” The Rothschilds used to own Reuters. Now they own major holdings in the news networks that comprise the collective that shares in the ownership of the Associated Press.

We may have also heard that the media cartel (all six major media corporations) are only allowed to “read aloud” the scrubbed-clean news provided by the A. P. and Reuters. This is true, but with one additional truth. All news first goes through the National Security Agency for screening and approval. The NSA wipes clean any news that might “potentially” effect “National Security,” including any policies of the administration. Did you know that Reuters, the AP, and the FCC/NSA New York City offices all share the same fiber optic hub that goes through the NSA’s Personal Record Information System Methodology (PRISM ) screening before Reuters and the AP are “allowed” to see the news?

So before the network talking heads are permitted to read the news or newspapers and website posts or hyperlink their headlines, the information is first scrubbed by the media cartel owners—whether a Rothschild or major shareholders.

Key Point: Authentic citizen journalism isn’t scrubbed by PRISM before dissemination. Translation: if news, opinion, or articles, or videos haven’t been scrubbed by PRISM first, they are considered “fake.”
 
 
Propaganda Gets a New, Improved Name

Legal or not, here it comes: Propaganda is now called "perception management."

The phrase “perception management” has often functioned as a euphemism for “an aspect of information warfare.” Theoretically, a distinction exists between “perception management” and public diplomacy, the latter of which does not, as a rule, involve falsehood and deception. Still, important ingredients of perception management have defiled diplomacy because the purpose of diplomacy is also to get the other side to believe what one wishes it to believe, whatever the truth may be.
 
Although perception management operations are typically carried out within the international arena between governments, and between governments and citizens, perception management techniques are now a part of mainstream information management systems. Of course these quickly spread into the private sector in coordination with the Deep State (viz., corporate media facilitated by the CIA, State Department, British and Israeli intelligence, Senior Executive Service (SES), SERCO, and the British Queen’s Privy Council, etc.)
 
Today, businesses may even contract with other businesses to conduct perception management for them, or they may conduct it in-house with their public relations staff.
 
 
More Background: How This Was Made Possible

The US Congress passed laws, post 9-11, that made state-sponsored propaganda legal. Then, from 2012 onward, President Obama expanded the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to include using propaganda and disinformation on Americans in all forms of broadcasting. 

To repeat: The tenets of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 made it legal to propagate and broadcast propaganda within America. We are all being treated like enemy combatants whose “perception” must be managed to come in line with “national security” policies. The Department of Defense may now broadcast propaganda with the approval and authority of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) both internationally and domestically. There is actually an agency with this name. Search it yourself. 

DARPA, the research and development arm of the military, has created many tools to control the enemy through media that shape public perception.  As already noted, this is called perception management. It has been used legally in advertising since the late seventies and also in electronic warfare throughout the world to “brain-wash” our enemies and to shape their perception and opinion of America.

Any governmental “policy” may be accompanied by broadcasts that use subliminal programming as part of perception management. These mechanisms help to squelch dissent. They have been used since the Reagan administration to shape public opinion in order to support administrative policies. Wars require domestic support. Accordingly, private corporate security and non-military intelligence agencies began to use “black ops” programs originally started up as  “psy-ops” tools by the military. 

The only question left was what might be the goal of the Deep State (e.g., the SES-laden Council on Foreign Relations), besides the obvious one of having few people who disagree with its policies. 

In 2011 Obama signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty but couldn’t get Congress to ratify it.  In this treaty Obama’s goal was to disarm America, with the help of the United Nations.  But two things had to happen: 1) we had to give up our guns or have them taken from us, and 2) the UN had to have a military presence in our country. Keep in mind that the United Nations cannot have a military presence in our country, unless invited.

During operation Jade Helm in 2015 (besides the San Bernardino exercise) photo images of heavy UN military equipment being distributed throughout America began popping up on the internet, posted by vigilant citizen journalists. Another veil lifted. Obama’s job was to go for a gun grab, either by Congressional action or UN treaty. But because patriots started waking up, our elected officials in Congress could not ratify the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. So Obama and his political minions began to manufacture false flags, hoping that our horror of Sandy Hook and San Bernardino would cause us to lay down our guns and with them, the protection of our liberty.

Keep this in mind: Arguably, false flag incidents and state-sponsored propaganda could not be considered treasonous acts against Americans because Congress (through the NDAA) essentially made such treason legal.

The NDAA added Amendment 114 which negated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.  These laws made propaganda that was used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is not new. It was created from the SMA; although today it is quite a different agency.  Originally, this agency claimed to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” Now it acts as a firewall filter that disfigures free speech.

Amendment 114 of the NDAA was approved by the House in May of 2012.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012) reads:

Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad.

At that time, investigative journalist Michael Hastings reported:  “The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public.” (Hastings was killed in a “car crash” on June 18, 2013.)

“It removes the protection for Americans,” said a Pentagon official concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

Also at the time, Representatives Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) in the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012) (H.R. 5736), advocated that it is time to liberate the authority of the US government to broadcast American produced foreign propaganda in the U.S.

The amendment empowered the State Department and Pentagon to utilize all forms of media against the American public for the sake of coercing US citizens to believe whatever version of the truth the US government wants them to believe.  All oversight was removed with Amendment 114. It made no difference whether the information disseminated was truthful, partially truthful, or completely false.

Four billion dollars per year was spent by the Pentagon on propaganda aimed at the American public (source?); as well as $202 million spent by the Department of Defense on misinformation operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2011. The Pentagon began using fake handles on social media sites to purvey false information, harass users and enact perception management to influence Americans. Sophisticated software allows military to engage in online conversations with coordinated answers, blog comments and instant messaging remarks that are solely meant to spread pro-American propaganda.

This new perception management was called Information Operations (IO), which is defined as “the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.”

Repealing the Smith-Mundt Act allowed the direct deployment of these tactics on the American public.

Information Operations activities were undertaken to shape the media’s chosen narrative and thus affect the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted audience. It equates descriptions of combat operations with standard marketing strategies. With the 2012 NDAA, the State Department and Pentagon could go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets and directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. Successful wars require domestic acceptance, as does the success of Deep State malfeasant interference.

The 2012 NDAA – specifically Section 1021(b)(2) – already institutionalized the U.S. military’s ability to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial, citizens and non-citizens alike.  Major parts of the legislation are based on the assumption that key legal protections for individuals are incompatible with the requirements of national security.

The purpose of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is “to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences.”  The act was added to the 2013 NDAA bill as section of 1078 to amend certain passages of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the 2013 NDAA on December 28, 2012.  Amendments made to the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987 allow for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within US borders.

A Trumpian Double-Take?

If the above analysis is correct and still holds true (hopefully gleaned from “reliable sources” and not propagandists)—and,

 
Given that President Trump signed the 2019 NDAA on August 13, 2018—yet,

 
President Trump relentlessly rails against fake news—

Then why does President Trump abide fake news?
Why is he allowing this legal propaganda, this treason, to exist and to continue?

My simple answer is this:

He does not wish to stop legalized propaganda, he only wants the media to use its propaganda machine to support him, his administration and his policies. However, don’t be fooled. To the extent Trump’s way stands for constitutional truth and an impartiality of justice that benefits the People and our Republic then the news will no longer be propaganda or treason at all because it won't need to be—an ironic twist, eh?

But what the world needs to understand is this:
Outright lies, spin, and half-baked truths are unlawful, whether they are officially sanctioned by the state or not. On the other hand, using clever strategies to unmask deceivers and set the truth free is pure Trumpian genius. Could this so-called "Trump effect" be perception management in the service of truth? Or might it be a de facto way of rendering perception management null and void? You be the judge.

Monday, October 1, 2018

Reflective Memorial Stroll

Yesterday I went to the Flight 93 Memorial about 20 miles outside of Somerset, PA near a town called Shanksville. It is actually run and managed by U.S. Park Rangers as a National Memorial. This place marks the spot where a United Airlines flight is supposed to have crash landed on 9-11 due to a heroic struggle by passengers against terrorists who had hijacked it. Forty-four passengers are said to have perished.
 
The memorial is built on land that had been filled-in after having been strip-mined. The site, with its buildings and walkways, is confusing. It seems meant to be confusing. The eyes search the surrounding terrain for a central locus, yet there is no exact place that draws your attention. I felt as if I were walking into a lie, a deceiving bit of stagecraft. With tall, looming concrete walls on both sides of its walkways and its “Tower of Voices,” the impression is of some sort of occult, directing influence.
 
Over the years I had researched the many anomalies associated with 9-11. I recalled hazy bits of info about Flight 93: the lack of airplane crash debris, conflicting eyewitness statements, speculation that the plane had been shot down on orders from then Vice-President Dick Cheney and even some claim about there not even being a plane involved at all. Oh, and what happened to the bodies? Were the whole airplane and its contents vaporized by some new weapon—i.e., turned to dust as happened at the World Trade Center? It was a riddle with a set of odd-ball facts that didn’t quite make sense and I refused to be overtaken by grief and sympathy in the face of unanswered questions to reasonable inquiry.
     
President Trump appeared here on the anniversary to pay homage. I like and support President Trump, but this too had felt like political posturing. It was odd, just like his hypocritical stance on Syria; a perplexing neo-con-seeming foreign policy. Granted, political maneuvering can be tricky to decipher. This only added to my overall leeriness.
 
I’m not psychic, but the place did not “feel” right. I felt an overwhelming urge to leave shortly after strolling around a bit. And so I soon did.
 
My cousin Patrick was with me. He was still hobbling around with a walker from his knee replacement surgery. We traded his walker in for a wheelchair. They were freely available, just as they are in airports. Pushing him forward among the throngs that were there on this sunny last day of September, somehow made me feel like the two of us were props on a movie set.     
  
As we got back into our car and drove off I kept wondering about the National Memorial aspect to this spectacle. I am naturally suspect of the federal government. It must have been funded and built by federal funds and is now a sort of federal reservation. That was creepy at the very least. Whatever our currently corrupt federal government lays its hands on does not bode well anymore for truth, justice and the American way.
 
A memorial to lost loved ones such as this is meant to stir-up reverence for the dead. My problem, however, was that the place itself seemed so dead it killed any reverence I might otherwise feel. We headed home and I resolved to review the intelligence gathered by citizen investigators on this incident. As far as I’m concerned, the true fate of Flight 93 comprises one of a tri-partite set of events that happened on 9-11 that remains unresolved.