Mario Savio being tailed by the FBI:
Mario Savio was one of the leaders of the Free Speech Movement that began in the 1964-65 school year at the University of California in Berkeley. One of the aims of the movement was to lift a ban that the University had placed on in-campus political activities. In June 1964 Savio went to Mississippi as a civil rights worker with the Freedom Summer project and helped blacks register to vote. On December 3rd, 1964, Mario delivered the following words on the front steps of Sproul Plaza (the steps were renamed the Mario Savio steps in his honour in 1997):
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people that run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”
I believe Savio was talking about using the power of a group and their unifying voice to put a stop to what they believed was injustice and a violation of their constitutional rights. In any case, J. Edgar Hoover (director of the FBI at the time) was concerned about growing dissent at the University of California in Berkeley, and started a file on Savio (collecting information on him which would amass to hundreds of pages), as well as having him followed and tailed. Did I miss something? Was there some clause in the American Constitution that marks people as suspect for using certain parts of ‘freedom of speech’? Why was the FBI so concerned about him? Read the entire San Francisco Chronicle article here:
I’m starting to get the picture that if you do or say something that the state does not like or approve of, you’re put on a list and/or followed or harassed by some secret government entity. What’s the use of having freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble if you’re considered unpatriotic, or a “threat” for exercising those freedoms?
If you haven’t seen the “2 girls 1 cup” video, then you still possess some form of sanity. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THAT VIDEO (and no, I am not using reverse psychology on you). I’ve seen many “reaction videos”, but have never viewed the actual ‘2 girls’ footage, and never will. I believe we are at the bottom of the barrel as a society because of the circulation and “popularity” of that video; the bar can be lowered no more, we have hit absolute ground zero, rock bottom, the end of the line. How can something like that be considered entertainment? Is the purpose of that video to make a political point? Is it saying, “This is one reason why we love freedom”? Many people in the media have pointed to events or comments after 9/11 and have said, “That emboldens the terrorists”. I say to all members of the media, “Watch the ‘2 girls 1 cup’ video and then tell me who EXACTLY that emboldens: the terrorists or us?” I would love to know how that video emboldens us as free people, and I’d also like to know how it emboldens people who hate us (for our freedom, supposedly). Who knows, maybe it can be used as an addition to Navy Seals training: once they watch it without flinching, they graduate to watching it while eating hot dogs, chocolate pudding, and salad (covered with ranch dressing, of course). And once the bravest of the brave pass that test, they will be able to withstand ANY kind of torture (mental, physical or emotional).
When some people hear stories of large conspiracies, they say, “That’s just a conspiracy theory.” Using the words ‘conspiracy theory’ somehow gives them credence to simply brush it off as crazy talk. Their defense for this? “If it was real, someone on the inside would have come out and said something by now.” Some people have, and guess what, they’re labeled ‘conspiracy theorists’! It seems to me that the public mindset has been conditioned over the years to pay no attention to anyone that’s labeled as a “conspiracy theorist”; therefore, even when the truth is revealed, the public pays no heed.
An excerpt from “Silent weapons for quiet wars”
Media: Keep the adult public attention diverted away from the real social issues, and captivated by matters of no real importance.
Schools: Keep the young public ignorant of real mathematics, real economics, real law, and real history.
Entertainment: Keep the public entertainment below a sixth grade level. (Emphasis mine.)
Work: Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think: back on the farm with the other animals.
Here’s the first thing I noticed about CNN’s report on the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto the morning it was broadcast: The CNN reporter had said that they had heard of Bhutto being shot as she was getting into her vehicle. Minutes after the reporter had said that, CNN showed a clip of Bhutto (with the words “moments before” at the bottom) walking away from the group of people who attended the rally towards her vehicle……getting into it…..and…..closing the door. How dumb do they think we are? How dumb are they? Also, the CNN reporter had on the phone a reporter from a TV station in Pakistan who said that ‘people’ walked up to Bhutto’s vehicle and opened fire….and THEN there was a blast. Yet another example of discombobulated reporting.
I would like to see the Georgia Guidestones destroyed. I’m all for world peace, advancing humanity, improving the environment, the rule of law and the prevalence of justice, but I’m not in favour of population control, one world government, or a world court. Check out http://www.georgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm for more information on this.
Could this website (http://www.vhemt.org/) be a psychological manipulation tactic in the direction of eugenics? If you convince people (through argument and tireless propaganda) to not breed, then haven’t you altered the human gene pool somewhat? Physically sterilizing people against their will directly alters the gene pool; offering the option of birth control may not be brutal but does have the potential to change the gene pool. Could this be the mental form of eugenics? Also, think about this: if Fluoride can be added to the drinking water under the guise of ‘improving dental health’, then can’t some sort of birth control be added as well in order to sterilize a population (without their knowing it)?
Excerpts from “The deliberate dumbing of America” by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt:
In 1952, “modern math” was introduced to dumb down math students so that they couldn’t apply the math concepts to “real life situations when they get out of schools,” according to a “Dr. Ziegler” who served as chairman of the Education Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1928. (Page 46)
In order to comprehend at all adequately what has been and what is happening to the mental processes and attitudes of the American people during recent years, and in order most particularly to be aware of and alert to the carefully planned goals of the inner and hard-core sponsors of the so-called mental health program, it is pertinent to explore briefly the science and art of cybernetics. Cybernetics, according to Gould’s medical dictionary, “The science dealing with communication and communication-control theory as applied to mechanical devices and animals; and including the study of servo-mechanisms, that is, feed-back mechanicisms; Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, 565 Park Avenue, N.Y. 21, N.Y. has published a series of symposia on cybernetics ‘Circular Causal and Feed-Back Mechanisms in Biology and Social Systems.’”
In a Freedom Forum presentation entitled “Inside U.S. Communism” by Herbert Philbrick, at Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas, April 16, 1954, and distributed by the National Education Program, Mr. Philbrick had this to say about cybernetics:
The communists, I have discovered, have a favorite term for their system of influencing people in devious ways. The word they use as an over-all title of this technique is “cybernetics”. Cybernetics as a pure science has a very legitimate and worthwhile function, it has to do with how to improve conduits and cables, how to make better coaxial cables for television, how to improve telephone service, how to make more efficient electronic brains, etc. It has a very legitimate service as a pure science.
But since a human being, to a Communist, is simply another machine; since human nerve centers have exactly the same function as an electronic circuit; since a human has not a soul—he is only a mechanical apparatus—the Communists have decide that this particular science has a very useful application—not on machines but on humans.
Now we’ve heard a great deal more recently about brain-washing. Back in 1940 that word wasn’t familiar to us, but what was going on inside these Young Communist League cells was a technique of cybernetics, a technique of brain-washing, if you will; the highly developed science of demolishing the minds and the spirits of men. [emphasis in original] The Communists brag that theirs is a “technique of Soviet psychiatry”. Now Soviet psychiatry is based on the same basic principles as that of our own doctors and psychiatrists except that the Communists have a different purpose in their psychiatry. Our doctors work with unhealthy minds and try to make them healthy and whole again. The Communists have decided that cybernetics provides a very wonderful way to go to work on healthy minds and to destroy them. And of course we are now getting a bit of that picture from our own prisoners of war who were jailed and imprisoned by the North Koreans and the Red Chinese. One of my good friends is Robert Vogeler. We’ve learned a great deal from Bob Vogeler about the technique of brain-washing. It’s a horrifying story.
I would suggest that you folks who are interested in this subject, perhaps some of you students, could adopt for special study this field of cybernetics. It is brand new. I don’t know of a single book on the subject in connection with what the Communists are doing with it. As a matter of fact, my own knowledge is very limited because the only facts I have are those few things which we have gathered from inside the Communist Party which indicate that the Reds have been working around the clock in this study of the scientific manipulation and control of information. It is based on the findings of Pavlov which say that a man, like an animal, conditioned to respond to certain impulses, can be conditioned to respond to words, phrases, and symbols. Therefore you pour in the words, phrases and symbols to which he will respond without thinking [emphasis in original]. And then you withhold other certain words which will cause him to respond in a way you may not desire. It is the scientific control of human beings by means of control [of] information. (Pages 50 & 51)
Justice William O. Douglas expressed the concerns of many people when he stated:
We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy; when everyone is open to surveillance at all times; when there are no secrets from the government…[There is] an alarming trend whereby the privacy and dignity of our citizens is being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen—a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a man’s life at will. [Osborn v. U.S., 1966, pp. 341-343] (page 137)
Professor Benjamin Bloom, the “father” of Mastery Learning and developer of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, presented a paper entitled “New Views of the Learner; Implications for Instruction and Curriculum” at the 1978 Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Annual Conference. The paper was published in ASCD’s Educational Leadership April 1978 issue (Vol. 35, #7). The following quote explains clearly the reasoning behind UNESCO’s requirement that member states, including the United States, incorporate UNESCO’s lifelong learning philosophy into their educational policies:
Throughout the world, the instruction and curriculum in the schools is being studied to determine its long-term contribution to continuing learning throughout life. The Edgar Faure (UNESCO) report “Learning to Be” has had great influence on this thinking. The Faure report (Faure, 1972) stresses the many changes taking place in all societies and the difficulties individuals have in adjusting to rapid change in the society, in their work, and in their lives. Since, the report continues, it is virtually impossible to anticipate and plan for the changes that will take place, the only adaptive mechanism people have to adjust to and cope with these changes is their ability and interest in continuing learning throughout life…..
We, who are responsible for the learning of our students for a ten-to-sixteen-year period, must extend our sights beyond the period that our students are in the schools or colleges. Until we do this and until it becomes a part of our curriculum planning, we will neglect those objectives of education that relate to the entire life of the individual. (pp. 574-575)
[Ed Note: It is important to recall Bloom’s definition of education: “to change the thoughts, actions, and feelings of students.” In other words, the above recommendation very simply calls for lifelong brainwashing.] (Page 149)
An excerpt from the Arthur Jones autobiography “And God laughs…” (Chapter 11, page 4)
About 1945, an interesting effect was caused by a university’s attempt to get around this invalidity of results produced by questioning people. This started in Kentucky, but spread all over the country. The problem involved the study of the rapidity of the spread of baseless rumors.
To check the spread of rumors, you can plant a false story and then question a large group of people, but the results are worthless; simply because very few people will tell you the truth, some will confuse the story with something else, and a lot of people will just lie about it, in order to appear better informed. But in all cases, enough of your results will be incorrect to invalidate the entire program.
So how do you question people without questioning them? The rumor was planted that a piece of plain, white cotton on a screen door would keep flies off the door. A piece of cotton was suggested only because it was plainly visible from a car driving slowly along the street. The rumor was planted, a few days passed with no attempts to spread or stop the rumor, and then a survey was made by counting the pieces of cotton on screen doors.
But they never could stop it, it spread all over the country like wildfire; when given the facts in the case, people would say, ‘Yes, that’s amusing, but it sure keeps flies off the door.’ Which, of course, it does not.
But the obvious point in this case was completely overlooked; the results were still invalidated by the method, the pieces of cotton caused comments, and caused the rumor to spread faster than it would have normally. In so far as I know, there’s no possible way to conduct anything approaching an accurate survey of what people have heard, believe, or do. What you can do, and about all you can do, is rely upon your own observations from experiences connected with the subject under consideration; then attempt to correlate these experiences, and interpolate them into something approaching a rational conclusion, without permitting your personal bias to influence the results, and that’s impossible to do with complete accuracy.
Are the demonstrations of seatbelts on airplanes for your personal safety or for the financial safety of the airlines? Suppose you get hurt (somehow) while on the airplane. In most cases, the application of common sense would dictate that you yourself were at fault, but in this day and age one might suppose that the airline would be responsible for you (since you got hurt while on their aircraft). You could go so far as to think that the crew of the aircraft are responsible for your safety, and since you (somehow) got hurt, it would be their fault. Hence, by “teaching” every passenger how to operate a seat belt on a plane, they’re covering themselves in case you get hurt so that when you (somehow) hurt yourself, they can say, “Well sir, we explained to you how to use your seatbelt, so it’s not our fault that you failed to (a) operate the seatbelt properly, and (b) kept the seatbelt fastened when we told you to”.
If Fluoride is added to our drinking water, then what else has been? There should probably be independent studies conducted. Here’s an article detailing what’s going on in the U.S.:
And a similar article from PBS:
The International Herald Tribune addressed the issue last year:
And an Environmental Health Perspectives article from 2005!:
Besides the article, read the comments below it:
Yet another article from 2007:
What I’m gathering from this is that we drink water from the tap (or through a filter), take our vitamins, birth control pills, medications, and whatever else we need in our lives, pee some (or most) of it out (either because the body can’t use it or doesn’t need the amount you’ve given it), and flush it down the toilet. The waste goes through the sewage system, back into the rivers and lakes, and right back into our drinking water! Remember the opening scene in “Waterworld” when Kevin Costner’s character peed into a cup, then ran it through a filtration machine and drank from that same cup? Does that seem so disgusting anymore, given what you’ve read in the previous six articles? It’s recycling (although very unwanted), and in our case there appears to be not much that we can do about it at the moment.
She was “shackled to a bench as well as handcuffed”. I’m confused; I am unable to picture a woman accidentally strangling herself while she is SHACKLED AND HANDCUFFED TO A BENCH. I will require a contortionist re-enacting the supposed scene on film in order to believe this remote possibility. On a side note, she JUST SO HAPPENED to be in a room that was without a video camera, even though there are video cameras inside malls, outside of buildings, and even in some trees in London, but not an airport holding room! Riiiiiiiiight.
Speaking of Wikipedia, who submits the information to that site? Why, you do! Yes, you! The public is allowed full editing access in Wikipedia. But who edits what pages? A man named Virgil Griffith created Wikiscanner, a program that allows you, the viewer, to find out who edits what pages on Wikipedia. So that will answer your ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ questions, but why? The definition of the word “propaganda’ in the Oxford Dictionary of Current English (third edition, 2001) is:
“information that is often biased or misleading, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
So whether or not the edited information in Wikipedia articles could be propaganda depends on what the article is covering. But how about misinformation? Again, from the same dictionary (the word ‘misinform’):
“give false or inaccurate information.”
On a related note, ‘disinformation’ means:
“information which is intended to mislead.”
A question that may come up is, “Why did Virgil create Wikiscanner in the first place? Why does he want to know who’s editing what?” Examples from this page (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12823729) will help to answer the aforementioned questions:
“Someone with an IP address from Wal-Mart made this change:
Wages at Wal-Mart are about 20% less than at other retail stores. Founder Sam Walton once argued that his company should be exempt from the minimum wage.
The average wage at Wal-Mart is almost double the federal minimum wage (Wal-Mart). However, founder Sam Walton once argued that his company should be exempt from the minimum wage.
Someone at the voting machine company Diebold apparently deleted long paragraphs detailing concerns over the integrity of the company’s voting machines.
Someone at Dow Chemical Co. eliminated negative passages about environmental disasters involving the company.”
And the information war rages on…
“The blocks of programming that are universally accepted parallel the shift to craft our entire lives towards the factory’s bell and the illusion of time. This is the creation of the hive mind. The hive mind is result of massive brainwashing to the general public. Everyone shares the same thoughts, goals, knowledge and understanding. A hive mind society gears itself towards conformity and ignores diversity while masqueraded as the road to utopia in mainstream television. Network programming, weather it’s the news or drama, is geared towards artificially creating your world and reality. With the proper amount of entertainment and sensationalism, we may even be living our lives through the television set. Many anchors and actors are beautiful and research shows that attractive people are usually perceived as trust worthy.”
Here is a direct quote from David Rockefeller’s book, “Memoirs”:
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
For those of you not familiar with who David Rockefeller is, you can read these:
Dave Chappelle describes, in the following clip (starting at the 7:32 mark), how he met with people from “Hollywood” concerning a pilot that he had shot that they were thinking of picking up (developing into a series), but that they wanted to recast the leading female actress with a white woman (they used the term “universal appeal” because they felt there weren’t enough white people on the show). Notice that Dave doesn’t mention names of people or companies. Strangely enough, this reminds me of a quote from Traci Lords’ biography (and I don’t have the book with me so I will quote indirectly) that goes something like this, “The guilty parties, for all the evil they do, get to remain anonymous (laws concerning privacy and slander and the like), in obscurity, while the innocent are documented and publicized”.
Dave Chappelle – Inside the Actor’s Studio Part 4
With the current recession in the U.S. and food prices going up, one has to wonder why the prices are increasing. It’s true that more people equals more demand, but those people can get jobs to help increase the supply and balance both supply and demand. Increasing the prices of food and gas might plunge those who are living on the brink of lower middle class down into poverty and drag the middle class down into lower middle class. The new lower middle class will have to fight with increasing food, oil, and gas prices while receiving job wages that do not increase. The result will ultimately lead to a lot more poverty and homelessness. The prices of oil and gas do not control themselves: people do. Whoever is controlling these prices has an idea in mind, and I think that idea includes the following:
(1) Killing off the least fortunate (or creating a larger number of them),
(2) Creating a bigger rift between the upper class and the middle and lower classes,
(3) Making people dependent on government programs and public transportation (thus restricting long distance travel and establishing planned routes),
(4) Controlling populations through planned food shortages, inciting people to riot (partly through the psychology of rationed food, especially in a society that constantly sells a multitude of food at low prices and advertises many different types of food in abundance) and increasing the likelihood of desperate/violent behaviour in order to institute marshal law/a police state to bring the previously uncontrollable under complete control and surveillance. It’s like forcing an animal into a corner and making swipes at it; the animal will defend itself, and you will then declare the animal to be “wild” and should be put in a cage, when it is all merely an excuse for you to control the animal in a planned environment of your choice (not unlike slavery).
Human beings will believe absolutely anything: look at the various religions in the world; read some of the descriptions for TV shows in your TV guide; listen to conspiracy theories. We are led to believe, largely by the media, that there are religious extremists in the Middle East that hate us for our freedom and want to kill us because we don’t believe what they believe. So, with that in mind, would it be so hard to believe that there exists a group called the Club of Rome that was started in 1968 and has explored topics such as population reduction and one world government? To the average person (whose life is most likely inundated with their job, family and various sources of entertainment) it may seem inconceivable that there exists a large group of people banded together to find ways to reduce the current population of the world to something more easily manageable. What follows are a few articles detailing what the Club of Rome is, its past achievements and future goals.
On a related note, here is the Wikipedia entry for Thomas Malthus: