S01E35:
CL: INTRO
WEIRD STORIES
"Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe,"
Ironically, Disney's live action film "Mulan" comes with no disclaimer whatsoever, despite what critics call obvious propaganda and the working together with genocidal and slavery-positive regimes in order to make the film.
"Then they came for the Muppets: In an increasingly fragile, liberal, and psychotic culture, Disney+ inevitably adds a warning in front of The Muppet Show, saying its offensive content was 'wrong then and...wrong now.'"
The disclaimer has been added to each of the episodes for different reasons, including one where Johnny Cash sings in front of the Confederate flag.
The re-assessment of old content was prompted by the Black Lives Matter protests last summer, and has sparked debate around programmes and films ranging from Fawlty Towers and Gone With The Wind to Little Britain and Bo' Selecta.
The 18 episodes of The Muppet Show with the warning have been picked out from five series of Jim Henson's series, which was a big hit in the 1970s and 1980s and starred Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy.
Aside from Cash, other guest hosts of the episodes in question include Steve Martin, Cleo Laine, Spike Milligan, Debbie Harry and Kenny Rogers.
The publication also notes that two episodes from the final season are left out entirely - one featured Chris Langham, who was a writer on the show and stepped in to host after a celebrity guest pulled out.
The actor, who went on to star in Armando Iannucci's The Thick Of It, was sentenced to 10 months in prison in 2007 for downloading indecent videos of children from the internet.
However, another episode, starring guest host Brooke Shields, is absent from Disney Plus for a different reason - music rights.
Several songs have also had to be edited out of other episodes because of copyright and licensing issues.
Muppet Show Episodes With Content Advisories
LIZARD FUCKS
WaPo Opinion Piece Calls For Elites to Have a 'Bigger Say in Choosing President'
“It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president,”
"Preference primaries” would be a better system, she argued.
For decades, the conversation about nominations has been about the conflicts between party elites and everyone else. Today, that conversation is counterproductive. A better approach is to think about how voters and elites could best play their different roles: to make their political parties more representative while ultimately narrowing the nomination choice down to one person. And the best way to do that would be through preference primaries.
Preference primaries could allow voters to rank their choices among candidates, as well as to register opinions about their issue priorities — like an exit poll, but more formal and with all the voters. The results would be public but not binding; a way to inform elites about voter preferences.
This process could accompany a primary of the sort we’re used to — in which voters’ first choices instruct the delegates, and preferences come into play only if there’s no clear winner. The primaries could also be held in combination with elections for convention delegates so that these representatives are
informed by their constituents’ preferences. This would also help voters hold these delegates accountable in the future. The point is to build a way for party elites to understand what their base is thinking, and to allow them to bargain so that these different preferences and priorities can be balanced. (WaPo)
COVID 1984
The Pregnant Doc Telling the Truth About COVID-19
The forum has a famous yearly conference in Davos, Switzerland, with other meetings throughout the year where it “engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” They’re pushing the “Great Reset” to change the world’s economies because of the “opportunity” of the pandemic.
As we previously reported, “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism,” Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum said. “All aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped,” he also wrote, “From education to social contracts and working conditions.” One of the main themes of their June meeting was the opportunity presented to change everything that the virus presented.
https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/status/1365673851179401220
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.
University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.
According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.
The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.
That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."
She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.
"Everyone has to take a share of the blame," she argues. "The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes."
Researchers from the British Antarctic Survey had tunneled down through the ice in order to scoop up seafloor sediment. But through a stroke of either fantastic or terrible luck, they happened to bore their tunnel right over a boulder on the seafloor. That made it impossible to gather sediment, but the
dangling instrument’s camera discovered an entire ecosystem of still-inexplicable life that Wired characterized as “strange creatures.”
Published Monday in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science
During the expedition, the scientists were able to spot what appeared to be a film of bacteria, peculiar sponges, and various stalked organisms all stuck to the rock. All those critters need to eat, though, and that’s when the already-surprising discovery became downright confusing.
There was no apparent source of food — which isn’t a surprise given the utter inhospitality of the area. Scientists still don’t know how the rock’s residents are surviving, according to Wired, but their best guess is that underwater currents wash in tiny bits of detritus and other organic matter from other ecosystems — which exist between 390 and 930 miles away.
Frey said more than 3,000 law enforcement officers from across the state and Minnesota National Guard soldiers will be at the ready when the case goes to the jury, expected in late April or early May.
Frey last week declared that Minneapolis remains “open for business,” and said people should go about their lives as usual.
But the security going up around the Hennepin County courthouse, City Hall and the jail — all in the heart of downtown — is extraordinary.
It includes three rings of concrete barriers, two topped by chain-link fencing with a trough in between filled with coils of razor wire. The innermost fence is
topped with barbed wire, and ground-floor windows at all three buildings are boarded up.
Protest leaders are on edge, too. They accuse authorities of creating a police state downtown that could trample their freedoms of speech and assembly.
“It’s not going to dissuade us from protesting. We’re determined to let our voices be heard,” said Linden Gawboy, an activist with the Twin Cities Coalition 4 Justice 4 Jamar, which formed after the police killing of Jamar Clark in Minneapolis in 2015.
*Rumblings of city hiring influencers to convince people not to protest *
*They already know how the trial is gonna go based off security*
In 1967 The CIA released a dispatch that coined the label "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" to attack anyone who challenged the official narrative from the Warren Commission. It's interesting to note that the document is labelled "psych", for psychological operations or disinformation. It's also marked "CS copy" at the bottom, meaning "Clandestine Services" Unit.
This document was requested and released to The New York Times in 1976.
After the 1960's the word "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist", and "conspiracy" started having a negative connotation and is enough to silence anyone who questions the official narrative. To this day we still view conspiracy theorists as crazy tinfoil hatters.
A CIA-Issued Rectal Tool Kit For Spies
INTERMISSION
NOB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0C7pyNzpg8&t=4054s
GUN CONTROL
Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big element in these plans.
I don't remember the details much, but the idea is that gun ownership
is a privilege and not everybody should have guns. Hunting was an
inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be restricted
in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed to
hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than
own their own. After all, everybody doesn't have a need for a gun, is the
way it was put.
ELIMINATING FEMININITY, BABY DOLLS & TEA SETS
Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls.
Baby dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see
the number and variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls
should not be thinking about babies and reproduction. Girls should be out
on the athletic field just as the boys are. Girls and boys really don't need to
be all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these
things that traditionally were thought of as feminine would be
de-emphasized as girls got into more masculine pursuits.
While she's growing up she should look to be an athlete rather than to look forward to being a mother.
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT
Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and
language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend
that they are not? There would be pornographic movies in the theaters
and on television. VCR's were not around at that time, but he had indicated
that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would
be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be
available for use on these as well as in the neighborhood theater and on
your television.
"you'll see people in the movies doing everything you can think of." He
went on to say that all of this is intended to bring sex out in the open.
That was another comment that was made several times- the term "sex
out in the open."
GRAPHIC VIOLENCE
Violence would be made more graphic. This was intended to desensitize
people to violence. There might need to be a time when people would
witness real violence and be a part of it. Later on it will become clear where
this is headed. So there would be more realistic violence in entertainment
which would make it easier for people to adjust. People's attitudes toward
death would change. People would not be so fearful of it but more accepting
of it, and they would not be so aghast at the sight of dead people or injured people. We don't need to have a genteel population paralyzed by what they might see. People would just learn to say, well I don't want that to happen
to me. This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes
numerous human casualties which the survivors would see.
MUSIC WILL GET WORSE
he made a rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse.
In 1969 Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was
interesting just his words-the way he expressed it " it would get worse" acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more
openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be publicized like
that which had been written before that time. All of the old music would
be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older people to
hear, and older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear
and for younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on
their stations.
Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was offered to young
people, and the young people would accept the junk because it identified
them as their generation and helped them feel distinct from the older
generation.
I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long because
even young kids wouldn't like the junk when they got a chance to hear
the older music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it.
They get used to this junk and that's all they want. A lot of them can't
stand really pretty music.
ENTERTAINMENT AS A TOOL TO CHANGE THE YOUNG
He went on to say that the music would carry a message to the young
and nobody would even know the message was there they would just
think it was loud music.
This aspect was sort of summarized with the notion that entertainment
would be a tool to influence young people. It won't change the older people,they are already set in their ways, but the changes would all be aimed atthe young who are in their formative years and the older generation wouldbe passing. Not only could you not change them but they are relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and are gone theyounger generation being formed are the ones that would be important forthe future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the old movies wouldbe brought back again and I remember on hearing that through my mindran quickly the memory of a number of old movies. I wondered if theywould be included, the ones that I thought I would like to see again. Along
with bringing back old music and movies for older people there were
other privileges that would also be accorded older folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases, discounts, tax discounts, - a number of privileges
just because they were older. This was stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had grown up through the depression and had survived
the rigors of World War II. They had deserved it and they were going to
be rewarded with all these goodies, and the bringing back of the good old
music and the good old movies was going to help ease them through their
final years in comfort.
Once that generation passed, and that would be in the late 80's and
early 90's where we are now, most of that group would be gone and
then gradually things would tighten up and the tightening up would
be accelerated. The old movies and old songs would be withdrawn,
the gentler entertainment would be withdrawn.
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.
Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel then would become
very restricted. People would need permission to travel and they would
need a good reason to travel. If you didn't have a good reason for your
travel you would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID.
This would at first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you
must show when you are asked for it. It was already planned that later
on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the skin
that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would
eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of
people saying "Well, I lost my ID." The difficulty about these skin implant
that ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the
skin without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject
it or cause infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner
while it was not rejected by the body. Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at
that time was thought to be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicon implants,
and I guess that still goes on. At any rate silicon was seen at that time as
the promising material to do both: to be retained in the body without
rejection and to be able to retain information retrievable by electronic
means.
FOOD CONTROL
If population growth didn't slow down, food shortages could be created
in a hurry and people would realize the dangers of overpopulation.
Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply
is to be brought under centralized control so that people would have
enough to be well-nourished but they would not have enough to support
any fugitive from the new system. In other words, if you had a friend or
relative who didn't sign on, and growing ones own food would be
outlawed.
In the beginning I mentioned there were two purposes for everything -
one the ostensible purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible
purpose here would be that growing your own vegetables was unsafe,
it would spread disease or something like that. So the acceptable idea was
to protect the consumer but the real idea was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be illegal. And if you persist in illegal
activities like growing your own food, then you're a criminal.
WEATHER CONTROL
"We can or soon will be able to control the weather." He said, "I'm not
merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate
rain that's already there, but REAL control." And weather was seen as a
weapon of war, a weapon of influencing public policy. It could make rain
or withhold rain in order to influence certain areas and bring them under
your control. There were two sides to this that were rather striking. He
said, "On the one hand you can make drought during the growing season
so that nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can make for very
heavy rains during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring
in the harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both."
POLITICS
Politics. He said that very few people really know how government really
works. Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways
that they don't even realize and they carry out plans that have been made
for them and they think that they are authors of the plans But actually they
are manipulated in ways they don't understand.
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU
WANT
One statement: "People can carry in their minds and act upon two
contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory
ideas are kept far enough apart." And the other statement is, "You can
know pretty well how rational people are going to respond to certain
circumstances or to certain information that they encounter. So, to determine
the response you want you need only control the kind of data or information
that they're presented or the kinds of circumstance that they're in; and being rational people they'll do what you want them to do. They may not fully understand what they're doing or why."
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that
some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in
order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask
the right questions. Some people are too trusting." Now this was an
interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being
doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately
scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just
don't do that.
ON THE POLITICAL SCENE
Out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body,
probably to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but not
necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other
ways. Acceptance of the U.N. at that time was seen as not being as wide
as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations
increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea
of relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence
would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint.. Avoidance of war
would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was
recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was
stated at this point that war is "obsolete." I thought that was an interesting
phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is
no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being because of the nuclear
bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled,
but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the "wrong hands" are.
We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent
years I'm wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people
that we've assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along ... maybe
they don't have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved
in the United States - a little bit - just in case the world wide plans didn't
work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided
to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might
also be true with nuclear weapons. When you hear that ... he said they might
fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody
who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would
necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them.
"Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave
weapons to the Soviets?." At that time that seemed like a terribly
unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet
Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether
there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence
if they indeed had these weapons.
Who did he mean when he said, "If these weapons fall into the wrong
hands"? Maybe just terrorists. We'll see. Anyhow, the new system would
be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly
yielding national sovereignty -then by bringing the nation to the brink of
nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by
the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry
to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national
sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in
the New International Political System.
"If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there
might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As
it was put, this would be possibly needed to convince people that "We
mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By the time
one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most reluctant -
would yield." He said something about "this negotiated peace would
be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the
whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing
about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between
hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was
better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a
statement was made that there were some good things about war ... one,
you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to
display great courage and heroism and if they die they've died well and if
they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of
war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward they get out of their warring.
TERRORISM
Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world.
Terrorism at that time was thought would not be necessary in the United
States. It could become necessary in the United States if the United States
did not move rapidly enough into accepting the system. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned.
Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had it too
good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince
Americans that the world indeed is a dangerous place ... or can be if we
don't relinquish control to the proper authorities.
FINANCIAL CONTROL
"Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any
number and put the decimals points wherever you want", as an indication
that inflation is a tool of the controllers. Money would become
predominately credit. It was already ... money is primarily a credit thing
but exchange of money would be not cash or palpable things but electronic
credit signal.
Earnings would be electronically entered into your account. It would be a
single banking system. May have the appearance of being more than one
but ultimately and basically it would be one single banking system, so that
when you got paid your pay would be entered for you into your account
balance and then when you purchased anything at the point of purchase it
would be deducted from your account balance and you would actually
carry nothing with you. Also computer records can be kept on whatever it
was you purchased so that if you were purchasing too much of any
particular item and some official wanted to know what you were doing
with your money they could go back and review your purchases and
determine what you were buying.
The ability to save would be greatly curtailed. People would just not be
able to save any considerable degree of wealth. There was some statement
of recognition that wealth represents power and wealth in the hands of a
lot of people is not good for the people in charge so if you save too much
you might be taxed. The more you save the higher rate of tax on your
savings so your savings really could never get very far. And also if you
began to show a pattern of saving too much you might have your pay cut.
We would say, "Well, your saving instead of spending. You really don't
need all that money."
People would be encouraged to use credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt so they would destroy their own credit.
The idea here is that, again, if you're too stupid to handle credit wisely,
this gives the authorities the opportunity to come down hard on you once
you've shot your credit.
SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU
the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin implant.
The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could be
exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on
the other hand would be not losable or counterfeitable or transferrable
to another person so you and your accounts would be identified without
any possibility of error.
And the skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead.
At that time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in
the Book of Revelation. The speaker went on to say, "Now some of you
people who read the Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible,"
but he went on to disclaim any Biblical significance at all. This is just
common sense of how the system could work and should work and
there's no need to read any superstitious Biblical principals into it.
There was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves
to surveillance by providing radio signals. This could be under the skin
or a dental implant ... put in like a filling so that either fugitives or possibly
other citizens could be identified by a certain frequency from his personal transmitter and could be located at any time or any place by any authority
who wanted to find him. This would be particularly useful for somebody
who broke out of prison. There was more discussion of personal
surveillance. One more thing was said, "You'll be watching television
and somebody will be watching you at the same time at a central
monitoring station." Television sets would have a device to enable this.
The T.V. set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative.
can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can tell what
you're watching on TV and how you're reacting to what you're watching.
And you would not know that you were being watched while you were watching your television. How would we get people to accept these things
into their homes? Well, people would buy them when they buy their
own television. They won't know that they're on there at first. This was
described by being what we now know as Cable TV to replace the
antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would just be part
of the set and most people would not have enough knowledge to know
it was there in the beginning. And then the cable would be the means of
carrying the surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people
found out that this monitoring was going on, they would also be already
very dependent upon television for a number of things. Just the way
people are dependent upon the telephone today. One thing the television
would be used for would be purchases. You wouldn't have to leave your
home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and there would be a way of interacting with your television channel to the store that you wanted to
purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it would
also make you dependent on your television so the built-in monitor
would be something you could not do without.
the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms other than
where the television monitor was, and in regard to this the statement was
made, "Any wire that went into your house, for example your telephone
wire, could be used this way.”
HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST
The cost of housing and financing housing would gradually be made
so high that most people couldn't afford it. People who already owned
their houses would be allowed to keep them but as years go by it would
be more and more difficult for young people to buy a house. Young
people would more and more become renters, particularly in apartments
or condominiums. More and more unsold houses would stand vacant.
The price would be held high even though there were many available
so that free market places would not operate. People would not be able
to buy these and gradually more and more of the population would be
forced into small apartments. Small apartments which would not
accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real
home-owners diminished they would become a minority.
Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and it
would be common to have non-family members living with you. This
by way of your not knowing just how far you could trust anybody.
This would all be under the control of a central housing authority.
THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SYSTEM
When the new system takes over people will be expected to sign
allegiance to it, indicating that they don't have any reservations or
holding back to the old system. "There just won't be any room",
he said, "for people who won't go along. We can't have such people
cluttering up the place so such people would be taken to special places",
and here I don't remember the exact words, but the inference I drew
was that at these special places where they were taken, then they would
not live very long. He may have said something like, "disposed of
humanely", but I don't remember very precisely ... just the impression
the system was not going to support them when they would not go
along with the system. That would leave death as the only alternative. Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs.
PEOPLE WILL JUST DISAPPEAR
One: The bringing in of the new system he said probably would
occur on a weekend in the winter. Everything would shut down
on Friday evening and Monday morning when everybody wakened
there would be an announcement that the New System was in place.
Investment instruments would be changing. Interest rates would be
changing so that it would be a difficult job with keeping up with what
you had already earned.
all of these things said by one individual at one time in one place
relating to so many different human endeavors and then to look and
see how many of these actually came about ... that is changes
accomplished between then and now [1969 - 1988] and the things
which are planned for the future, I think there is no denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy.
INTERVIEW
"You will forget most or much of what I'm going to tell you tonight."
But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about all
of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairytale plan but it will
never really happen because it's too outlandish. Of course we know
step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.
In a nutshell, you've just explained the human potential, the New Age,
all the new esoteric movements that we've seen.
But that little statement about words, that "words will be changed".
When I heard that I thought... "Instead of saying 'alter' you say 'table'.
Instead of saying 'sacrifice' you say 'meal' with regard to the Mass", and
people say, "That's not important". Of course, you know that's VERY
important, otherwise, why would they bother to change it? Otherwise,
why go through all this rigmarole if it isn't important? It's obviously
important for them because they know WITH THE CHANGING OF
WORDS YOU CHANGE IDEAS.
There's the dictionary definition, but I think we all know that certain
words carry meaning that is a little bit hard to put into words... but
they carry meaning. So yes, controlling the language... you THINK in
your language. You think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever
language you're familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself
and you talk to yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people.
And if you can control the language with which one person speaks to
himself or one person speaks to another you've gone a long way
towards controlling what that person is ABLE - what he is CAPABLE
of thinking, and that has both an inclusionary and an exclusionary
component to it. You set the tone....
"if you want to control the people, you control the language first".
Words are weapons.
Talking about media events and access to the brain, I remember the
first speech Bush gave in which he talked about the New World Order...
I remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he is, the
president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone
knew about. And someone looking across the room said, "I heard that.
What did he say"? And I said, "He said, 'New World Order'!" And they
said, "What does that mean? Why is that extraordinary?" So, I think
one of the weapons we have against the controllers is that if we can cut
off his access to our mind then we have a shot at escaping the
manipulation, if not totally - at least escape a portion of the
manipulations. Remember, one of the books on Chinese POWs pointed
out that some of their survivors in order NOT to be brainwashed
broke their eardrums And in that way - not being able to hear - the
enemy could not have access to their brain and therefore they were
able to survive where others did not. And in our popular culture we
have a number of things... TV and radio probably primarily, that are
the constant means by which the opposition has access to our brain
and to our children's brains. So I think the logical conclusion, and
one of the common-sense conclusions is that if you don't want the
enemy to have access you have to cut off the lines of access... which
would be in homes to simply either eliminate altogether, or control by other forms....
And we should. We should say, "Yeah. You're right." And we should
turn it off. And let the advertisers spend their money on an audience
that isn't there.
But as he started talking about the aged and euthanasia I recall one
of the population- control books saying that birth control without death
control was meaningless. And one of the advantages in terms ... if one
was favorable toward the killing of the aged... one of the favorable things
is in fact abortion for the simple reason that — universally speaking —
abortion has the result of bringing about a rather inordinate chopping
off of population at the front end. That is, at the birth end.
Soylent Green