CL: Theme Song - Weekly World News

Tarot Card


Analog TV Stations 1

Analog TV Stations 2

Analog TV Stations 3

Analog TV Stations 4

Analog TV Stations 5


Cancel culture comes for 'The Muppet Show'

'The Muppet Show' is now deemed 'offensive content' by Disney

"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 Muppet Show: Disney adds content warning over 'negative stereotypes'

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.

Muppets - Peter Sellers - A Gypsy's Violin

Kenny Rogers on The Muppet Show

Muppet Songs: Gonzo y Yolanda

Muppet Show Episodes With Content Advisories

CL: Moe Factz Millie Fuller

CL: Moe Factz Black Panther


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

World Economic Forum Says ‘Lockdowns Are Quietly Improving Cities Around the World,’

 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.




Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

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.


Minneapolis fortifying buildings with fencing, concrete barricades before Chauvin trial

Barbed wire being rolled out: Trial of Derek Chauvin, cop charged in death of George Floyd, set to start in March

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*


CIA Memo 1967: CIA Coined & Weaponized The Label "Conspiracy Theory"

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.

Are you a "Conspiracy Theorist"?

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



A Tale of Two Americas

Village People by As Seen On TV

Green Jello on the Gong Show

Boo Berry and Count Chocula ghost story commercial (1981)

jonathan frakes telling you you're wrong for 47 seconds




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.


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.


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."


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.


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


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.


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, 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



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


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.


"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. 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.



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."


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.


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 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.


"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.


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.”


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.


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.


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.


"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


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