The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted May 13 2009, 10:29 PM Category: Big Brother/Orwellian Source: The Scotsman Print

Flashback: Children's TV 'is linked to cancer, autism, dementia'

InformationLiberation Analysis:

If you've seen the Hulu commercials on TV you'll find Denis Leary (a hack who got famous by stealing Bill Hicks' entire act and persona word for word) explaining how TV destroys your brain and turns it into mush which they "the aliens" can then suck out and eat for sustenance, it's a real laugh riot. /sarcasm obv

There is nothing funny about it (beyond how idiotic it is) because having your brain, not to mention innocent children's brains, turned to mush is not a f*cking joke. This is a common tactic used by these propagandists, they take something extremely serious and make a joke out of it.

All the late night comedians do it on the daily. Joking about mass murder is not funny, yet this is what all The Daily Show / Letterman types do all day every day. It is propaganda to desensitize you to the seriousness of the situation, make it seem like it's all a joke to be laughed at and not a crime which people should be sentenced to death for or jailed for life over.

I am not against joking about serious situations but there are times in which this tactic is clearly being used for propaganda purposes. For example, it's very common to see major newspapers which are 99% serious articles all the sudden have an article about someone being tazed to hell and it has some stupid headline like "Man Shocked To Find Himself Tazed".

It is always idiotic 'wit' garbage and is never funny, but when you start to see it again and again in major papers you begin to realize there is a purpose and an agenda behind it. If you pay attention to this and realize it is a tactic to subtly control your mind you will never look at some idiotic show like "The Daily Show" in the same light. - Chris, IL
Key quote
"It is the number of hours and the age at which they start which produces the biological effects. It is because of the medium, not the message, that these effects are occurring." - DR ARIC SIGMAN

Story in full
IT HAS long been blamed for creating a nation of couch potatoes. But a new report today claims that Britain's love affair with television is causing far more damage - both physically and psychologically - than previously thought.

The findings have been compiled by Dr Aric Sigman, a psychologist who has previously written about the effects of television on the viewer. His report, analysing 35 different scientific studies carried out into television and its effect on the viewer, has identified 15 negative effects he claims can be blamed on watching television.

Among the most disturbing findings are the links he claims to have found between long hours of television viewing and cancer, autism and Alzheimer's.

The effects on children watching TV have been well publicised in Britain. Fears of a timebomb of obesity have sparked a wave of ministerial initiatives to promote sport and tackle the couch-potato lifestyle.

However, today's report suggests the consequences of television are far more serious. They range from myopia and attention deficit disorder to diabetes, autism, Alzheimer's and a generation whose brains are being numbed by on-screen imagery.

His report, published in the respected Biologist magazine, claims the problem with television lies in the length of time we spend in front of the set. For most people, watching television now takes up more time than any other single activity except work and sleep. According to the British Audience Research Bureau, by the age of 75 the average Briton will have spent more than 12 years of their life watching television.

Dr Sigman, an associate fellow of the British Psychological Society and author of Remotely Controlled: How Television Is Damaging Our Lives, said arguments over how educational programmes are were a distraction. He said: "The medical studies I have looked at are about the medium of television, irrespective of the programmes children are watching. It is the number of hours and the age at which they start which produces the biological effects. It is because of the medium, not the message, that these effects are occurring."

Dr Sigman's research draws from studies by groups including the American Academy of Paediatrics, Cornell University, Stanford University Medical Centre, the British Market Research Bureau and medical publications such as the Lancet and the Journal of Sleep Research.

The stage for the harm Dr Sigman believes television is doing is being set, he claims, by the vast amounts of it we watch - by the age of six, a child will already have spent one year in front of the television. When time in front of a computer is added, the psychologist claims watching a screen of some kind is the dominant activity for older children - those aged 11 to 15 now spend 55 per cent of their waking lives, or seven and a half hours a day, watching television and computers. According to today's report, that represents a 40 per cent rise in a decade.

Dr Sigman claims the battery of ill effects takes its toll on both body and mind. He claims the effect on the brain is not stimulating, but almost narcotic, numbing the areas of the brain stimulated by, for example, reading.

The influence of modern editing techniques - for example the rapid "jump cuts" - also plays its part. Attention spans fracture while at the same time, according to Dr Sigman, the brain is programmed to reward itself with the neurotransmitter dopamine for being able to cope with an onslaught of novelty on screen.

The litany of bodily ills Dr Sigman links to television makes for equally bleak reading. He associates it not only with obesity, but Alzheimer's, diabetes and even the breakdown of cells capable of healing wounds. Dr Sigman claims a significant body of research now points to television as a key factor in reducing levels of the hormone melatonin, the substance that regulates the body's internal clock and also governs the speed at which puberty develops.

Melatonin is produced at night and induces feelings of sleepiness. However, today's report suggests the bright light emitted by television screens may play a part in suppressing melatonin levels in the blood.

That syndrome may explain that adolescents who are glued to the television are tired out by more than watching late-night programmes.

The other crucial issue thrown up by melatonin, Dr Sigman says, is its link to puberty. The hormone also plays a key role in governing the onset of puberty, and its suppression may be paving the way for a generation of children to experience ever-earlier entries into adolescence.

That tendency can be traced back to the 1950s, according to the report, when television itself became a mass medium.

While the mass of research indexed by Dr Sigman goes heavily into physiology and biology, one conclusion may be more recognisable to general critics of TV - the suggestion that daytime TV and soaps virtually rot the brain. "The content of television - soap operas and talk shows - is also associated with poorer cognition in older women, including clinically significant cognitive impairment in attention, memory and psychomotor speed [reaction time]," he said.

Dr Sigman last night said the youngest children should be banned from watching TV at all, and introduced to it "judiciously" after that.

He added: "To allow children to continue to watch this much screen media is an abdication of parental responsibility - truly hands-off parenting."

In a reference to the crusade by celebrity TV chef Jamie Oliver, the academic added: "While society has shown alarm over school dinners, it has ignored the high-screen diet children have been consuming."

However, other critics last night suggested that not all time spent before a screen was bad.

Adrian Monck, a professor of journalism and media analyst at City University in London, said: "I certainly think the idea of banning young children from watching television is impractical.

"Television is part of growing up and what we need to be aware of is how children use that. Television, like everything, is something you have to take with a pinch of salt - I certainly think there is a good case for parents not using it as a substitute carer."

Pat Kane, a broadcaster and writer, said he also disagreed with "parking children in front of television or DVDs without some element of monitoring or even participation in the narrative".

However, Mr Kane cited programmes such as CBBC's Tracy Beaker - which is based on Jacqueline Wilson's novel about child in care - as a "fabulous" way of showing that "some children are facing problems with parents, lifestyle and economics".


TELEVISION viewing is directly related to and now considered an independent cause of obesity. Sitting in front of a screen commands an increasingly large part of children's lives and, Dr Sigman believes, has replaced physical activity for many. Inactivity can also overlap with poor diet.


TELEVISION may be involved in alterations in the activity, size and consistency of skin immune cells. It may lead to an increase in the migration of "cutaneous immune system mast cells", parts of body tissue that play a key role in healing wounds and offering defence against disease.


TELEVISION can set the conditions for long-term cardiovascular illness, some research claims. The adult risk of raised cholesterol and the potential for heart disease is strongly linked to TV viewing habits formed in childhood and teenage years, setting up a store of problems for later life.


A SIGNIFICANT relationship was found in which the metabolic rate decreased as average weekly hours of television viewing increased. Lowered metabolism leads to a reduced ability to burn fat. Combined with high-calorie food and drinks, it sets the stage for obesity and other health issues.


PERMANENT eyesight damage previously attributed to genetics is now being strongly linked to television-screen exposure. TV screens, or indeed computer screens, are blamed for a rising incidence of myopia as they demand long periods of fixed attention from the viewer.


TELEVISION viewing between ages 20 to 60 is associated with the development of Alzheimer's disease: for each additional daily hour of television viewing, the associated risk of Alzheimer's disease development increases. Attention, memory and reaction time may also be affected.


LONG periods of TV viewing may affect what are called the "neuronal mechanisms" behind attention and impulse control. This means damaging brain-cell development and the person's ability to concentrate on non-TV subjects. For children this could mean learning difficulties and attention disorders.


WATCHING television suppresses production of melatonin, a key hormone and powerful antioxidant that has important roles in the immune system, sleep/wake cycle and the onset of puberty. Melatonin regulates the body's internal clock but bright screens may interrupt production.


REDUCED levels of melatonin may also result, Dr Sigman suggests, in a greater chance that cell DNA will produce cancer-causing mutations. Some doctors have speculated on a link between sleeplessness and cancer, which one expert suggested formed a "pathway from stress to disease".


EXPOSURE to TV screens affects the melatonin levels of younger children, in particular at the onset of puberty. Girls are reaching puberty much earlier than in the 1950s, a fact critics of TV put down to reduced levels of melatonin. Animal studies link low melatonin levels to early puberty.


EARLY childhood television viewing may be an important factor in autism, which currently affects one in every 166 children. Dr Sigman quotes Cornell University, which last year published research suggesting television may be a trigger in young children with a tendency to the condition.


A SIGNIFICANT relationship was found between exposure to television and sleeping difficulties in different age groups ranging from infants to adults. Television viewing among infants and young children is independently associated with irregular sleep schedules.


THE lack of sleep ascribed to the effects of watching TV may directly increase appetite and body-fat production. Research suggests it could do this through alterations in the hormones leptin and ghrelin, which regulate feelings of being full and of hunger respectively.


EVEN interactive media such as computer games have been associated with limited neurological activity. Watching television has been found by neuroscientists to be a "non-intellectually stimulating activity" for brain development. This was not found to be the case for reading.


DR SIGMAN'S report suggests TV viewing is directly related to and significantly raises the risk of abnormal glucose metabolism and new Type-two diabetes. This is linked to side-effects of a sedentary lifestyle and the kind of diet that can go with heavy TV watching, such as sweets and sugary drinks.

Bright light from sets may suppress sleep hormone

MELATONIN is a hormone produced by the pineal gland in the brain and plays a key role in regulating the body's internal clock.

The body manufactures it at night and rising levels of melatonin in the blood have the effect of inducing sleep.

One possibility is that the bright light given off by a television set suppresses the release of melatonin. If true, this action would suggest TV has a role in disrupting the sleep/wake cycle beyond the viewer merely staying up late to watch a particular programme.

Television's suppressive effect on melatonin in the human body is also believed by some researchers to explain ever-earlier instances of puberty in the western world. Since the 1950s, puberty has been spotted at increasingly early ages, a syndrome some claim stems from the arrival of TV.

'I'd rather go out and play than watch telly'

SAOIRSE Woolley has bucked the trend for children to spend hours glued to a TV screen.

She admitted she enjoys CBBC but said she'd rather be outside than watching television and doesn't even want a TV in her bedroom.

The bright and articulate ten-year-old, visiting Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh with father Chris, said: "I don't really watch TV that often. I like to read and I like to go out and do things."

Mr Woolley, 54, a jeweller from North Berwick, said he was surprised by the findings - particularly the statistics on how long the average child spends in front of the TV.

Kenny Notman said his two daughters' viewing time was rationed because it took time away from family activities.

The 42-year-old human resources manager from Edinburgh said he and his wife both worked, so family time was precious.

But he said he had no objection to Hayley, 13, and Anna, five, having a TV in their bedrooms. He added: "It's not the TV itself which is the problem, it's the parents who allow their children to watch too much of it."

And Anna added: "I do like the Tweenies, but I'd rather go out and play."

Social worker and mother-of-three Dawn Cameron said that there was an element of "scaremongering" over the TV health warnings.

She added: "It can also be relaxation and there seems to be a lot of emphasis on everything having to be educational these days. TV takes the blame for a lot of problems which may be related to poverty and other issues."

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Undercover Agents Fathered Children With Women After Infiltrating Activist Groups
- WeAreChange Blocked in France Because of New Censorship Law
- Pew Research Poll: 40% of Millennials Want to Restrict Free Speech
- France Responds to Paris Attacks by Rushing Through Internet Censorship Law
- After Endless Demonization of Encryption, Police Find Paris Attackers Coordinated Via Unencrypted SMS
- VIDEO: 'Safe Space' Students Silence Asian Woman For Saying 'Black People Can Be Racist'
- Fourth Grader Threatened With Sexual Harassment Charges For Writing Love Letter
- DEA Running Massive Wiretap Program Almost Entirely Through a Single California County Courthouse

Comments 1 - 20 of 23 Add Comment Page of 2 >

Posted: May 14 2009, 10:43 AM

the fake debate gameshow

The population is targeted with stress, one moment product x is good for you, next moment product x is harmful. What is often done to fake legitimacy is have a (paid for) scientific paper produced on a specific context and then to extract what can be best used and twisted for the shock headlines. This applies in the case of Aric Sigman. Having a pro panic and an anti creates an argument, creates controversy and the media simulates a public debate that was neither allowed or viable with the information disclosed.

Aric Sigman appears in a tv interview here:

The most harmful aspect of the television isn't the medium but that it is controlled globally for propaganda purposes. Truth alone seems to be enough to end war which not only kills people directly it enslaves people through fictitious debt which has massive impact on global health and longevity.

What is often most important is the big picture, this is contrary to what television provides where even truth is propaganda. Watched carefully the dangerous political agenda behind this nonsense is revealed, just not in a manner the casual observer would notice due to the reframing. Reframing is in evidence in the two tavimedia reports here, invisible if you are thinking in the box:

Posted: May 14 2009, 11:02 AM

As I criticise this article due to a reframing con, a context switch, it is perhaps useful to suggest a solution. As this american psychologist may know scientific studies have confirmed the most harmful aspect of information mediums to children is censorship, the results were stated as unnequivocal albeit the results were the opposite of the political intentions including the evidence based conclusion that all existing censorship should be withdrawn.

Often it makes sense to look at changes for the harm they can do, withdrawing censorship does bring many potential problems but the harm that censorship causes includes removing the truth which accounts for the greatest traumas of history and present day, mass murder of children as a target included.

Posted: May 14 2009, 4:02 PM

<Dr Sigman has written and presented scientific documentaries for BBC1 and Radio 4 on the scientific basis of faith; the biology of hypnosis - on the front page of his website>

Crisis creation and management is the main power trick, the same con being pulled multiple times a day and right back through history.

As power is radiated through the crown, how do we model their behaviour? I am not a psychiatrist but this seem to be not only the pathology of a psychopath but also münchausen syndrome by proxy of the public, the public being sabotaged to steal power. With designs not just on nations but the UNiverse, this is megalomania from the outset:

Pathology of the Royal Institute:

<Münchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), referred to in the DSM-IV-TR as Factitious Disorder by Proxy, is an insidious disorder in which injury is deliberately and gradually inflicted upon another person usually for gaining attention[1] or some other benefit.[2] Münchausen by proxy has been described by some as a form of extended child abuse,[3] but that description left the physician who first wrote of the condition "squeamish", and is not unanimously agreed with.

The caregiver is usually a parent, guardian, or spouse, and the victim is usually a child or vulnerable adult. Although cases with feigned or induced physical illness receive the most attention, it is also possible for a perpetrator who emotionally abuses a victim to simulate and fabricate conditions that appear to be psychiatric or genetic problems.>

With governments, kings, bishops, popes, banks and the like, dictatorships very often turn out to be a preference.

Sabotage is inflicted on others, the problem or the story of it is then used to fake legitimacy to managing the problem. If law is created, ownership of the abuse is maintained. The public are blamed and punished wholesale whilst the abuse only increases.

To create a one world government (steal the world), the manchausen's formula applied to global governance requires global problems. Hence 9/11, climate manipulation, withdrawal of cash of the banks worldwide etc. The RIIA's tavistock sell this to the public the other way round, global problems need global solutions. This is a con.

Now their national spokesman (gordon brown) is saying that having collapsed the local economony (which was his job) there will have to be more police powers to protect against crime that would be caused by the economic collapse. That of course would mean criminalising those hit worst by the economic terrorism not to mention starvation whilst giving those powers to interpol (soca in the uk) is treason. I hardly need to point out that is a con.

<Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious. - 1984 by royal ascent>

Posted: May 15 2009, 9:32 AM

69207 why do you think they call it this evenings programing? the temporal vacalator, vacates all intelligence you might have had. take a hammer and smash your temporal vacator T.V.

Posted: May 15 2009, 11:20 AM

72158 Dave, can you give a specific example in recent history of a pope, let's say the present and former, of where Munchausen's was used by them? If not, then your theory has holes in it. If you ignore the question, your credibility is suspect - at least in this regard. If you bring up the abuse scandals, then you need to dig deeper.

Posted: May 15 2009, 12:38 PM

72, I will have a think on that, it might be useful to look at the religious programming itself. I wanted to respond to the previous one first from 69. That people are programmed is a reality, that new programming is a continuous process is also a reality so I try to think of what helps people who aren't thinking outside of the box.

To consider the context applied by the chap who is selling this political gambit (laws and societal changes were created out of this simulation), there are plenty of CRT TVs still around (the tube). Firing an electron beam at a target is how x rays are produced. As he is discussing biological changes, ionising radiation is presumably of relevance to human health. That was just one detail left out I thought. People react to what is presented to them, if they start to realise what is missing, they notice the con but more importantly ask questions of their own which deconstructs the programming. I frequently go to a news stand on purpose just to see what is being done to people, if people know this, better they have their own thoughts on it than refer to someone else's.

Posted: May 15 2009, 1:03 PM

72158 Dave, truly I appreciate much of what you share - even though some of your writing is a bit vague. It natural to see the con in all of the "bigs" including religions. Since the Catholic Church is the largest it is natural to see it as also part of the con. I would caution you, and readers of this website, that to make such a broad sweeping brush-stroke of the Church/pope etc, is fall into the trap that you wish to avoid. It might be more prudent to use a different phraseology such "elements within the Church", or "entities within the Church." To blame the pope for all of the ills in the Church is not good intellectual work. You really need to take aim local bishops - people posing as men who aren't really men and many of whom are spineless especially in the case of the abuses. I think the Church is doing what it can to clean itself up. Are governments?

Posted: May 15 2009, 1:41 PM

72, in order to avoid the blame game, I would like to mention a pope that asked questions as my earlier post was not intended to trip into the blame game.

If you have a heirarchy I draw significance from what the most senior people by claim are doing and not doing. If for example the american or british economies are subject to a sustained terrorist attack, it seems relevant to check to see what the person claiming to be in charge is up to. In both instances, by public side heirarchy (president and prime minister) they are complicit in the sabotage. This suggests that things are more complex than as presented.

There have been popes who have asked questions, John Paul I being an example with issues of secret societies and banking coming to the fore. He ordered the vatican's books opened and by official record his tenure was 33 days before he was found dead.

As people are increasingly noticing, the presented matrix of power isn't the real one. That this pope should order the vatican books opened to be dead 33 days later is something I view as significant, not just in isolation and from what insiders have said about what happened but as a pattern. People who are placed in positions of the presented heirarchy influence public opinion, substantially that is their job but the controls placed over them, often through compromise means they are in effect under orders and constraint.

As for the current pope, I think it is enough to look at that from general principles. To yield such influence as he does in some parts of the world, the things I would be looking for would be to see if he is someone who goes out and talks to the people whose live's his company effects. In britain around parliament I went to check, the public face of leadership are surrounded by people with machine guns.

Posted: May 15 2009, 2:04 PM

anon 72, you ask dave to point the finger at a pope, and threaten him if he refuses. he refused to play into the blame game. you then accuse him of what you attempted to trick him into doing, when he asserts (and i agree) that it is the abusive structure of society (and the groupthink itself which supports that structure) that harms us all.

cleaning up the church and/or state will just result in what the public perceives to be less offensive abuses. it won't make the war stop.

the war has been raging far too long. it's past time to stop allowing ourselves to be herded into groups and led to battle against those other groups that are different from us. other humans aren't the enemy.

the false reality presented on the television (taking this back to the original article, somehow) is designed to prevent us from thinking for ourselves. to give us information in such a way as to influence our thoughts in such a way as to prevent us from making our own decisions for ourselves. this is the purpose of all groups, as well. we are taught to respect authority, and that we are weak and bad, that we are broken and need to be fixed, that we need to achieve some sort of "enlightenment" ... that we need somebody else to tell us what to think and what to do, because we aren't capable of doing it ourselves, because we aren't the "experts," the respected "authorities," the ones in charge.

this is our basic core programming, to be obedient sheep and form groups. because individual humans making their own decisions cannot be controlled, but groups can.

Posted: May 15 2009, 2:40 PM

72158 truly, my intention was only to get clarity...I was not trying to trick dave into anything...but to mindlessly clump all authority into one bag seems to smack of "group thing" too - whether or it's part of the con, would you agree?

Posted: May 15 2009, 3:31 PM

72158 society without any authority is like trying to play football without coaches or officials...I do not speak of Man U. v. Arsenal...or whatever...let's just say a pick up game - who would decide who's to play forward, midfield, defense and keep? Duration? Utopia does not exist...there will always be Rockefellers and Rothschilds...greedy, creepy psychpaths who want more power. Throwing away government, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Posted: May 15 2009, 3:47 PM

99142 Your 'Ring of Power' video is down.

Posted: May 15 2009, 5:35 PM

to answer your question, if you played with one hard little ball, and gave everyone a stick with a net formed into the end of it, and played without any rules, and for as long as there was anyone left able and willing to keep playing, what you would have is the native american precursor to the game that is now called lacrosse. it was your civilized white christian folks that had to have rules... and control.

history does tend to follow a certain pattern that seems to repeat...

Posted: May 15 2009, 6:05 PM

<but to mindlessly clump all authority into one bag seems to smack of "group thing">

I don't see it as mindless to help people do their own thinking, it is something this website helps with, it was (and is) very helpful to me as one of difficulties with the mind control that is in play is that you can not realise you have it and believe you are out of it when you are not. I try in turn to help share what I have learned particularly helping to deconstruct what is nonsense so that people can see the mind control and think for themselves.

I have specific answers that automatically come to mind in relation to your question on the this pope and the last one. It includes personal experience but I don't think that is the right thing to do. If people question for themselves this changes the world and acts against it being changed by manipulation. I think it is a principle that people own their own lives, for that they must have their minds, ie not mindless. With religion to question or speak your own mind was called heresy (must not question the authority of the church), with overt politics they have additional laws including that which makes it a crime to tell the truth.

Compare that with the internet, you and I can agree, disagree, a mixture, others can post but regardless have views of their own. I sometimes do post from personal experience, bits of truth where someone cannot show me a newspaper and say that is the truth because I know rather than believe on the truth of the issue. I cannot though say I outrank someone. Authority is one of those words that is used in politics with multiple meanings, the 'official story' game. Truth doesn't have a rank, it is dangerous to attach one to it as history proves. Anyone can veto anything I say by personal choice, I consider that a principle.

The word authority (author)ity) is used in powerland to claim a basis to power, to claim a legitimacy to power, a compliance with law. Who creates the law, the official story, where does it really come from? It might be worth looking at the donation of constantine in that regard, most on this planet are living the cons of history, not to know it and what it is would leave us blind and easily misled, the more that is known and the more people do their own research and thinking the less this can happen.

Posted: May 15 2009, 6:33 PM

Rugby and football in britain have a big part to play in terms of mind control. One of the programmed players was publicly deconstructing recently, it applies within and without. I did use to watch some rugby having played the game, I sometimes knew the result in advance, that had nothing to do with the form of the sides but the politics being acted out at the time. I am sure people that knew the game must have noticed with one major event, the referee was complicit (the referee himself is now under a heirarchy).

There are general points that can be made about power that have analytical benefits. If one has a large power structure it can take on a life of its own. I have put up verifiable evidence of attempts to steal the world on this site. These things tend to have an image which diverges from the reality, truth gets sacrificed and the lies and powers accumulate to protect the lies.

In america and britain they then use the logical fallacy that no matter the con, it is too big to fail. Something of a misdirect as life is about people, no matter who they are or what they have done, that is more important than a bank. If one protects the bank and sacrifices the people, it is the con that is being protected. That is ignoring that this was an orchestrated and is a managed crisis.

History works like that, for power structures image is of value, it is the fake image that is protected. I put out some details on some of the cons, not to shame the people the public sees, I use the word as it is a deflator not a hate builder, to break the controls that are used to keep people abusing other people. If we care for them, our interest is to end that war not go round murdering and hanging people for a history that is behind us that is fake anyway. This is a very special time as far as I can see, within those structures are real people, people and assets than can really help. Just imagine if the american army was asked if it would mind helping american people, getting agriculture up and running, making sure that everyone had food and shelter and we actually looked after them because that is right to. Just imagine if first and foremost the recipients of that potential help were asked if they wanted that help. It is possible, it is a choice for the american people, as an employee under orders and under armed guard I don't see that help coming from the whitehouse but I would like to be wrong.

As it stands at the moment, to use your analogy 72, I have concerns about the baby and it is because of the pram.

Posted: May 15 2009, 7:12 PM

Just imagine if the military were asked to help people with communications, the internet is their baby after all. I say this to give an example of deception. I read in the papers how some event was blamed in a lack of compatibility between different military communication systems. I put this to someone I met, they smiled, more information came out, it was that person's job in the military, the media story a complete fiction. I think most of those people and those behind them no matter how scarred with battle or training for it would rather enjoy doing something that really does benefit people. Without war the resources are available and obstruction blatantly just that to helping people whose lives have been shattered as a consequence of what they have seen, what they have done or what has been done to them within the military itself.

Posted: May 15 2009, 11:13 PM

"Your 'Ring of Power' video is down."

It's back up.

Posted: May 16 2009, 9:16 AM

<Dave, can you give a specific example in recent history of a pope, let's say the present and former, of where Munchausen's was used by them?>

One of the powerful weapons used against american people inflicting harm locally and globally is law. With the threat and use of force behind it, it is powerful mind control. Behind the nonsense in the media real lives are destroyed for politics they don't even know the truth of.

From what I have read and how the global network was set up on the public side, the pope as head of the vatican can abolish any federal law whenever he wants using exceptional ecclesiastical laws.

That the laws are used as a threat and do cause injury for profit on a domestic and global scale is I suggest self evident. If you could stop the legalisation of a police state, would you? Life isn't that simple due to the secret power structures but there are implications for the pope by way of responsibility. I look at it that responsibility is a state of mind, what I am conscious of is within my own responsibility, I perhaps have more than the pope as I act of free will.

Posted: May 16 2009, 8:27 PM

The pope's recent meeting I looked at was about war, this tv biological changes through hypnotism article is one of the parts of that war that fight by increment, a war people aren't even supposed to consciously see.

Listening back to the review of the military in 1998:

<The end of the Cold War has transformed our security environment. The world does not live in the shadow of World War. There is no longer a direct threat to Western Europe or the United Kingdom as we used to know it, and we face no significant military threat to any of our Overseas Territories.>

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence by Command of Her Majesty - July 1998

No threats but they blew up the world trade centre, the london underground, lit fires the world over.

Posted: May 16 2009, 8:44 PM

I was listening to what the public was allowed to read and decode from the military review given by General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, British Army at the RIIA on 15th May 2009.

Without truth, contradictions aside, this royal report would be rather difficult to understand. The enemy is freedom, states to be build and secured, threat coming from failed states. As in the decades old global heist documented by HG Wells published on this site, british plans to take over basra were achieved and claimed as a success.

The Afghanistan and Iraq war have made it more difficult to keep war going, people know it is a con. They hope their dream of a 30 year war (long wars are needed to change the whole world) can be created out of the Al Qaeda story, Aghanistan and Iraq means they have to reprogram the minds of the public for the exposure of what they are really up to that has come from these invasions.

Cyberspace was identified as a very important target for the military in order to maintain british global interests and the threat from non state groups. The state is a war against freedom, feeding off the people for the sake of having power over them. I was born in a time frame where it was a unique opportunity to understand the world for its colours and its secrets. A lot of what I found was very reassuring but the absense of truth is a curse on everyone everywhere.
Comments 1 - 20 of 23 Page of 2 >

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Donald Sutherland Reveals The Real Meaning Of The Hunger Games - 11/27Drone Pilots Have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds For Exposing US Murder - 11/27World's Most 'Adorable' Drug Kingpin Is Actually The Daughter of Texas DEA Head Honcho - 11/26Pot Breathalyzers: Coming Soon to A Drug War Near You - 11/27City Settles After Police Chief Arrested Man For Calling Public Official A 'Liar' - 11/27Georgia Sheriff Puts Up Sign Warning People Who Disagree With Him About God to Leave - 11/27Bezos Beats Musk - 11/27Is Black Friday Racist? - 11/25

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up