----------------
Not being a TV watcher, or a believer in politicians, I have to admit I did watch the Republican 'debate'.
I wanted to see what Trump would say - but I didn't make it all the way through.
After about an hour and a half, the contestants began to look like what appeared to be a group of mind controlled androids, or themselves victims of some type of programming.
When the 'debate' became as predictable as a bad b-movie puppet show, I had enough and turned off the one-eyed beast.
It was dis-heartening to see and hear, how a group of supposedly mature men and woman, took the stage to brag about how much killing they could do, how much destruction they could cause, and just how they would do it.
It was as if they were applying for a job at the Academy as mercenaries who kill for money, and Sheldon Adelson was the hiring manager.
There was no Human compassion left in them. It was like watching rabid dogs.
As a matter of fact, their Humanity was non-existent.
It was a terrible display of mob mentality run amok, with CIA/Mossad handler Wolf Blitzer directing the android stage show, setting brush fires, and egging them on.
What happened to them?
(1) They are politicians.
(2) The most easily controlled or most thoroughly programmed, make the best politicians.
------------
The political debate contestants appeared to be performing in a fashion that is very much like the android individuals participating in the the CIA's MK Ultra and Project Monarch mind mapping/programming schemes, who are programmed, and then embedded with 'triggers', causing them UN-knowingly, and unconsciously commit atrocities against other Human Beings, for a false flag political sociopath agenda of their controllers.
-------------
Read the above sentence one more time.
When you think about the thought process displayed in this debate for American 'leaders' - a mindset producing choices, and the results thereof, on a national or international scale - it should scare the hell out of you.
And yes, the CIA really does program assassins and agent provocateurs.
All the 'conspiracy theories' you may have laughed at are absolutely true.
Hear the video testimony from a Monarch victim here. Very informative and eye opening:
http://tinyurl.com/j4xkpv2
Now about the physical and emotional trauma I personally experienced from the act of watching TV for less than two hours.
It was a strange feeling. The rest of the evening on the 15th, and well into the next day, I felt like I had a hangover - and I don't drink alcohol.
For those of you who think I am being sarcastic or tongue in cheek, I assure you I am not - in this case.
When a Human Being is watching TV, the frequencies emitted from a high definition TV literally turn off portions of the brain, and and replace the shut down portions with frequencies that match exactly the frequencies which implant data directly on the sub-conscious.
The industry has mind control programming down to a science, and the science works extremely well.
Whether or not the viewer understands this concept, or is intellectually aware of the occurring effects - is of no consequence.
If your eyes are open, and you are watching the screen, programming is taking place.
There are reasons why screen activity on the one eyed monster called a 'TV program'.
Be aware and careful out there in la la land.
Lion
--------------
: Hi, Folks -
: Found here:
: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/republican-presidential-debate-an-exercise-in-mind-control/
: =====
: Republican Presidential debate an exercise in mind control
: Let’s find an alternative universe
: by Jon Rappoport
: December 16, 2015
: (To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix
: Revealed, click here .)
: If a human mind were composed of a dozen eggs, and you
: soft-boiled them, broke them open, and let the goo run all
: over the plate, down on to the table, soon dripping on to
: the floor, that would be mind control, in the sense that
: you’re creating meaningless chaos, where no thought is
: important or makes sense or adds up to a cogent point.
: That was the CNN-hosted Republic Presidential debate, with
: what was it, nine candidates sounding off, interrupting one
: another, and mentioning Trump so often it seemed like they
: were afflicted with a one-note samba syndrome.
: You could conclude CNN, a Democratic stronghold, wanted the
: chaos, to throw the Republicans into an exceedingly bad and
: foul light, but other recent Presidential debates, hosted
: by other networks, have come across in the same basic
: fashion.
: The problem starts with networks hosting these lunatic
: events. Since when does a debate need a moderator who
: controls and asks all the questions? Since when does a
: network need to have any role at all?
: A debate is supposed to be two people contending over an
: important issue.
: For contrast, consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen
: Douglas face-off —when apparently citizens still had a
: semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US
: Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures
: chose US Senators.
: But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was
: intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon
: format: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the
: course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening
: candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would
: speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would
: return for 30 minutes.
: The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had
: stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every
: word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full,
: the texts.
: Those were debates. No one with sprayed hair was in control.
: The men talked. And talked.
: If you could transport the CNN Republican debate back in time
: to one of those Illinois towns, the audience would
: conclude, in short order, that all the participants were
: insane, possibly suffering from brain damage.
: “These people are running for…what did you say?
: President??!!?? You’re joking. This a joke, yes?”
: What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the
: state of the country in 2015? A country that actually
: acquiesced in a “debate” of this sort?
: What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the
: two political parties, in 2015, who permitted such debates,
: and about the general electorate who expressed partisan
: support for either party?
: “And in your time, 2015, no third or fourth party of any
: strength has arisen to sweep these mad Democrats and
: Republicans into the dustbin?”
: No, the Lincoln-Douglas debates didn’t settle the issue of
: slavery. Something called the Civil War broke out. But that
: fact doesn’t excuse what these crazed Presidential debates
: have devolved into.
: I’d really like to see one of these 2015 Presidential
: candidates take the podium and speak for 90 minutes about a
: single issue. You’d have to have support teams standing by
: to administer oxygen and possibly meth, just to keep them
: upright.
: We’re talking about a candidate staying on point, on one
: issue.
: “I remember my grandmother telling me, when I was nine, you
: can do it, you can be anything you want to be. I’d like to
: thank Mrs. Gallbladder, my third-grade teacher, for
: spending time with me when I—people say we should have a
: balanced budget, but they just don’t understand how
: economics—there weren’t any emails, well there were but
: none of them compromised—ownership of the means of
: production isn’t—better schools for our children—attacking
: terrorists by insulting them isn’t—equality isn’t just
: for—my father was President and so was my brother but—I
: made great deals to put up those hotels—when I look at a
: human brain on the operating table, I know what this
: universe—this isn’t the first time a woman has tried to win
: the Presidency but—“
: Goo and more goo running everywhere.
: Reporters and PR flacks and party hacks seizing on a few
: words of the opponent and highlighting them on social
: media. “Can you believe he slipped up and said
: Afro-American?” “Did you see that fly on his nose?”
: “A red tie with a blue suit is supposed to look
: Presidential?” “I counted. He interrupted nine times.” And
: these are the more intelligent tweets.
: On the other hand, the current TV debates preclude the
: possibility of something dangerous happening. For example,
: in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a
: candidate stepped up to the podium and said:
: “During my remarks in the next sixty minutes, with no
: interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older
: format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US
: administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for
: the purpose of overthrowing the present government of
: Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’
: against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous
: contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime
: of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been
: carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life.
: Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in
: the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail.
: Some of these documents and reports are already public.
: Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from
: US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with
: me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a
: time…”
: There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from
: happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.
: Give Rand Paul 90 uninterrupted minutes to explain what his
: father was explaining? The criminality of the Federal
: Reserve? Are you kidding?
: And just in case you think the American public is so addled
: they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have
: a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But
: if more and more true debates took place, a change would
: bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find
: themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the
: proceedings.
: After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed
: springs directly from the fact that so few politicians or
: media people tell the truth or explore any issue in depth.
: Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble
: itself.
: How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie
: Sanders and Rand Paul debate, seven times, as Lincoln and
: Douglas did, the following: “What is socialism, and is it
: good for America?”
: If either candidate were unable to do more than spout vapid
: generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours,
: it would surely become obvious.
: How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same
: format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best
: immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn
: into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating
: jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.
:
:
:
: Seven hours. Quickly, all Presidential candidates would
: discover their usual manner of presentation doesn’t stand
: up. It doesn’t make the grade. That would be a good thing.
: Maybe we find out that no one currently running for
: President can remain coherent. That would be a very good
: thing.
: And maybe someone emerges from the shadows, someone most
: people have never heard of, and he can pass the test with
: flying colors. He can make sense, he can make a case, he
: can present details and specifics, he can inspire
: confidence, he can paint a picture of what America and
: freedom and true justice are all about.
: Because he has the time. Because he has the courage and the
: intelligence. Because he makes people remember what they
: really want.
: Would that be terrible? Would that be treasonous? Would that
: be dangerous?
: No.
: That would be waking up out of amnesia.
: Jon Rappoport
: The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX
: REVEALED , EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , and POWER
: OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US
: Congressional seat in the 29 th District of California. He
: maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the
: purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative
: power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an
: investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on
: politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA
: Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and
: magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures
: and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and
: creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign
: up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here
: or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails
: here .
:
: ***************************************************************
