Operation: Mindcrime

This is the wikipedia description of the 1988 album by Queensryche entitled Operation Mind Crime.

The album begins with the protagonist, Nikki, in a hospital. He lies in a near catatonic state, unable to remember anything but snippets from his past. Suddenly, Nikki’s memories come flooding back in a torrent. He remembers how, as a heroin addict and would-be political radical frustrated with contemporary society, he was manipulated into joining a supposed secret organization dedicated to revolution. At the head of this organization is a political and religious demagogue known only as Dr. X, who by manipulating Nikki through a combination of his heroin addiction and brainwashing techniques, uses Nikki as an assassin. Whenever Dr. X uses the word “mindcrime” Nikki becomes his docile puppet, a state which Dr. X uses to command Nikki to undertake any murder that the Doctor wishes. Through one of Dr. X’s probable associates, a corrupt priest named Father William, Nikki is offered the services of a prostitute-turned-nun named Sister Mary. Through his friendship and growing affection toward Sister Mary, Nikki begins to question the nature of what he is doing. Dr. X notices this and, seeing a potential threat in Mary, orders Nikki to kill both her and the priest. Nikki goes to Mary’s church and kills the priest, but after confronting Mary fails to comply with the command to murder her. He and Mary decided to leave the organization together, and Nikki goes to Dr. X to tell him that they are out. Dr. X, however, reminds Nikki that he is an addict, and that he is the one who can provide him with his daily fix. Nikki leaves, conflicted and returns to Mary, only to find her dead. He cannot cope with the loss, as well as the possibility that he himself may have killed her and not known it, and begins to succumb to insanity. He runs through the streets calling her name. The Police arrive and attempt to subdue him. A gun is found on him, and they take him into custody under suspicion of Mary’s murder and the murders he committed for Dr. X. Suffering from complete loss of memory he is put into a hospital, where he sees a news report on the recent spree of political homicides. This jogs his memory and returns us to the beginning where he remembers what has happened and begins to tell his story.

Nikki was a mind controlled Manchurian assassin. I listened to this album as a teenager. I never knew.

The cover clearly shows waves or shocks to the brain. Seems a little to similar to what we now know as “Voice of God weapons” or microwave pulses intended to disrupt and control.


There is a war raging and it’s for your mind

Over the past couple days I’ve been reading and researching MK Ultra. This has lead me to uncover some very disturbing stories regarding government sponsored mind control. There is a war on for your mind. I knew that before, but it’s more evident and more sinister than I had imagined.

I urge you to do your own research. There are a lot of very strange theories out there but I think amidst the conspiracy theories there is an underlying truth. That truth is simply that a group of individuals, over the course of centuries, have sought control. The ultimate goal is a one world government with a unified monetary system where those at the top maintain order via tyranny. The efforts by some to control others and alter the public mindset for their own benefit is, in my opinion, beyond question.

Keep an open mind. Take the time to watch and read through this post and the links and then come to your own conclusion. I’ve provided two links to purchase books at amazon, however, if you search you can find them free online.

Who is Susan Lynne Eckhart Ford (aka Brice Taylor)

A bit of back-story…

“After WWII, the U.S. Department of Defense secretly imported many of the top German Nazi and Italian Fascist scientists and spies into the United States via South America and the Vatican. The code name for this operation was Project PAPERCLIP. One of the more prominent finds for the U.S. was German General Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s Chief of Intelligence against Russia.

“Upon arriving in Washington, DC in 1945, Gehlen met extensively with President Truman, General William “Wild Bill” Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Allen Dulles, who would later become the stalwart head of the CIA.

“The objective of their brainstorming sessions was to reorganize the nominal American intelligence operation, transforming it into a highly efficient covert organization.

“The culmination of their efforts produced the Central Intelligence Group in 1946, renamed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1947.

“With the CIA and National Security Council firmly established, the first in a series of covert brainwashing programs was initiated by the Navy in the fall of 1947. Project MKULTRA came into existence on April 13, 1953.

“A host of German doctors, procured from the Nazi talent pool, were an invaluable asset toward the development of MKULTRA. The correlation between the concentration camp experiments and the numerous subprojects of MKULTRA are clearly evident. The various avenues used to control human behavior under MKULTRA included radiation, electroshock, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, graphology, harassment substances and paramilitary devices and materials (LSD being the most widely dispensed “material”).

“Of the 149 subprojects under the umbrella of MKULTRA having been identified, Project MONARCH officially began by the U.S. Army in the early 1960’s (although unofficially implemented much earlier) appears to be the most prominent and is still classified as TOP SECRET for “National Security” reasons.

“MONARCH may have culminated from MKSEARCH subprojects, such as operation SPELLBINDER, which was set up to create “sleeper” assassins (i.e. “Manchurian Candidates”) who could be activated upon receiving a key word or phrase while in a post-hypnotic trance. Operation OFTEN, a study which attempted to harness the power of occultic forces, was possibly one of several cover programs to hide the insidious reality of Project MONARCH.

Thanks For The Memories … The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s Mind-Controlled Slave

This amazing autobiographical account of Brice Taylor’s (Susan Lynne Eckhart Ford) personal experience, reveals the hidden purpose behind the ritual abuse and mind control that is being reported around the world! It shares her recollections of being conditioned through childhood in order to be used by Bob Hope and Henry Kissinger, as a mind-controlled slave into adulthood…

Trance: Formation of America

This is the documented autobiography of a victim of government mind control. Cathy O’Brien is the only vocal and recovered survivor of the Central Intelligence Agency’s MK-Ultra Project Monarch mind control operation.

MindWar: How Military PsyOps Plan to Control your Mind

“Sometime in late 1980, then-Col. Paul E. Vallely, the Commander of the 7th Psychological Operations Group, United States Army Reserve, Presidio of San Francisco, Ca., co-authored a discussion paper, which received wide and controversial attention within the U.S. military, particularly within the Special Operations community. The paper was titled “From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory,” and it presented a Nietzschean scheme for waging perpetual psychological warfare against friend and enemy populations alike, and even against the American people.

“The “MindWar” paper was disturbing, for reasons beyond its fascistic and occultist content. For one thing, Colonel Vallely’s co-author was a PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader named Maj. Michael A. Aquino. Five years before the circulation of the MindWar paper, Special Forces Reserve officer Aquino had founded the Temple of Set, a Satanic organization which was the successor to Anton Szandor LeVay’s Church of Satan. Aquino would soon be grabbing headlines, which persisted throughout the 1980s, as a leading suspect in a nationwide Satanic pedophile ring, that particularly targeted daycare centers on such military bases as Fort Bragg and the Presidio.

“Colonel Vallely’s association with Aquino did little to stall the former’s military career advancement. A West Point graduate, Vallely retired in 1991 as deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army of the Pacific. From 1982-86, he headed the 351st Civil Affairs Command, placing him in charge of all Special Forces, Psychological Warfare, and Civil Affairs Military units in the Western United States and Hawaii.

“Today, he is practicing what he and Satanist Aquino preached in the MindWar paper, and is one of the leading propaganda assets in Vice President Dick Cheney’s push for military confrontation with Iran—one that could see the United States carry out the first pre-emptive nuclear attack in history.

General Vallely, now retired from the military, is a senior military commentator for Rupert Murdoch’s shrill Fox TV News.


Mind Control Theories and Techniques used by Mass Media

“The merger of media companies in the last decades generated a small oligarchy of media conglomerates. The TV shows we follow, the music we listen to, the movies we watch and the newspapers we read are all produced by FIVE corporations. The owners of those conglomerates have close ties with the world’s elite and, in many ways, they ARE the elite. By owning all of the possible outlets having the potential to reach the masses, these conglomerates have the power to create in the minds of the people a single and cohesive world view, engendering a “standardization of human thought”.

“Even movements or styles that are considered marginal are, in fact, extensions of mainstream thinking. Mass medias produce their own rebels who definitely look the part but are still part of the establishment and do not question any of it. Artists, creations and ideas that do not fit the mainstream way of thinking are mercilessly rejected and forgotten by the conglomerates, which in turn makes them virtually disappear from society itself. However, ideas that are deemed to be valid and desirable to be accepted by society are skillfully marketed to the masses in order to make them become self-evident norm.”


Ron Paul: Seeking Total Security Leads to a Totalitarian Society

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

via Ron Paul: Seeking Total Security Leads to a Totalitarian Society.

On Banning Guns

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about guns. I hope by writing some things down someone might be able to make some sense of what is going on in our world.

It is immoral to employ force or the threat of force to deny a person the ability to decide for themselves what they require for personal safety.

It is a completely valid argument to suggest that the threat of a madman with an assault weapon is best mitigated with another assault weapon. Cops seem to understand this. They have to keep up with the latest technology in order to have any hope of effectively protecting the public from sophisticated criminals. The same has to apply to every individual. There is no guarantee a cop will be there to save you when you need his gun the most.

The existence of a means of destruction both creates the threat and the justification for it’s distribution. One gun sets the stage for a tyrant. Two (in the hands of two people) has the potential to begin to offset the potential for misuse. It’s a situation where the more people who have guns, the less of a threat any single gun owner is.

Of course those who have a record of violence should be kept from legally owning a deadly weapon. But because the law does not bind the criminal, it is necessary that men be free under the law to act as they see fit to disarm the criminal elements of society. If laws prevent good men from acting to maintain their own safety and others, then the law is immoral and creates an environment for evil to thrive.

The only way that banning guns makes any sense is if you rid the world of them entirely. Assuming you could eliminate guns entirely, and keep them from being manufactured in the future is ridiculous. But for the sake of argument, if you think gun bans are good and would lead to positive outcomes, then police, military and government officials would have to be included in the ban. Saying only government and law officials can have guns to make sure the ones who cannot, do not, is unacceptable. So long as even one exists, there is a potential for someone to do another harm with it. If there is any hope of solving the problem of people misusing guns, bans must effectively remove all guns, not just some, from society.

But do you think that cops will give up their guns or that liberals would even suggest they should? No way. Their guns keep us safe. Their guns are good. See the double standard? It’s so stupid, really. In a single breath they are saying that guns are both evil and the source of safety. That is idiotic logic!

The very existence of guns in a world of people creates the potential for it to bring harm. This potential for harm is all the justification the individual needs to demand his right to defend himself from it.

Are your expectations of leadership in this country realistic?


It seems like people who place government officials on a pedestal are much more likely to call on them to do the impossible. In the face of tragedy, for example, they might plead with government officials to do more to protect them from other people who might do bad things.

Of course every individual has a circle of trusted companions they believe would never do them harm. The request for government to intervene to keep them safe would be offered up with the expectation that any resulting action would be taken only against strangers. The problem is there are endless circles of trust who’s members view you with the same uncertainty with which you view them. So government has no option but to crack down equally on everyone in order to have any shot at all of addressing your concerns of safety.

Think about the outrageous burden we put on our elected officials by asking them to protect us from every uncertainty. If they took the request seriously, to even begin to be able to acquiesce, they would have to assume complete and total control of every living individual under their watch. Perhaps they could put everyone into personal cages. That would certainly provide a high level of protection but we’d all live as slaves. Maybe they could put an armed guard at every corner or in every home keep us safe from any and all lurking danger. But who would be trusted to perform guard duties? The armed guards, after all, are fallible human beings. Why should they be considered less of a threat than the next guy? It certainly wouldn’t be rational to assume you could trust them if you approach every other stranger with caution.

Let’s be honest. Even the most drastic measures can not guarantee safety. Why then should we consider sacrificing our freedom to gain what amounts to a false sense of security? The individual has nothing to gain from this compromise. At some point, implementing any real plan to protect the individual from the masses, or the masses from the individual, becomes a great source of aggression itself.

One who views government in a more realistic light, as human beings just like everyone else, will be more likely to acknowledge that they cannot protect you from calamity. If you think about it even more, I believe you’d come to the conclusion, as I have, that top-down planning of society always comes with unintended consequences.

The best policy is freedom and individual liberty. Freedom implies that safety is primarily the responsibility of the individual. Any laws that limit the ability of a law abiding individual to protect his own life or the lives of others are unquestionably unjust. Not a single government official was at Sandy Hook Elementary School to protect those children despite past requests from the masses to protect us after the prior tragedies. On the contrary, the legislation they passed such as gun free zone laws and gun restriction laws, although intended to protect society, conceivably made it easier for another tragic event to take place.

I think it’s time we stop asking government to do the impossible. We always lose when they try.

Consumers Don’t Cause Recessions – Robert P. Murphy

This morning I heard an economist on NPR talking about a Keynesian theory called the “Paradox of Thrift.”

During a recession, Krugman thinks that consumers freak out and start spending less. This reduces the revenues earned by firms from the sale of goods and services. But then this means firms have less money with which to hire factors of production (natural resources, labor hours, and capital equipment). That means the income earned by the owners of these items—i.e., everyone in the economy—goes down. But with less income, people in their role as consumers can’t spend as much on goods and services, so business receipts fall even further, and so on until the decentralized market economy crashes into a major depression. To repeat, Krugman thinks the free market can’t solve this problem, because individuals rationally respond to the onset of the crisis by increasing their cash balances, which only makes the crisis worse.

According to Krugman, in order to escape from this vicious cycle, the government must coax consumers to start spending again, perhaps by cutting interest rates or giving tax refunds. But sometimes (as in the present situation) those remedies are inadequate, and then it is the duty of the politicians to be the adults and spend tens of billions in borrowed money to do a Control-Alt-Delete on the economy.

This is probably something most people believe because they have never questioned it.

Read this article for a new perspective. Consumers Don’t Cause Recessions – Robert P. Murphy – Mises Daily.

The Conservative Mind

Obama at the Phnom Penh Summit

The decline of America economically, influentially, financially and in liberty is well documented. Something that has been written about by both friend and foe alike. This decline, if not already clear enough, was on parade in Asia the week of the twentieth.

During President Obama’s trade mission to Asia he experienced what has to be one of the biggest diplomatic and economic flops of all times. In an incident most have not even heard about the President was completely and utterly humiliated. The debacle happen on the President’s trade mission to Asia. The President wanted to create a free trade pact with the top Asian economies excluding China. The countries in question not only shunned the President and his proposals, they created there own free trade initiative. The main difference between the two plans is the one the Asian countries came up with included…

View original post 293 more words