• Home
  • Social Conditioning/Mind Control

Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have

58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share


Editor's Note: This is legacy of the lunatic left/communists/collectivists/globalists . . . PARROT OUR VIEWS OR SHUT UP!  OTHERWISE, WE'LL MAKE YOUR LIFE MISERABLE!
~~~~~

The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, a new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.

Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.

Full survey results and report found here.

It follows that a solid majority (59%) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others. On the other hand, 40% think government should prevent hate speech. Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:

  • 51% of staunch liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
  • 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
  • 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
  • 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
  • 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

Americans also can’t agree what speech is hateful, offensive, or simply a political opinion:

  • 59% of liberals say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder; only 17% of conservatives agree.
  • 39% of conservatives believe it’s hate speech to say the police are racist; only 17% of liberals agree.
  • 80% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported; only 36% of conservatives agree.
  • 87% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn’t fight in military combat roles, while 47% of conservatives agree.
  • 90% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin, while 47% of conservatives agree. 

Americans Oppose Hate Speech Bans, But Say Hate Speech is Morally Unacceptable

Although Americans oppose (59%) outright bans on public hate speech, that doesn’t mean they think hate speech is acceptable. An overwhelming majority (79%) say it’s “morally unacceptable” to say offensive things about racial or religious groups.

Black, Hispanic, and White Americans Disagree about How Free Speech Operates

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely than white Americans to believe:

  • Free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority viewpoints (59%, 49%, 34%).
  • Supporting someone’s right to say racist things is as bad as holding racist views yourself (65%, 61%, 34%).
  • People who don’t respect others don’t deserve the right of free speech (59%, 62%, 36%).
  • Hate speech is an act of violence (75%, 72%, 46%).
  • Our society can prohibit hate speech and still protect free speech (69%, 71%, 49%).
  • People usually have bad intentions when they express offensive opinions (70%, 75%, 52%).

However, black, Hispanic, and white Americans agree that free speech ensures the truth will ultimately prevail (68%, 70%, 66%). Majorities also agree that it would be difficult to ban hate speech since people can’t agree what hate speech is (59%, 77%, 87%).

Two-Thirds Say Colleges Aren’t Doing Enough to Teach the Value of Free Speech

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should expose students to “all types of viewpoints even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.”

But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats; 57% of Republicans disagree.

76% Say Students Shutting Down Offensive Speakers Reveals “Broader Pattern” of How Students Cope

More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas. About a quarter (22%) think these protests and shutdowns are simply isolated incidents.

However, when asked about specific speakers, about half of Americans with college experience think a wide variety should not be allowed to speak at their college:

  • A speaker who says that all white people are racist (51%)
  • A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50%)
  • A speaker who says that transgender people have a mental disorder (50%)
  • A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49%)
  • A speaker who says all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49%)
  • A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48%)
  • A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48%)
  • A speaker who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41%)
  • A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40%)

Nevertheless, few endorse shutting down speakers by shouting loudly (4%) or forcing the speaker off the stage (3%). Current college and graduate students aren’t much different; only about 7% support forcibly shutting down offensive speakers.

65% Say Colleges Should Discipline Students Who Shut Down Invited Campus Speakers

Two-thirds (65%) say colleges need to discipline students who disrupt invited speakers and prevent them from speaking. However, the public is divided about how: 46% want to give students a warning, 31% want the incident noted on the student’s academic record, 22% want them to pay a fine, 20% want to suspend them, 19% favor arresting the students, 13% want to fully expel the students. Three-fourths (75%) of Republicans support some form of punishment for these students, compared to 42% of Democrats.

People of Color Don’t Find Most Microaggressions Offensive

The survey finds that many microaggressions colleges and universities advise faculty and students to avoid aren’t considered offensive by most people of color. The percentage of African Americans and Latinos who say these microaggressions are not offensive are as follows:

  • Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English” Black: 67% Latino: 77%
  • Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate” Black: 56% Latino: 63%
  • Saying “I don’t notice people’s race” Black: 71% Latino: 80%
  • Saying “America is a melting pot” Black: 77% Latino: 70%
  • Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77% Latino: 89%
  • Saying “America is the land of opportunity” Black: 93% Latino: 89%

The one microaggression that African Americans (68%) agree is offensive is telling a racial minority “you are a credit to your race.”

Americans Don’t Think Colleges Need to Advise Students on Halloween Costumes

Nearly two-thirds (65%) say colleges shouldn’t advise students about offensive Halloween costumes and should instead let students work it out on their own. A third (33%) think it is the responsibility of the university to remind students not to wear costumes that stereotype racial or ethnic groups at off-campus parties.

20% of Current Students Say College Faculty Has Balanced Mix of Political Views

Only 20% of current college and graduate students believe their college or university faculty has a balanced mix of political views. A plurality (39%) say most college and university professors are liberal, 27% believe most are politically moderate, and 12% believe most are conservative.

Democratic and Republican students see their college campuses differently. A majority (59%) of Republican college students believe that most faculty members are liberal. In contrast, only 35% of Democratic college students agree most professors are liberal.

What Beliefs Should Get People Fired?

Americans tend to oppose firing people for their beliefs. Nevertheless, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say a business executive should be fired if she or he believes transgender people have a mental disorder (44% vs 14%), that homosexuality is a sin (32% vs 10%), and that psychological differences help explain why there are more male than female engineers (34% vs. 14%). Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say a business executive should be fired if they burned the American flag at a weekend political protest (54% vs. 38%).

Republicans Say Journalists Are an Enemy of the American People

A majority (63%) of Republicans agree with President Trump that journalists today are an “enemy of the American people.” Conversely, most Americans (64%), as well as 89% of Democrats and 61% of independents, do not view journalists as the enemy.

These results aren’t surprising given that most Americans believe many major news outlets have a liberal bias, including The New York Times (52%), CNN (50%), and MSNBC (59%).  Fox is the one news station in which a majority (56%) believe it has a conservative bias.

Democrats, however, believe most major news organizations are balanced in their reporting including The New York Times (55%), CNN (55%), and CBS (72%). A plurality (44%) also believe the Wall Street Journal is balanced. The two exceptions are that a plurality (47%) believe MSNBC has a liberal tilt and a strong majority (71%) say Fox has a conservative bias.

Republicans, on the other hand, see things differently. Overwhelming majorities believe liberal bias colors reporting at The New York Times (80%), CNN (81%), CBS (73%), and MSNBC (80%). A plurality also feel the Wall Street Journal (48%) has a liberal bias. One exception is that a plurality (44%) believe Fox News has a conservative bias, while 41% believe it provides unbiased reporting.

Despite perceptions of bias, only 29% of the public want the government to prevent media outlets from publishing a story that government officials say is biased or inaccurate. Instead, a strong majority (70%) say government should not have the power to stop such news stories.

Americans Say Wedding Businesses Should Be Required to Serve LGBT People, Not Weddings

The public distinguishes between a business serving people and servicing weddings:

  • A plurality (50%) of Americans say that businesses should be required to “provide services to gay and lesbian people,” even if doing so violates the business owners’ religious beliefs.
  • But, 68% say a baker should not be required to provide a special-order wedding cake for a same-sex wedding if doing so violates their religious convictions.

Few support punishing wedding businesses who refuse service to same-sex weddings. Two-thirds (66%) say nothing should happen to a bakery which refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. A fifth (20%) would boycott the bakery, another 22% think government should sanction the bakery in some way, such as fining the bakery (12%), requiring an apology (10%), issuing a warning (8%), taking away their business license (6%), or sending the baker to jail (1%).

Clinton Voters Can’t Be Friends with Trump Voters

Nearly two-thirds (61%) of Hillary Clinton’s voters agree that it’s “hard” to be friends with Donald Trump’s voters. However, only 34% of Trump’s voters feel the same way about Clinton’s. Instead, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Trump voters don’t think it’s hard to be friends with Clinton voters.

Sign up here to receive forthcoming Cato Institute survey reports

The Cato Institute 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 15-23, 2017 from a national sample of 2,300 Americans 18 years of age and older. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.00 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Diversity Is a Joke


By Soren Dreier

The manufactured and architected call for diversity that rides the western hemisphere like a madman on performance enhancing drugs is a self-contradictive mind game, of which the purpose is nothing but to divide and conquer. They do not want diversity – they want us all to think alike.

The focus seems to be on skin color and sex, and that in itself shows how shallow the call is. We are so much more than the bloody color of our skin and what we have under the belt.

They tolerate no diversity of thought, no diversity of feeling, no diversity in free speech and no diversity in understanding and deciphering collective events.

That is what makes this call for diversity a dangerous, misplaced joke that’s tired of laughing; since the promotors of the Diversity War want a single-minded society that pushes people to feel guilty about themselves for being white, for being hetero, for being Christian, and what have we, into a state of: Repressive Tolerance. We see good people now excusing their skin color in public (white), their gender (men), and their spirituality (Christian), since the Diversity War Party has none.

The Diversity War Party is pushing people with mainstream political ideas to the far right, since it’s the only place they find resonance by not having to plug into Repressive Tolerance. I’m taking about opinions and perspectives that were considered normal before they decided to move the goal posts all of a sudden. It causes further polarization, and that’s exactly what they want.

The Diversity War Party is pushing people to promote their gender or blur it out, and that’s exactly what they want.

Their call is for a loss of pride in the fundamental building blocks of your identity so that you become rootless.

No favors should be granted JUST because the color of your skin or the shape of your genitals — that would be in itself both racist and sexist.

No shortcuts were given because you decided to leave Africa, took a boat to cross the Mediterranean and walked ashore looking for an outlet to charge your iPhone. All of it done under the disguise of being a victim of NATO’s lust for war in the Middle East. You’re pretty far from the Serengeti, don’t you think?

Racists, which I understand we all are now, judge people by the color of their skin. That’s exactly what they would like to mold us into: Reverse Racists, who are supposed to feel sorry by default for people based on their gender, color, and origin. Repressive racism.

The Diversity War Party wants a war with people like us that have nothing against diversity, but who prefer to draw the boundary themselves and not have it dictated to them.

The Diversity War Party doesn’t understand we have no problem with differences.

The Diversity War Party wants to stuff it down our throats, revealing their true agenda – they want you scared of your own opinions, your own better judgement and of your own ethics.

I will not give them the war they crave. I will not excuse my gender because I’m still so proud of being hetero, and I won’t excuse the color of my skin, since I don’t give it any particular thought.

I like men to be masculine and I like women to be feminine, since I learn from the beautiful friction in that.

Boiled monkey I understand is a delicacy in parts of Asia.
Until you’re ready to stuff that down your diverse throat, how about we have some diversity of thought — or is that just too deep for you?

Now, Eat that ‘monkey’, then we are game.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: "The News" is a Social Construct. It is Used to Program You


If all the "alternative" media ever does is report on "the news" (as decided by the MSM), then aren't they just unwitting participants in the mockingbird media system? Join James for this heady thought for the day as he dissects the idea of "the news" and talks about the real value of an outlet like The Corbett Report.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Undercover in North Korea: “All Paths Lead to Catastrophe”


By Jon Schwarz
TheIntercept

The most alarming aspect of North Korea’s latest nuclear test, and the larger standoff with the U.S., is how little is known about how North Korea truly functions. For 70 years it’s been sealed off from the rest of the world to a degree hard to comprehend, especially at a time when people in Buenos Aires need just one click to share cat videos shot in Kuala Lumpur. Few outsiders have had intimate contact with North Korean society, and even fewer are in a position to talk about it.

One of the extremely rare exceptions is novelist and journalist Suki Kim. Kim, who was born in South Korea and moved to the U.S. at age 13, spent much of 2011 teaching English to children of North Korea’s elite at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology.

Kim had visited North Korea several times before and had written about her experiences for Harper’s Magazine and the New York Review of Books. Incredibly, however, neither Kim’s North Korean minders nor the Christian missionaries who founded and run PUST realized that she was there undercover to engage in some of history’s riskiest investigative journalism.

Although all of PUST’s staff was kept under constant surveillance, Kim kept notes and documents on hidden USB sticks and her camera’s SIM card. If her notes had been discovered, she almost certainly would have been accused of espionage and faced imprisonment in the country’s terrifying labor camps. In fact, of the three Americans currently detained in North Korea, two were teachers at PUST. Moreover, the Pentagon has in fact used a Christian NGO as a front for genuine spying on North Korea.

But Kim was never caught, and she returned to the U.S. to write her extraordinary 2014 book, “Without You, There Is No Us.” The title comes from the lyrics of an old North Korean song; the “you” is Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un’s father.

Kim’s book is particularly important for anyone who wants to understand what happens next with North Korea. Her experience made her extremely pessimistic about every aspect of the country, including the regime’s willingness to renounce its nuclear weapons program. North Korea functions, she believes, as a true cult, with all of the country’s pre-cult existence now passed out of human memory.

Most ominously, her students, all young men in their late teens or early 20s, were firmly embedded in the cult. With the Kim family autocracy now on its third generation, you’d expect the people who actually run North Korea to have abandoned whatever ideology they started with and degenerated into standard human corruption. But PUST’s enrollees, their children, did not go skiing in Gstaad on school breaks; they didn’t even appear to be able to travel anywhere within North Korea. Instead they studied the North Korea ideology of “juche,” or worked on collective farms.

Unsurprisingly, then, Kim’s students were shockingly ignorant of the outside world. They didn’t recognize pictures of the Taj Mahal or Egyptian pyramids. One had heard that everyone on earth spoke Korean because it was recognized as the world’s most superior language. Another believed that the Korean dish naengmyeon was seen as the best food on earth. And all of Kim’s pupils were soaked in a culture of lying, telling her preposterous falsehoods so often that she writes, “I could not help but think that they – my beloved students – were insane.” Nonetheless, they were still recognizably human and charmingly innocent and for their part, came to adore their teachers.

Overall, “Without You, There Is No Us” is simply excruciatingly sad. All of Korea has been the plaything of Japan, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China, and like most Korean families, Kim has close relatives who ended up in North Korea when the country was separated and have never been seen again. Korea is now, Kim says, irrevocably ruptured:

It occurred to me that it was all futile, the fantasy of Korean unity, the five thousand years of Korean identity, because the unified nation was broken, irreparably, in 1945 when a group of politicians drew a random line across the map, separating families who would die without ever meeting again, with all their sorrow and anger and regret unrequited, their bodies turning to earth, becoming part of this land … behind the children of the elite who were now my children for a brief time, these lovely, lying children, I saw very clearly that there was no redemption here.

The Intercept spoke recently to Kim about her time in North Korea and the insight it gives her on the current crisis.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Orwellian War On History


The Australian

Everyone’s smashing statues. From Islamic State hotheads sledgehammering ancient artefacts in old Mesopotamian cities to plummy students at Oxford demanding the removal of busts of old colonialists, waging war on the past is all the rage.

A Year Zero mentality is on the march. People seem hellbent on wiping out history, making it invisible, and starting society all over again, cleansed of the likenesses of dead people of whom they disapprove.

This fury against monuments is presented as good and radical. The statue-smashers say they simply want to erase the faces and names of people who did bad things to show how far society has progressed and to make minority groups feel more comfortable when they’re out in public.

In truth, there’s nothing good in this mob-like erasure of history. It’s a reactionary, even Orwellian, movement. The urge to ethically cleanse public life of “bad history”, to shove down the memory hole any bust or tribute to past folk whose values make us bristle today, is intolerant, illiberal and profoundly paternalistic.

During the past week, the irrational fury against inanimate objects moved up a gear. First, there were the disturbances in Charlottesville, Virginia, when disagreements over a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee descended into violent clashes between leftists and neo-fascists.

A couple of days later, protesters in North Carolina tied rope around the neck of a statue of a Confederate soldier and dragged it down. They kicked and spat on it. There was a weird intensity to their statue abuse, bringing to mind the wide-eyed fury of Islamic State agitators as they stamp on what they view as idolatrous historic carvings in the ancient cities of Palmyra and Nimrud.

Then, in an extraordinary move, the mayor of Baltimore, Maryland, ordered the removal of four Confederate statues in the city. In the dead of night, workmen dragged them down. What had been everyday monuments for decades, seen by people as they walked to work or went for a jog, suddenly were viewed as a poisonous presence, liable to harm people’s self-esteem and the city’s stability. And so they were memory-holed, in the black of night, exposing the febrile streak to this statuephobia.

Year Zero agitation has been gaining ground for a few years. Students at Oxford want a bust of old British colonialist Cecil Rhodes removed. They describe the statue as “problematic”, a word PC zealots use in the same way Islamists say “haram”: to indicate something is wicked and should ideally be extinguished.

One of the protesters against Rhodes says, “There is a violence in having to walk past the statue every day.” There’s a medieval feel to this, this idea that even things made of stone have great power and evil in them.

For an Oxford student to describe a statue as an act of violence really is similar to the Islamic State hammer-wielders’ belief that pre-Islamic icons have the power to pollute men’s souls and thus must be destroyed.

Anyone who thinks this policing of the past will stop once all statues of Confederates and colonialists have been knocked down is in for a shock.

In the US, the Year Zero mob has turned its sights to statues of the great Thomas Jefferson (he owned slaves). And this week Yarra council in Melbourne decreed that it would no longer refer to January 26 as Australia Day, out of respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

So a historic fact – the arrival of the First Fleet into New South Wales in 1788, the basis of Australia Day – is made unmentionable. It’s unremembered, erased, as surely as Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four must erase old newspaper reports about events that now embarrass the party. Today’s cleansing of images of history smacks of the dark antics of that fictional Ministry of Truth.

The history erasers claim they only want to show how fair our societies now are. Rubbish. This isn’t about making the present better, it’s a projection of political correctness into the past. It’s the punishment of historical figures – even good historical figures, such as Jefferson, and good historical events, such as the settlement of Australia – for not sharing our exact modern world view.

And it reeks of PC paternalism. The idea that minority groups can’t cope with seeing statues of dead people who did some dodgy things is an affront to their intelligence and autonomy. It infantil­ises them, even suggesting they will feel physically wounded by history: after all, “there is a violence” to these statues.

It’s disturbingly ironic: this treatment of certain groups as fragile, as needing to have public life sanitised on their behalf in the way a new mum might baby-proof her home, is riddled with some fairly racist assumptions of its own.

One of the great things about public life is that it’s a patchwork of the historical events that made our nations. Take a walk through a city and you’ll see statues of soldiers, politicians, authors, suffragettes and others who shaped our societies. And most of them will have held views or done things we would consider questionable in 2017. So what? The point is they made history, and it’s right for the public sphere to reflect that.

The logic of the Year Zero crew is that we should see only historical figures they approve of (if there are any). They police history with an eye for policing what we citizens can see and by extension think about the societies we live in.

It’s a low, brutal form of censorship, and we should have no truck with it.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video; "Diversity" Is a Weapon Against White People


This is a very clear and complete presentation of precisely what's "really" going on with the whole "diversity bull crap."  It is squarely aimed at utterly destroying western civilization to make way for a totally tyrannical world government system.

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Wisconsin to Remove Academics From Higher Ed


 
When I cover the madness affecting higher education, California comes up often, although I certainly cover schools in the rest of the country.
 
Wisconsin has avoided the madness, with nothing in the way of riots or flamboyant frauds that seem commonplace elsewhere. You’d  think the state government there would leave well enough alone, but such is not the case. Are they jealous? It would seems so, because when I write of events in Wisconsin, it’s always about the ways the government there is working diligently to undermine the success higher education has seen in Wisconsin.
 
 
 
One of the key factors in the destruction of higher ed, identified by everyone who works in it, has been the infestation of a greedy administrative class filled by people with no actual education experience.
 
Dean: “We need to have a meeting regarding a student complaint about you. She said the final exam she took didn’t have the questions on it that it was supposed to have.”
 
--the gentle reader needs to understand the only way a student could make this complaint is if she had access to the final exam questions—I was tipped off that the student had access to the final, so, yes, I changed some things around. The Dean, having no education experience, could only determine there was an unhappy student.
 
Every campus has legions of administrators, filling hives which eventually turn into palaces. The way how higher education is set up, especially community colleges, makes it particularly easy to stick a few dozen friends and family into 100k a year “do nothing” administrative jobs with nobody the wiser. Yes, every once in a blue moon we find out about it, but it won’t surprise me to eventually learn that dozens of states have systems with such activity in them.
 
Admin: “It is now mandatory that on the first day of class, you are to assign all students into groups, for purposes of group projects and in-class work. You will maintain these groups for the entire semester.”
 
I’m serious, yet another utterly inexperienced Deanling tried to cram this down our throats, because “group projects improve retention.” Only after faculty explained to her repeatedly that attrition made this idea completely unworkable (because about half our students were fake students who were only there for the checks) did she relent….I can’t recall if it was 3, or 4, weekly meetings until she acknowledged reality. I kid myself to think the faculty convinced her directly, but we were smart enough to tell the students stuck in 1-person groups to complain to the Dean about it.
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Nervous System Manipulation by Electromagnetic Fields Through Monitors

Patent US6506148 B2


By Angie
ViturusLibertas.com

Victurus Libertas has taken on a subject that we don’t find many others discussing, and that is the subject of “Targeting”.  An increasingly large group of people may feel that certain other groups are “targeting” them in various ways.  These people who feel they are being targeted are referred to as TI’s, or “targeted individuals”.

Some of the targeted individuals are doctors, scientists, actors, people who are talking about things the government or Deep State may feel they should not discuss, or everyday people.  There is a whole host of people with various backgrounds.

As hard as this is for some to believe, I am about to tell you something that is even HARDER to swallow.  And I can prove beyond a doubt – in fact, with a Patent number – that it is true.  And that is, if you own a computer, a phone, a microwave or even a television set, you are a TI.


Let that sink in, and then see the quote below:

“Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set.”


That quote is found if you google Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors US 6506148 B2.  Or, simply google Patent # US 6506148 B2.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)