Thursday, February 26, 2015

DOJ Acknowledged Significant Gang Stalking Problem in ’06

Memory Hole Blog

FOIA Documents Released Under FOIA Suggest 10% of US Population Experienced Stalking-Harassment

Over the past several years government and law enforcement officials have denied that U.S. citizens are routinely stalked by teams or groups of anonymous individuals. Documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that these official denials are false.

The following two documents are those provided by the DOJ, in response to the FOIA request by Keith Labella, Esq.

Extrapolating on the 2006 study’s methodology and results, about 3.4 million U.S. citizens were victims of stalking-harassment. Of these, 447,000 (13%) were coordinated stalkings committed by three or more individuals (see document 2 below).

No known federal study has since been conducted charting this phenomenon. For additional information see the National Crime Victimization Survey: Stalking Victimization Supplement, 2006.

Read more here.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Media Blackout on US ‘Smart Grid Deployment’

Memory Hole Blog
by James F. Tracy

Over the past several years a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the implementation of the Smart Grid across the United States, perhaps with good reason. If the public was aware of what lay behind this agenda there would likely be considerable outcry and resistance.
“Smart meters”–the principal nodes of the Smart Grid network–are being installed on homes and businesses by power utilities across the United States under the legal and fiscal direction of the United States government. In December 2007 both houses of the US Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

This 310-page piece of legislation employs the dubious science of anthropogenic CO2-based climate change science to mandate an array of policies, such as fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and “green” energy initiatives. Tucked away in the final pages of this law is the description and de facto mandate for national implementation of the Smart Grid that the Bush administration promised would result in “some of the largest CO2 emission cuts in our nation’s history.”[1]

The bill unambiguously lays out the design and intent behind the Smart Grid, including surveillance, tiered energy pricing, and energy rationing for all US households and businesses through round-the-clock monitoring of RFID-chipped “Energy Star” appliances.[2] Congress and “other stakeholders” (presumably for-profit utilities and an array of Smart Grid technology patent holders[3] whose lobbyists co-wrote the legislation) describe the Smart Grid’s characteristics and goals via ten provisions.

Read more here.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Sandy Hook: Disturbingly Creepy – CNN Child Abuse Mind Control (Video)

Before It's News
by N.Morgan

One of the things I’ve found most disturbing about the Sandy Hook False Flag Op is the child crisis actors. Could this sort of lying and being prodded by adults to lie about such a horrendous thing be considered child abuse? To my way of thinking, absolutely. These children that CNN used for this hoax have to be effected in a very negative way, mentally. These children have been brainwashed and their little minds controlled by the most sinister of the Elite.

In the video below, we can see the adult actors are nervous and I would say ill prepared for their acting gig, on this occasion. Their body language gives away more than I think they realized at the time and we can now analyze these clips to get a better picture of what happened there in Sandy Hook. Another question to ponder, is should the media outlets involved in this travesty be held accountable as well?

How were these children forced to lie about such an event? What tactics were used on them to get them to lie and deceive? Was violence used against them or was it a more mental torture. These questions are far more unsettling than I think most of us realize. We have no idea what was done to these children and for how long were they subjected to whatever tactics were used on them.

It is often accomplished by a parent or other trusted caregiver.  Simplified, the process follows these steps:

1.  The mind controller is a trusted, loved, and important person to the child.

2.  The mind controller hates the person/concept/item who/which the child  is being brainwashed to hate.  (for example:  The mind controller hates dad. or  The mind controller hates religion. or The mind controller hates kittens.)

3.  The child must agree with the mind controller because the child believes that to not do so might lose the support, love or acceptance of the mind controller. (The child hates dad because to not do so would mean losing mom’s love.  or The child hates religion because to not do so might cause mom to not love the child anymore.)

In the above example, the term Mind Controller may be replaced by the words mom, dad, grandmother, the elder, the teacher, or any other significant individual in the life of the child.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas

Rensselaer RPI News

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski. “In those countries, dictators who were in power for decades were suddenly overthrown in just a few weeks.”

The findings were published in the July 22, 2011, early online edition of the journal Physical Review E in an article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities.”

An important aspect of the finding is that the percent of committed opinion holders required to shift majority opinion does not change significantly regardless of the type of network in which the opinion holders are working. In other words, the percentage of committed opinion holders required to influence a society remains at approximately 10 percent, regardless of how or where that opinion starts and spreads in the society.

To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models of various types of social networks. One of the networks had each person connect to every other person in the network. The second model included certain individuals who were connected to a large number of people, making them opinion hubs or leaders. The final model gave every person in the model roughly the same number of connections. The initial state of each of the models was a sea of traditional-view holders. Each of these individuals held a view, but were also, importantly, open minded to other views.

Once the networks were built, the scientists then “sprinkled” in some true believers throughout each of the networks. These people were completely set in their views and unflappable in modifying those beliefs. As those true believers began to converse with those who held the traditional belief system, the tides gradually and then very abruptly began to shift.

“In general, people do not like to have an unpopular opinion and are always seeking to try locally to come to consensus. We set up this dynamic in each of our models,” said SCNARC Research Associate and corresponding paper author Sameet Sreenivasan. To accomplish this, each of the individuals in the models “talked” to each other about their opinion. If the listener held the same opinions as the speaker, it reinforced the listener’s belief. If the opinion was different, the listener considered it and moved on to talk to another person. If that person also held this new belief, the listener then adopted that belief.

“As agents of change start to convince more and more people, the situation begins to change,” Sreenivasan said. “People begin to question their own views at first and then completely adopt the new view to spread it even further. If the true believers just influenced their neighbors, that wouldn’t change anything within the larger system, as we saw with percentages less than 10.”

The research has broad implications for understanding how opinion spreads. “There are clearly situations in which it helps to know how to efficiently spread some opinion or how to suppress a developing opinion,” said Associate Professor of Physics and co-author of the paper Gyorgy Korniss. “Some examples might be the need to quickly convince a town to move before a hurricane or spread new information on the prevention of disease in a rural village.”

The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican.

The research was funded by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) through SCNARC, part of the Network Science Collaborative Technology Alliance (NS-CTA), the Army Research Office (ARO), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).

The research is part of a much larger body of work taking place under SCNARC at Rensselaer. The center joins researchers from a broad spectrum of fields – including sociology, physics, computer science, and engineering – in exploring social cognitive networks. The center studies the fundamentals of network structures and how those structures are altered by technology. The goal of the center is to develop a deeper understanding of networks and a firm scientific basis for the newly arising field of network science. More information on the launch of SCNARC can be found at

Szymanski, Sreenivasan, and Korniss were joined in the research by Professor of Mathematics Chjan Lim, and graduate students Jierui Xie (first author) and Weituo Zhang.

Contact: Gabrielle DeMarco
Phone: (518) 276-6542