AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE BY 2016

YouTube

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.

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.

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.

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 http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2721&setappvar=page(1)

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
E-mail: demarg@rpi.edu

Anti Government Filmmaker and Family Found Murdered. Who Really Killed Them?

Blessings Buzz
by Brooke McGowan

American Veteran and Independent Filmmaker of “Gray State” Found Dead with His Family at Home in Minnesota

The creator, director and producer of the controversial movie about the encroaching police state and FEMA camps in America, David Crowley, has been found dead with his wife and young daughter over the weekend. The police are calling it a murder-suicide incident yet not ruling out anything suspicious.

The movie was currently in production and Crowley had recently received a contract of $30 million to complete the project of his dreams. While depression can have its harshest affects on people, his friends and co-workers have stated that the police story is highly unlikely.

His movie, Gray State, had a sort of cult following with nearly a million views of its trailer on YouTube.


The fiction movie is about the resistance to the police state and rise of enslavement here in America. It is set in the not-so-distant future with all the aspects one has come to expect about the end of our civilization and collapse of normal society: RFID chips, suspended travel, empty store shelves, FEMA camps, complete control through martial law.

There are many apocalyptic movies which don’t address these exact topics and many fans fear David Crowley may have been far too close to the truth.

We offer prayers for the families and all involved in this horrific tragedy, no matter whose hand caused it.

Watch David Crowley at PaulFest give a speech about his movie project and the current state of our devolved culture:



“The SECOND REVOLUTION in America may not be remembered.”- Gray State.
R.I.P. Crowley family

$Trillion Sandy Hook Lawsuit Plaintiff Now Missing

Memory Hole Blog
by James F. Tracy

For over one week now—since December 30—William Shanley has been incommunicado, failing to respond to emails or telephone calls. Shanley is the author, onetime filmmaker and Connecticut resident who filed a $1 trillion pro se federal lawsuit against big media for fraudulent and sensationalized coverage of the December 14, 2012 shooting event at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut.


Shanley filed the suit on December 22, 2014, naming several dozen defendants. The press release announcing the action was posted on MHB December 26, 2014. A few days later, on December 28, plaintiff Shanley participated in a recorded interview with Drs. Jim Fetzer and Jim Tracy. In the interview Shanley was well-composed, explaining how he was under psychiatric care and that his roommate was killed under unusual circumstances in August 2014.

Less than one week after filing the $1 trillion lawsuit Shanley announced a global “no money system” via YouTube that he will purportedly aid in presiding over. The video is an especially bizarre mixture of ideas, imagery, and verbiage. On December 29 Shanley appeared alongside Fetzer on “The Pete Santilli Show.”

The appearance on Santilli’s program prompted YouTube researcher Professor Doom1, who has considerable familiarity with the legal process, to contact Shanley and ask for a copy of the lawsuit. Doom telephoned Shanley, asking to interview the filmmaker and send along a copy of the paperwork. When no documents were electronically received Doom telephoned Shanley again, at which time it was revealed that Shanley had incorrectly transcribed Doom’s email address. “I still never got them after I corrected the email,” Doom tells MHB.

Later that day Prof. Doom interviewed school safety expert and fellow Sandy Hook researcher Wolfgang Halbig on his views concerning Shanley’s lawsuit. Halbig condemned the action. Doom then contacted Shanley via Skype and recorded the exchange. The discussion quickly turned uncivil, with Shanley yelling several prurient remarks while attacking Halbig for his unwillingness to be involved in the suit.

“It seems like Shanley has a split personality,” Doom notes. “He was absolutely clear and coherent at the beginning. Then as his anger level rose and he proceeded to name calling.” The YouTuber has since removed the video from his channel, although it is available elsewhere.

Such behavior does not lend itself to success in a legal process. “How’s it going to be in a courtroom when he’s being picked and probed by very skilled lawyers?” Doom asks.

Additional information solicited from one of Doom’s Connecticut followers suggests that Shanley lives in a New London neighborhood close to casinos and where illicit drugs may be prevalent. At the same time, over the past few years many individuals involved in the Sandy Hook massacre have turned up missing or dead.

Whatever the cause of Shanley’s absence, his flights of fancy, suggested in the pro se lawsuit and curious temper tantrums are likely unhelpful for coming to terms with and addressing what took place on December 14, 2012.

***

Mr. Shanley’s Complaint states, in part:

Defendants entered in a multi-year conspiracy, meeting in groups separately and together, to commit fraud and terrorism, i.e., to brainwash the public into thinking a lone gunman drill known as the “Sandy Hook Massacre” was real, when in fact it was a staged FEMA National Level Exercise Event that redirected government resources to terrorize the public. These crimes were undertaken with the intent of subverting the US Constitution and to affect national, state and local laws.  This fraud involved lying to the public, faking news, publishing one-sided news reports, censoring reality, suppressing facts, and deliberately skewing the news to shift public perceptions.

The true costs of this breach of integrity and trust to society are unfathomable. Instead of fulfilling their Constitutional Role as the People’s Surrogates and being honest brokers of information, the Plaintiff will show how the men and women who dominate the TV news industry in the United States broke laws, besmirched the First Amendment, their Constitutional role as government watchdogs, and forfeited the right to report the news, and thereby profit from news production and distribution. The sine qua non of journalism is the search for truth. Our Fourth Estate chose a different path. Punitive damages of one year’s annual revenue from each Defendant are being sought to establish a News Trust, that will free journalism and restore trust and integrity to our communications sources. A democracy cannot survive this tyranny over human consciousness.

***

Related:  William Shanley Discusses $1 Trillion Lawsuit