Friday, May 17, 2013

Sofia Smallstorm / James Tracy

The Latest on Sandy Hook

29 comments:

  1. I am still thoroughly convinced that Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill reported by the media as an actual shooting. I do not believe anyone was shot or killed there that day. Five months later and still not a single picture of even a bullet hole in a wall, or a single shot out window. Not even a photo of the broken glass entrance door that Lanza is said to have shot his way through in order to gain entrance into the school. Of course, that story changes with the wind also, the alternative one being that he was let in by the security desk, which brings us to two additional questions: If this was the case, why did the security person let him in while he was brandishing the alleged "long rifle", and why have they not yet released a single security video frame of Adam Lanza at the supposed crime scene?

    Add to this the bizarre behaviour of the victims parents in TV interviews given mere days later in which they are seen laughing, smiling, or trying to force fake tears.

    In an interview with Anderson Cooper, given I believe, on the day of their daughter's funeral, the father of six year old Grace McDonnell literally beams from ear to ear at the mention of her white casket. Guess he is just a proud dad. If you don't believe it, go to YouTube and check it out for yourself. It is very suspicious to say the least. Makes me think the daughter died previously to the Sandy Hook thing, or that she is a wholly fabricated entity.

    On another note - what is Tom Hanks doing playing the part of a witness to the arrest of alleged Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnov? Yes, you read that right - a man looking and sounding uncannilly like the actor appeared on a local Boston news broadcast. They are trying to say he is some guy named Gabe Ramirez, but if it aint Tom Hanks in heavy makeup I will eat my hat. Here is a link to the YouTube clip of the news broadcast featuring a witness said to be one "Gabe Ramirez" -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_218411&feature=iv&src_vid=MrNMhQ4Rx08&v=VS8CAUFFSMU

    If this is not Hanks, or a CGI simulation of him, then it is one hell of a coincidence. Kind of along the lines of the words Sandy Hook showing up on the Gotham City map in the last Batman movie, or what appears to be the same woman, with same voice, giving interviews as both a friend of Nancy Lanza's and as a Boston bombing witness. Maybe someone can explain this strangeness once and for all.

    Where is Harley Guy when you need him?

    Keep up the great work Jim, Prof. Tracy and Sofia. I look forward to interesting future interviews such as this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Hanks? Come on. Just because the guy has a voice that sounds a little like Tom Hanks doesn't mean that he IS Tom Hanks. You're almost as bad as Ed Chirani.

      Delete
  2. It seems the video link to the Gabe Ramirez interview posted above does not work. If you care to check out the uncanny similarity in both facial appearance and voice of this man to actor Tom Hanks go to YouTube and search for - "Confirmed: This Is Tamerlan Tsarnaev Being Arrested? 2013". Hanks[?] appears about 35 seconds into the clip. It is quite bizarre, regardless of whether you think it is a coincidence or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Uh, Tom Hanks is white buddy, the fella you are referring to isn't. I just watched the video you referenced.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I couldn't wait until this new interview with Sophia Smallstorm went up on the blog site, so a few days ago I posted some thoughts this interview sparked at the Smallstorm/Lake interview page here. I'll summarize and elaborate a little on the current page.

    Sophia's insight that the theatrical production we're being treated to by Homeland Security (DHS) is the two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional psychological operation, if I understand her correctly, is the key to Sandy Hook and other DHS hoaxes. They are like staged dramas in which the actor's mask has a dialectical character, that is, it embraces a coincidence of opposites, in this case both hiding and revealing. In a play, the actor's mask has this dialectical nature: it at the same time hides the actor's identity and reveals the character that lies beneath--the character that moves the drama along, that, within the scope of the drama, creates history. In these DHS hoaxes, the actor's real-life identity is inconsequential (it can even be a death's head!). It is the dramatis persōnae that the masks reveal (one of the meanings of the Latin word persōna is "mask") that is important---but this revelation is done at a subliminal level in the subconscious mind of the public audience.

    Each of these hoaxes is a typological re-presentation of previous hoaxes. The characters are timeless. Literary scholar John Hudson shows how this typological method is used with the Christian Gospels in this presentation. The typological construction of the drama is done to mask the god behind the characters, but also to reveal the god--the eternal character--to the subconscious. Those who believe that the Gospels were written by holy men will receive the "message" of the "Good News". But those who have accepted what John Hudson and Joseph Atwill have revealed in The Flavian Thesis (as I have) will know that what lies behind the masks is Caesar. As Joseph Atwill says, "Caesar wears religion like a mask." The collective myths of our culture constitute our religion, and they demand our obedience.

    The thought that came to me like an epiphany (pun very much intended) is that beneath the masks of these DHS crisis actors, for our subconscious minds alone to see, is our modern equivalent--our own equivalent of Caesar.

    In psychoanalysis, the process through which the subconscious phantoms come into view in the conscious mind is referred to, notably in the work of C G Jung, as "individuation". What is the object? Well, what I'm suggesting is that Caesar has the same opinion of his detractors now as two thousand years ago: they are wicked because their presumptuousness has deceived them that they have rights beyond their station. They are serfs whose demons lie to them and tell them that they are free. The message for our subconscious minds is a warning from Caesar: "submit or be damned." When the serfs have come to understand who they are, their individuation will be complete and they will be "healed".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow bill nice one. Check out my you tube channel odinrok

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. larry, you have really collected together some impressive videos related to Sandy Hook. I thought the "Strange Precognitive Happenings in the Forests of Sandy Hook Pre Event" was one of the most interesting, but I haven't watched the others (although I intend to). I don't think we've spent nearly enough time trying to untangle the web of deception that intertwines religious (or more accurately, pseudo-religious) mysticism, controlling psychology (employing sophisticated behaviorist manipulation), thinly veiled mortal threat, and probably many other methodologies the surface features of which I haven't even discovered. It's like watching a social-psychological version of the rape of Iraq: something like a complete devastation of our social fabric which parallels the devastation of the infrastructure Caesar wrought in Iraq and the whole list of countries Wesley Clark enumerated.

      Delete
    2. The last one I did was on the bomb threat at the st Lima church and the terrorization of sandy hook residents after the event

      Delete
  6. Everyone should watch this interview!

    CIA, MK Ultra & Origins Of Acid Counter Culture , Jan Irvin, Joe Atwill - May16, 2013‬


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeh, it's all "trippy" information (as the host starts out saying in your linked video, 911truthnc), but it provides more psychological insights--and thereby more insights into the mechanics of propaganda--than most of what we hear these days. All the work collecting and analyzing the evidential data is crucial for getting to the reality we're dealing with; but, as Sophia Smallstorm is telling us, this work is getting at things that lie in the two-dimensional. What we have to look at additionally is how the hoaxing is being used on the three-dimensional level to go deep into our mental make-up. My own social-psychology toolkit is inadequate to the task, but I hope I've opened up a discussion for us that competent people in the field can take off with.

      Jim, do you think this avenue is worth venturing onto? If so, perhaps you could invite Dr Alan Salerian back for an interview to bring some of his psychiatric insights to bear. I don't know how much of an interest he has in state-sponsored mind-control, but he's a maverick and thinks outside the box. His knowledge of the bureaucratic manipulations of the professions and the media would alone commend him for such a discussion. Additionally, Jim, your active part in the Salerian interview showed, to me at least, that your mind is admirably sharp-edged when it comes to holding your own in this arena. You could really pull the curtain back. You might even break into the Holy of Holies!

      Delete
    2. Heavens! How did I overlook one of my favorite quests, Jim Viken? He was interviewed in the second half of the program I linked to, after Salerian (above). Viken is a social psychologist, a Real Deal regular, and has discussed MK Ultra, as for instance here in company with Mike Sparks. Jim Viken said in that interview that he knows of "over 100 [Government] 'spychiatrists' that will go public and will tell the truth about what the Government's doing if they're given immunity and if they're protected". Mike Sparks is also a valuable source on MK Ultra.

      Delete
  7. "Uh, Tom Hanks is white buddy, the fella you are referring to isn't."

    I think you may need to see the eye doctor soon. Either that, or you didn't even look at the right video. The guy being interviewed is indeed Caucasian appearing, and he looks and sounds incredibally like actor Tom Hanks. Sorry, no cigar.

    I don't want to go the DallasGoldBug route (99% of his claims are ridiculous) but I stand by my original claim. The guy in the video looks and sounds uncannilly like Tom Hanks. I suppose it is probably a coincidence, but who knows? Could someone be screwing with our minds here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian,

      I enjoyed your post but the Hanks thing is a Stretch McCovey .... Now the Tom Cruise as a DR in Aurora makes more sense

      Delete
    2. Anyone seen Elvis lately?


      Thank you very much.

      Ah ho huh....

      Delete
  8. I do not know the truth of the matter, but it is clear that these sorts of false flag operations are designed to make people buy more guns, NOT the oppositte. Anyone who argues that these are perpetrated as a means toward gun control and gun removal are not thinking logically. Every time something like this happens gun sales go up radically. The powers behind these terrible events are seeking to arm americans, not disarm them, this is obvious. As to their exact motives, we can speculate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am quite surprised to see Fetzer espousing that the New York Times has a standard of outstanding reporting.

    The New York Times was financed by the Rothschild and is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the establishment.

    19:19 CFR & The Freedom of The Press
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4WDR-YCHQE

    ReplyDelete
  10. Where do you come up with this? I have often faulted The New York Times for biased reporting and even describe it as "a CIA newsletter".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At one point you quote Colby about the CIA controlling the media. I paraphrase "Up and including the New York Times. The nation's newspaper of record."

      I tried to find the another statement where you referred to the Times as being "prestigious". I could not find it easily.

      If I am mistaken there. I apologize.

      I think the right phrase to use to describe the Times. Would have been "The nation's newspaper of official propaganda."

      It just seems to me Dr. That you are supporting the establishment view relating to the Times.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    2. 911truthnc, I located the segment where Jim referred to The New York Times. It starts at minute 68:15. What you have to do is listen to what he said in context. Jim began by saying that "the CIA has representatives in virtually every newspaper in the country", then included the The New York Times, which he named when he finished the thought with "...up to and including The New York Times, which is our nation's newspaper of record." James Tracy added that The Boston Globe is itself owned by The New York Times--something I'd either forgotten or had never heard before. By the way, if you're listening on-line with the Apple(c) player, you won't get the clock: so, you may have to copy the link and paste it into the URL strip of an off-line player (I use Winamp(c)).

      I think it's a fair statement to say that The New York Times is "our nation's newspaper of record". What I'd take exception to is referring to this institution as " 'our' nation". As a fellow-Southerner, I think you were probably brought up nurturing the same doubt I was taught to have: to wit, as to whether it's "our" nation. I have to admit that I began to think of the U.S.A. as "my" nation for a while during which the South came to grips with its apartheid problem and the nation began to look as if it was going to stand out as a model of ethnic equality (incidentally, I don't like the word race because it's based on a discredited anthropological concept). But it wasn't long before I began to realize that it wasn't "my" nation for some other reasons quite opposite to the one I was brought up with, if you get my meaning.

      My current take is that the Civil War was a rebellion by the Northern States. The Congress was under the control of Southern legislators who kept the character of the Republic to the founding principles, which were based on the proposition that property rights overrode those of the human rights of African descendents. When I was growing up, even socially liberal Southerners were taught that those of African descent were less than human, so by that reasoning their enslavement or semi-enslavement was not strictly immoral.

      Little did we know, nor want to imagine, that the social class which ruled through each State's House of Burgesses (our sans coulottes, including admirable men such as Thomas Jefferson)--and who through the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congresses brought forth a revolutionary Republic--had the same, or nearly the same, opinion of Americans who were born outside their burgess class. This word burgess, incidentally, which has equivalents in other countries such as F bourgeois, Sp burgués, Gm Burger, and so on, has fallen out of historical favor because it discloses the class nature of American society. What we're seeing today, in my studied opinion, is the utter decadence of this burgess class--a class of men who in former times brought us one of the highest expressions of democracy the world had ever seen.

      Delete
    3. However, it was from the first, and still is, their nation, not "ours". So, what's particularly irksome to me is when Jim refers to our representatives, our military, our president, etc. These are burgess illusions: what class-conscious Europeans refer to as "bourgeois illusions". In America, we are so little class-conscious that our burgess masters haven't given a second thought to disappearing the term "working class" altogether and have gotten us to accept their classless term "middle class" to encompass everyone from the homeless and semi-starving day-laborer to the hardworking multimillionaire entrepreneur and "professional" who has no representation in the secret societies of class rule--and is therefore "outside the club".

      If the burgesses decide in the meetings of their secret clubs that fascism will be necessary to preserve the future rule of their class, then we will see "enabling acts" (Ermächtigungsgesetzen) put into law by Congressional mandate or by presidential decree (what was referred to in Czarist Russia as a ukase). And haven't we already seen that?

      If Jim's political acumen were as sharp as his keen insight into the mechanics of individual conspiracies, no one would ever have reason to look elsewhere but The Real Deal. Still, this is the first place I look to get analysis of breaking news. And his honesty is a welcomed refuge in a storm of contrived fantasies and poorly informed, poorly thought-out theories.

      Delete
  11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhGNidVSi8

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's simply... What's the word Jim uses? Striking? Great work, Larry! If I were a police professional, that's the kind of investigative work that would set my wheels turning. Peels away a huge layer of the onion. However, a thought has come to me recently... When all the layers of the onion are peeled away, will anything be left? Maybe, as in the case of the vegetable, the layers are all there is. Hope there'll still be a nation left to recover when we see the last of this infamy!

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEt1Wr6sjN4

    ReplyDelete
  14. the trouble is that people get into there little comfort zone watching tv eating snacks drinking beer they don't want to question things, it all starts with childhood, your told by your parents that santa is real then you grow up and find out he`s not and then you have kids and tell them the same thing ,BUT you dont think of it as your parents lying to you so what happens is on a subconscious level you know that lying is ok, santa was set up by the very same system that inslaves us

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4vyXiBKUd0

    ReplyDelete
  16. My favorite guest in a while. The only thing she didn't ask was "What if 3000 people didn't die on 9/11?" So what if, Jim? Doesn't that change everything? See my post at http://bit.ly/ZdNdwI

    ReplyDelete
  17. I really appreciated Sophia's attempt to think more holistically about the event. It reminded me of a pattern that Zizek has written about which is that of people not actually believing something but believing that others believe it - and that belief or ideology gaining power as a result. Meaning that no one actually has to believe that Sandy Hook really happened - the validation that it gets by being institutionally recognised is sufficient for people to believe that it's believed - and that's what they're really paying attention to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sofia has asked me to post this comment on her behalf as follows:

    You all are much more scholarly than I am! And thanks for all these enlightening responses. I try to stay away from the “Sandy Hook 101,” apart from acknowledging that there are loads of discrepancies and impossibilities. And I have also come to realize that one can have a "position" on something based on one's thinking and discoveries, rather than a "belief," which is often the result of being told something and not really thinking about it. To me, a "position" allows for shifting as new material is ingested, while a "belief" tends to be rigid and inflexible. Going beyond the 2-D mis-facts of Sandy Hook gets you into a place that permits more creative processing. I find that working backwards can reveal things that messing with the bits and pieces doesn't. We may never know exactly what happened: who did what and when. We are better off trying to figure out what they want from our response, which is actually a range of reactions. From this they can predict/design the future society. You could call it "market research," as a wise person told me. We are the market.

    ReplyDelete