How They Derail The Scrutiny
If you have human beings in the loop of what you employ, you have problems from the word go, and they are acutely aware of that fact. When they are traveling down the path of mirroring and impersonating me, while being on top of me like glue, they are mirroring not only my words, thoughts and ideas, but also the harm and hardship inflicted on us, their victims. When you scrutinize this, their fraud becomes increasingly apparent. They are stating the symptoms and how affected they supposedly are, when they are pretending to be victims of themselves. Then, with their audacity, they will be grossely associtated and involved with other sides of the fence of their program. Including presenting us suffering through those exact symptoms. I have used many examples for this, although to be brief, I will use the example of being on top of us, their victims, and imitating the symptoms as they exhibit themselves, As such, they minimize the significance of the harm and the hardship, which ultimately derails the scrutiny. They use this mechanism as a form of damage control, while they suppress the victim and the information, thereby fraudulently ensuring the derailment. Although, by doing so, they are confirming the existence of their program, and the use of human beings. As well as the symptoms, horror, and the harm and hardship. When this is scrutinized, they run for another side of the fence wanting no part of the side that is being scrutinized and what they were engaged in. You begin to recognize that they have a propensity to run and get in the fray of something else, such as President Clinton's statement. What is discernible when they are going down these paths of derailing the scrutiny is, even though it may be minimized, they are virtually stating what it is they are involved in and what the symptoms are. To very quickly build on the point that I was making, they play one side of the fence by mirroring or impersonating me and then want to state the symptoms in a minimized way to derail the scrutiny that would hold them accountable when that is examined. With their extremely biased view, they are able to hop from one side of the fence to another. They want to devoid information, such as this, when they present what would ensure they garner a desired response or decision on another side of the proverbial fence. The next moment, they are engaged in another side of the fence leveraging our suffering through it, to bolster another piece or fragment of their program. This could simply be trying to utilize it to bolster what their discrediting machine has slanderously presented. On this side they will present me struggling through those effects stating, not well spoken. However, two points need to be made. First, I would supply a number of people who have heard me speak in front of rooms full of people or conference rooms full of people. The only connection is they heard me speak. The minimum that they would state is that there is no problem to report. Second, If you hear me speak in public, there are no problems to report, although the more awareness you have, the more you hear the distress, and effects of what they employ.
Regardless of who is stating how adversely affected citizens are, there is a concern that is warranting that it gets above the threshold of awareness of society. When they have to address things such as the last sentence they will do everything they can, including reversing their tracks, attempting to put a lid on it gettting above the thresholds of not only society, but also those who would do a lot more scrutinizing. Some examples are the authorities or experts, as well as a medical professionals, especially at the time the harm is most prevalent. They are common citizens, like me, with the understanding ultimately we all are all citizens regardless of our positions in society. Additionally, there is an inherent problem if normal citizens are undergoing anything remotely close to what is being conveyed.
They need to be held accountable for when they were supposedly suffering the pain, agony, horror and suffering that we, their victims, had and/or have died from. As would be expected, when there is scrutiny, they want no part of what they presented, and they want to move quickly away from the severity. Originally, they derailed the scrutiny by presenting an extremely biased view and making sure this was the only view heard. By doing so, they minimize the harm and hardship and play multiple sides of the fence. A damning and simplified example of this is when they play the two sides of the fence or are engaged in employing their technology methods and techniques. The other side of the fence is when there is scrutiny and they run out and pretend to be victims themselves. Above this, they are communicating with each other. They are coordinating with each other. They are associating with each other. It is their involvement that is most concerning on a continual basis throughout the years. With this in mind, they continually fragment their program into smaller and smaller pieces until they can find some way to derail the scrutiny.
They will also use us suffering through the effects to undermine support systems or potential support systems. Ultimately, they want to burn those bridges of support. This ties in with a very well-known part of the way they function and operate their discrediting machine, which includes the slander and the mud. They use it not only to aggressively slander, but to falsely bolster the fragments of their program. A simplified example again will enable recognition of this part of their program when it is harder to identify. If they showed someone primping or straightening their tie, and then they showed it again, what they want from the supposed independent person is a response. Well, it looks like that person likes to straighten his tie a lot. It may have been the only two times that the person wore a suit and tie within a year or two. Once for a wedding and once for a funeral. What is important is they want, whether hard or easy to identify, to have someone bite on the bait that they are supplying, and make a statement. They then hide behind that and state something along the lines of, "Is it them?" pointing to or referencing what the person stated. As we gain an awareness foundation, the who, along with the deceit, is identifiable; who is supplying the information that ensured an outcome, and what other roles they have played. Ultimately, there will be a direct link back to those at the epicenter, or the core, of their organization. When they form smokescreens to shield themselves, it has to be asked, "What are you involved in and who are you involved with?" With near certainty, what they are presenting to garner those smokescreens that they can hide behind is dicey to begin with. These tactics and smokescreens are an integral part of the way they function and operate. These tactics are due to the severity of their behavior, and the severity of using human beings, which they are well aware of.
As they had people, bite on their bait, and then generated momentum behind that smokescreen, as time passes, they want another smokescreen in front of that one, because they want no part of the first smokescreen, which was originally generated to hide their behavior or disguise what it was that they were engaged in. One, you'll see them acting in ways that are flying in the face of what they stated a short time earlier or a short time later, because they want to elicit a different set of decisions or responses. Two, you will see them grossly involved, playing a different side of the fence. What are you doing involved in this? Why are you privy? Why are those who are playing the multiple sides of the fences privy? Why would you both be privy to such information? Where did the technology come from? How did it get employed? The more you are involved and attempt to rationalize your involvement, the more you will have a propensity to point a finger at those playing the multiple sides of the fences. Their deceit and fraud cannot stand in face of the smokescreens pointing back at them, while they are pointing at the smokescreens for a cover.
At this point, a lot more than their excuses for their involvement come to light, things that damn them come to light. The real reasons behind the fraud and deceit come to light, such as who employed it, the length of time it was employed, the harm and hardship caused, and the reason it was employed in the first place. And those who originally approached and/or recruited and are ultimately looking for a smokescreen are that same core and are at the epicenter. When you have the blatant fraudulent covers, or they want to go down the path that they have only been there a very short time. One drop of them being involved, affiliated, or associated with those who have been involved through the years, or who are playing the multiple sides of the fence, becomes quite damning. At some point those who are involved are aggressively and willfully stepping in front of something that is unparalleled as far as severity. Those who are involved will not only upon scrutiny immediately attempt to remove their involvement, but what information they are, or were, privy to. This includes aggressively removing being involved in supplying that information, and who they are, or were, affiliated with. It is outright condemning if what, those invovled, fraudulently presented to garner a decision gets back to those they supplied that information to. As well as the concerted effort to generate momentum behind the cover smokescreen. Upon a minimal amount of scrutiny, that kind of fraud and deceit begins to collapse. Simply their involvement with those who have been engaged through the years is condemning.
It is the covering that is worse than the original act. More times than not, with their less-than-one-sided view, the only view heard, they will begin to try to rationalize these types of things when there is scrutiny, and there doesn't need to be a lot. At these times you hear the deceit. They have to be held accountable, and then what they are engaged in becomes more and more apparent. You begin to realize how violent what they are engaged in is as the fragments to their program come together. This is something that they are aggressive at not allowing to happen and underpins why they are engaged in a gross way in the deceit and fraud of creating the smokescreens. We must never forget that there are human beings in the loop of what they employ, and the harm and hardship inflicted on other human beings. This is the definition of violent.
One of the first things that becomes apparent is how they are minimizing the harm and hardship. One of the ways that they accomplish this is by mirroring me to no end. They do this for several reasons, although the point that needs to be made now is that they, through employing their technologies and the use of the resources of their organization, can glean what is exhibiting itself in two basic ways. One, what is exhibiting itself physically as far as a symptom, and two, how I am addressing the harms and hardships. They glean a lot when they go down these paths and then pretend to be victims of themselves, while minimizing the harm and hardship. An example of this is mirroring me and attempting to minimize the symptoms. Once again when they do this, they confirm both the severity of the harm and its existence.
They also use verbiage that is revealing, although in other fragments they ensure that when those symptoms are complained about, or the verbiage is used by their victims, their victims are labeled, as well as anyone attempting to address the issue outside their ability to have damage control is also labeled as daffy. When they have done this, they are virtually stating what is causing it and pointing to the exact spot. When I put light on this point, they move a little bit away from that exact spot they were pointing to, because they were disclosing where they were supposedly harmed, what would cause it, and how to discern that harm. They then pointed to the general area. As they go down a path such as this, attempting to minimize, a huge amount of much needed information can be discerned about what is causing the harm. They cannot harm themselves in this "grievous way," although we, their victims, will have the harm and/or will have died from this harm and hardship. To minimize, they will scratch themselves, slightly harming themselves to bolster their pretending to be victims, or will state the symptoms. Because they are not exhibiting the harm to get the results they are stating, they are alluding to exactly the harms, and why it would be inflicted. Ensuring enough time passes typifies how they have time to cover. If they did not have time, and were held accountable, a lot would be gleaned to help those they inflicted the harm on. Also, things lose their significance as time passes.
They have to have inflicted harm and there needs to be much more time than they want or can admit to to get the results. Also, what they employed to get even the minimized version unto itself damns them. They do not want what they present when they are minimizing a different fragment to come to light, especially to the attention of their victims. They need to move away from how and what they presented. This is due not only to the scrutiny, but the reasons they originally took a fragment and fragmented it to the point where they could find something to derail the scrutiny no longer serves their needs and becomes an Achilles heel. They need the issue to go away so they can move forward. Just their involvement damns them, or dating them along the timeline damns them.
They need to be held accountable for the symptoms that they did lift, the symptoms that they did present in a minimized way. When they have acted in this manner they confirm how our brains, minds, and bodies are affected, such as the brain and nervous system being affected, and how the different systems of the body are affected.
A couple examples would be chattering of the teeth for years, along with the three things stated example. Elaborating on the "three things stated" example. If someone were to state three things, such as: ceiling, floor, and computer cable, our their victims' brains are so adversely affected that you cannot, as I cannot, repeat those three things. If someone patiently states it again, you again cannot recall those three things. The way to convey what it is and the sensation of what it is, computer cable, becomes further and further away in your mind, harder and harder to recall; you can feel it. You can sense it. Instantly, further and harder to recall. When you attempted to recall the first two things, the memory is blank; as you come back to the last item computer cable, and attempt to recall it, that memory is blank. Keep in mind that when we become aware, they can intensify what they employ to mind-bending levels.
Another symptom is as I breath out, they yank my breathe in. As I breath in, they yank my breathe out, for hours on end, especially when in a relaxed state such as reclining on the couch watching TV, or, for that matter, in bed. If I was to develop this fuller I would say the breathing mechanism is operating in reverse. We all have a diaphragm as part of our anatomy under our lungs which is part of the breathing mechanism. You can noticeably feel and at times see that the whole system is acting in reverse, although struggling I am inhaling and exhaling normally the mechanism is reverse. When they are increasing the intensity of what they employ, normal motions are very noticeably affected. The bottom line is the horror that my breathing is affected. Keep in mind the awareness foundation that I have built many times or that I am assuming is in place. I have assumed the basic awareness building material I supplied earlier has been read, such as President Clinton apologizing for thousands of experiments using U.S. citizens.
Again, for brevity, I have addressed the following and I am assuming that this basic awareness is also part of a foundation. There are two main reasons why it gets above our awareness threshold. One, the intensity of what they were employing ensured that it would, and they are well prepared for that time. Two, we gleaned too much information for their liking. Either way, they use the same mechanism typified by how they are on top of me like glue. When it does get above our awareness threshold it is disconcerting, as you could imagine. Although it's twice as disconcerting to realize that someone was adversely affecting our lives long before we became aware.
It is very important for me to attempt to convey that when we begin to get that awareness foundation due to it being intensified, we become acutely aware that we were affected before that point when we did become aware. Unlike many of us who become aware, there are those who are unaware and may never become aware. This is a big part the motivation of my activism.
As they mirror me and they lift my words, thoughts, and ideas, to minimize the impact of them. In their continual attempt to minimize they take the three points example, and the last statement about the unwitting victim's awareness. This damns them if they are held accountable. This is in part due to their involvement, playing the different sides of the fence, and attempts to falsely bolster those sides of the fence or fraud as they needed to evade the scrutiny. As you start to pick up on their tactics you begin to realize that with only a small percentage of the fragments, the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together and they form a fuller and fuller picture.
The different systems of the body are grossly affected by what they employ. The big one would be the brain and nervous system. There are times where you could see the concern internationally being voiced by foreign governments as well as our government in the same confined time period.
It needs to be mentioned at this juncture that they can and they do inflict pain. I've used the terminology deer in the headlight pain. I can very easily develop this, although I need to convey it so the message is received in an optimum way. If I use an analogy of someone who has a sciatic nerve, it would be contingent on you being aware of what that is, or you having firsthand knowledge of someone who has suffered in such a way. If you are aware of this type of pain you can relate to and ground the information being conveyed. To someone who is not it would start to drift, and the subject matter is hard enough to ground as it is.
I do want to take a few sentences to relay to you the pain they can inflict. As I stated, I use deer in the headlight pain. You freeze in pain. If you have something in your hand you are in the mindset to drop it unless it's very, very important. You are stiff as a board. Just moving is agony. Perhaps you grab for your cell phone to call a loved one, or have it in your hand to be prepared to call 911. As adults, we keep our head on our shoulders. In the sciatic nerve example, there is not much you can do about the grievous pain, so you lie on the couch, dreading moving in any way, which would cause the sharp pains that I am referring to as freezing like a deer in the headlight. As I make it back to the car, looking at the open door and the front seat, I can't bend to get in that car. I am looking at the backseat and thinking if I could only get in to the backseat I could lie down for 15 or 20 minutes and get my druthers about me. Nothing can convey that type of pain. Please keep in mind that it was an example in case it needs to be relayed what that type of pain is, which ensures that the pain they can put our brains/nervous systems, and the different systems of the body in, is conveyable.
Now it is important to realize that I have also addressed how they present us as saying, "Okay" to someone in an elevator or "Thank you" to a clerk as they make our change, and then with a degree of probability they set something up so someone asks us, "How is it going?" and we say, "Okay." Even someone who had a painful and agonizing day says, "Thank you" to the clerk. Regardless of the intent, I have learned to state, "Hanging in there" when someone asks me, "How's it going?", Due to their ability and propensity to use that type of thing to cover their behavior and harm and hardship inflicted on me, there needs to be something stated that conveys they will lay in wait for this type of thing, or wait for the pain lesson and present it. For example, with the person with the sciatic nerve, three weeks, four weeks, or six months later he may be found trying to build strength and be found at the health club doing a light workout, or even golfing, although when that sciatic nerve acts up it is a struggle to conduct his daily routine, yet alone think about physical activity. It is sheer agony simply to make it to the bathroom. In the same breath, it needs to be stated if you have an appointment, if you have to go shopping, or you have to make it down the stairs to let someone in the door, you still accomplish most of if not near all the necessary tasks, albeit in pain. It is just agony to move.
They lift the symptoms, while mirroring me, such as the breathing, the three points stated, or the chattering of the teeth for years, which are all are part of the whole and what is at hand.
Something that I have complained about through the years is when there is scrutiny on what they have lifted, while mirroring me, albeit devoid of the whole, they have admitted to it, and the harm and hardship. They will run for the fray of something else, wanting to shed the scrutiny on this severity. That could be anything that will serve the purpose of just blurring the issue, or removing from the variables of what they already presented. For example, they will run for the fray of President Clinton's statement. Given enough time, they will be back to trying to reclaim the symptoms, or what is exhibiting itself, ensuring the complaints from their victims about the pain, the agony, the horror and the suffering are derailed or fall dead. This is due to their ability to present their less-than-one-sided, the only, view heard. Again, just those two fragments are in direct contradiction to one another and you begin to go down the path of realizing it is simply the fraud that underpins their program as a whole, which is due to the severity of what they are engaged in coming to light. At that point, the fragments, as they come together, need to be held as one, or they will simply go down the same well-greased path attempting to fragment their program, addressing one thing devoid of the whole. They are also well practiced at removing something from the whole having it weakened simply by it being removed from the whole.
Ultimately they are trying to suppress their victims and the information. Part of hiding their victims is mirroring and preempting us. What they are confirming is that it is loose in society. Also, they are confirming that they have the ability to influence behavior and decision making. At this point, I bring up the pretty girl and the salesman examples. It is out of control simply based on the pretty girl example. You can see when they try to claim the symptoms so they can perform damage control as information percolates through the barrier, and then when something like this is stated they want no part of it, nor the scrutiny. This is due to the fact that the fragments will begin to come together to form a fuller and fuller picture. They will at this time look for something to shed the scrutiny; with a high degree of probability it will be in direct contrast to what they're currently presenting. What they are stating is flying in the face of what they stated a short time earlier or a short time later on a continual basis. Whose hands it is in is as concerning as what they employ.
"They could be accused, you know."
A very poignant example of this would be the path of least resistance example that I have used many times. That example is as follows. They enter our homes without permission whether we are there or not. If they move us or have us act and react without awareness, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this is considered kidnapping. However, they will state that they did not touch us. At that juncture, their actions would be considered home invasion, which is still very severe. A week or a month later, they will want people to witness them breaking and entering, attempting to falsely demonstrate that nobody was home. Then they want these people to create a smoke screen, by adamantly as possible verifying that nobody was home. Then they state "they could be accused you know" of home invasion and kidnapping. This is in their continual attempt create a cover, or smokescreen to prevent their actions and the different fragments of their program from coming together.
At that point, what they present has absolutely nothing to do with the issue as a whole. With their biased view, they want to garner momentum or legs beneath that smoke screen, or derailing mechanism. Simply dating or holding them accountable for their involvement along the timeline will damn them. At this juncture, it is extremely important to realize that moving forward, they will attempt to remove even this minimized version. They continually do this by minimizing and not allowing this information into the next piece or fragment of their program, or what they present. A simplified example, such as this real world example, aids in identifying this well greased tactic of theirs, particularly when it is difficult to understand. The analogy or example that I often use is a fencepost with multiple fences coming together at that point—they are simply hopping from one side to another on a continual basis. They continually do this in order to shed the scrutiny that is upon them, due to the gravity of the situation. However, what they are stating is flying in the face of what they stated a short time earlier, or have stated a short time later. What also damns them is dating them up to that point along the timeline, just as we would hold them accountable for their actions moving forward. Holding them accountable for their involvement, their statements and their actions will cause their fraud and deceit to collapse. Their program is built on fraud and deceit and has a fraudulent foundation at the core. They realize this, and this is why they suppress information and their victims. They want to retard or restrict others from information, which should immediately be a giveaway that there is something off.
"they could be accused, you know", of human right abuses. If someone was before me stating that, I would think that they were so far across the line that their concern is an apparent whitewash or smoke screen. If they are that grossly across the lines, you wonder what they did to get to that point. The concerns, at that point, are severe, and it is apparent what they are engaged in and attempting to do, which is to garner that deflection or smoke screen. It is a deceitful admission, especially when you begin to gain an awareness, or when you go back and look at their behavior and hold them accountable for the multiple sides of the fence they play. What comes to light is not only their deceit, but also the multiple schemes and scams they engaged in to shed the scrutiny.
For example, once the path of least resistance example gets to the point where you start to hear them state they are breaking in and entering, you can see there's no one home and they could be accused of kidnapping or home invasion. You can often hear the commonality in their verbiage. Once they have accomplished shedding the scrutiny, you can start to hear them go down the path calling their victims, anyone who would complain about it, daffy. Nutty. They want it to fall short or for those who are predisposed to act on that predisposal if their victims do complain. A moment earlier they were confirming the existence, the harm and hardship, as well as confirming the pain, agony, horror and suffering. If the information that damned them came to light prematurely, they would not only have garnered themselves an opposite decision or response, but a condemning decision or response.