I tune into this show every once in a while, but I must say the show is oh so hot, now I am sure many people have come to this conclusion before, but I could not help but notice the realistic look and portrayal of the show and the characters. The actors are quite believable, and the show just pulls you in, or at least it’s pulled me in, and I can just say, Scandal, it’s hot, oh so very hot, and yes I am hooked on the show just a little bit.
Considering what I have time for in this world, which is not a great deal, Scandal is on show that I am happy enough to have come across.
When I first began this adventure, I didn’t think that bloodlines were that important a topic, Blue Bloodlines, Royal Bloodlines, and Bloodlines in general, but as I have done more research, I am clear on something, wither we like them or not, they are the ties that bind, the ties that hold you together. There are a few ways that you can be removed from your bloodline, spiritually, and on earth.
I think if you go the distance, and truly disgrace your bloodline you can be cut off, or truly attempt to link your bloodline, to a truly offensive source, you can be cut off. In some cases you would just not be acknowledged, sometimes through no fault of your own.
What I am now clear on is I take the matter a bit more seriously. I am clear why Royal families of the past, or Bloodline families married each other, and married into specific situations, or at least mated with each other, and seemed to stay away from other lines or relations. I am also clear why some branches were cut off, or let go.
I am also clear on the curses affiliated with some situations, and curses that can be called upon some situations. I am clear why Monarchs of times past, reserved the right to confirm, deny, or approve marriage unions. I am not a snob but honestly, having researched those previous practices, now make sense to me. I think it’s ok to have marriages approved, and approvals given.
I am well pleased with some of the previous laws that some are currently trying to abolish in regards to male line inheritances, and if some religions can marry into specific situations. In doing the research I am clear as to why the laws were written, why no one in previous times dared to even try to remove the laws, and why those trying to remove specific laws, don’t make sense to me.
David Cameron’s speech makes it clear that the new rules are not retroactive, so Prince Charles’s eldest sibling, Anne, will not be in line to the throne in front of her younger brothers Andrew and Edward.
It also means that any heir born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can marry a Catholic and retain the crown.
I disapprove to the stage it does not make sense, changing some of these laws, they might seem irrelevant, but the inheritance rules make sense, when you change them, and you have a purely male title being passed to the female line, reparations do not seem to be in place for that. Also now that marriages will not need approval, you can have someone marry into the situation purely for the sake or joy of removing the situations from their very existence.
King George I, Queen Victoria, and previous rulers and their laws made sense, they created laws that enabled common marriages for the colonies, and legitimatizes for reasons, many individuals, think and believe that, just because you exist in modern day times these rules do not exist, or can so easily be abolished, but when you remove the foundations, it causes problems down the line. The English Catholic, or rather Protestant Catholic issue was legendary, but it’s not clearly no longer an issue for those who will change the rules.
Prime Ministers have arrived and gone, and refused to change the rules, not because they did not understand or comprehend the issues, but because they did, they have never dared to change the rules, because they are likely cognizant of the future, ramifications, and until contingencies are in place to deal with those, none had dared to try to change the rules or the laws until now.
Catherine Middleton and Williams Child,
I think it’s cute that the child is related to Hollywood Royalty, I would still like to see the charts, hopefully from a reliable company,
but I think it’s cute, without reading the article, Prince William not only now has a bit of Indian Heritage, via Diana, which is not necessarily a bad thing, I thought Harry would also be listed, but William has Indian Heritage, which is pretty neat.
Tests on two of her descendants, third cousins of William’s maternal grandmother, Frances Shand Kydd, show the presence of DNA found only in South Asia and passed down the motherline to every child; this, in the words of BritainsDNA, confirms beyond doubt that the housekeeper-mistress, Eliza Kewark, was of Indian heritage.
I think I recall an article about Queen Charlotte, and if you go far back enough, there is likely some black, or bi-racial ancestry. which is interesting, cause in a way if you go far back enough in history, most people are a little bit related, but you would not necessarily want to acknowledge a relation to everyone listed.
old on, you might be saying. Britain has had a black queen? Did I miss something? Surely Helen Mirren played Charlotte in the film The Madness of King George and she was, last time I looked, white? Yet the theory that Queen Charlotte may have been black, albeit sketchy, is nonetheless one that is gaining currency.
If you google Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, you’ll quickly come across a historian called Mario de Valdes y Cocom. He argues that her features, as seen in royal portraits, were conspicuously African, and contends that they were noted by numerous contemporaries. He claims that the queen, though German, was directly descended from a black branch of the Portuguese royal family, related to Margarita de Castro e Souza, a 15th-century Portuguese noblewoman nine generations removed, whose ancestry she traces from the 13th-century ruler Alfonso III and his lover Madragana, whom Valdes takes to have been a Moor and thus a black African.
I can only concur, that my bloodline, family line, family heritage, or what have you, is a little too rich, to be claiming relations to Hollywood Royalty, so unless actually related, let me count myself out of being related to the Middleton’s, Windsor’s, or anyone who’s a little too rich for my blood at the moment thanks.
I think it’s cute, that the child of William and Catherine, are going to be related to (Beyonce & Jay-Z) Blue Ivy Carter, Angelina and Brad Pitt’s six children, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, their 2 children, plus countless others. See it just goes to show, that you don’t have to have a bloodline match to make the grade, or the cut, and be related to everyone.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s baby will also be distant cousins with Celine Dion’s three children, as well as the children of Maggie Gyllenhaal, star The Dark Knight, and Kill Bill actress Uma Thurman.
Kate and William’s first child will also be related to a host of Hollywood stars, including Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck, according to family-tracing website findmypast.co.uk.
Hollywood mother Hilary Duff, making her son Luca 19th cousin to the Royal baby.
I am just trying to figure out why baby (Kayne & Kim ‘s) NOrth WEst, was not included in this line up. So looking forward to purchasing her fashion line.
What I will say is that the ties that bind, are very specific, and I have no specific relations, that I can or am willing to claim, to anyone in that most charming article, but it’s good to know that their is Hollywood Royalty out there, and that most of them are related, if you go far back enough. Can the Hollywood Royal children now be in line to the throne?
The ties that bind, are the ties that hold us together in all seriousness. Families of the past married into specific situations for specific reasons, I am not a snob, but in doing the research into something I thought was rather, none relevant, I see the reason these situations are, and were relevant, and need to be acknowledged, and documented a specific way.
I am seeing too many traditions in recent times broken, I am all for modernization, but I am not for breaking, or doing away with traditions, that are relevant or necessary, especially if you are doing away with those traditions, because someone failed to meet the necessary requirements.
Rulerships have a specific spiritual element, as well as earth element attached, rulership, true rulerships, have roots routed in traditions for a reason, and until a true heir is in place, some of those signs, wonders, traditions, what have you, etc, will not show, or be readily present. We are so very modern are we not, but we are forgetting, why people wanted Kings, Queens, and royal lines or specific bloodlines in the first place, it was said, there were specific properties attached to those lines that were not readily apparent, or inherent in other lines. If it was true then, it’s likely true now, and if so, I do not want to see those traditions, those ties that bind, removed for no good reason.
It’s a girl
Congrats to KIM K & KANYE West on the birth of their new baby girl. Glad to
see that things are going suitable for these two individuals. If they name the
baby North, West, it would seriously be cool, but then she has to watch out for
guys, with lame pick up lines, such as hello there, your’ North, which way is
South? Otherwise it would be a cool choice, either way, best of luck.
Plus if you go with North West, people can figure out which baby fashion line to look forward to in future.
But new mother Kim is said to be seriously considering naming her first child ‘North’.With the child taking her father Kanye’s surname the youngster would be ‘North West’.According to InTouch: ‘North is at the top of the list of names’
That Middleton girl
.Mr Prentis went on: ‘In the tabloid press, so much is written about benefits abuses – young women having babies to get state hand-outs. ‘But conference, that’s enough on Kate Middleton.’
I’d like to think that Kate Middleton’s handouts are a little bit better than what most young women in her situation recieve.
Author Hilary Mantel’s described her as a ‘shop-window mannequin’ with a ‘plastic smile’
And newspaper columnist Joan Smith dismissed the Duchess as ‘unambitious and bland’ and Britain’s ‘Queen Wag.’
‘The Duchess of Cambridge has faced repeated criticism since marrying Prince William two years ago.’
To be completely honest, this young woman has gotten more free passes, and
more free rides than the world U.K, or the world knows, what to do with, yet
the situation continues. At times she has been enabled to ride so hard on
Diana, a Princess of Wales reputation it did not make sense. Diana was a
young woman who paved the way for this person., Diana came into her own
after years, and months of some struggle and hardship, removing barriers, this young woman, and so many others not longer have to bridge, or break. She became who she became in a time before youtube over night fame, or twitter fame was heard of. In a time when the previous monarchy was antiquated. Diana was charitable, and loved the charities she represented. She actually showed up for events, and people didn’t actually
have to wonder, if she was going to actually do something, or just go on the
Kate Middleton’s criticism has been much less than what it could be, if there is criticism, it’s because people see this, or they see that, and they hold back as long as humanly possible before weighing in on, what needs to be said, or made mention. To think that it literally has been two years about, till they have finally started to speak up just a little bit, speaks volumes, in and of itself.
When people do personal comparisons, or even just comparisons in general, and they do, and they are clear, that their are short comings, if anything, most people just overlook the glaring truths in front of them and think, well at least Diana’s cub, married someone who
seems to make him happy. Indeed.
William seems happy enough on the outside, those friendly public displays of
affection with Catherine, which have been described as friendly brother and
sister kisses, seem happy enough, but then so did Charles and Diana at the
onset, the difference with Charles and Diana is, I believed Charles and Diana at the onset,
and I am clear that she wanted it to work out, she was in my opinion, in love with Charles, she was young, niave, and well she was what the world needed and wanted, she indeed was a Princess, and a very much beloved one, just not necessarily by the person, or persons, whom she wanted to love her the most.
Others have gotten into situations, have not done half, not even quarter of what
Diana did, in her lifetime, and I do mean lifetime, she paved the way, they have not had to endure the censure she endured, yet they have benefited from all her praise, all her glory,
in some cases. Take care.
Girl meets world
I am not the type who would seem like a fan, but I am out here, and I am saying good luck with the new series, ‘girl meets world’, picks up with the teenage daughter of Corie and Tapanga, also some guest appearaces from previous cast members.
In an unsurprising move, Disney Channel is greenlighting “Girl Meets World,” a spinoff of the popular ABC series “Boy Meets World.”
The sitcom centers around Riley Matthews (Rowan Blanchard), the tween daughter of Cory and Topanga Matthews. Ben Savage and Danielle Fishel reprise their famous roles as seen in the above official photo from the New York City-set series.
Looking forward to seeing the series, loved the old series, looking forward to seeing Shawn and Angela make an appearances, as well as the siblings of Corey, and Shawn. Take care.
This is just a quick update of a much longer post what does it mean to be a Targeted Individual. The only thing of warning I wanted to update is that for the females out there, because of the nature of the targeting and what they are trying to achieve you might get more Electronic, microwave, or x-ray radiation slightly before and during your cycle culmination, (menstruation). So be on your guard and it might not be a bad idea to make sure that your shielding is enforced during these periods.
The goals might be multifaceted. Along with the eugenics aspect, the secondary goal might be to induce cancers or other kinds of conditions of ill health. Trying to find out more on the agenda of this.
The Tuskegee experiment was not just an experiment, it’s a prevailing attitude the government has about it’s right to experiment on the general population, but more importantly who it can get away with experimenting on.
Remember that program ran for 50 years and everyone had knowledge about it all the way up to the Surgeon General.
[quote]To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.[/quote]
What get’s me about this is people are always saying if conspiracies were happening, someone would talk about it, someone would say something, well for 50 years, no one did. It was not just a few people who knew about this experiment, but so self righteous were they in their objective, that they put aside the humanity of these people and went on with the experiment, trusting in the prevailing racial attitudes of the time that these men, their families and children would be of a lesser value, a lesser people. The people who took part in the behind the scenes experimentation were both black and white.
[quote] It takes little imagination to ascribe racist attitudes to the white government officials who ran the experiment, but what can one make of the numerous African Americans who collaborated with them? The experiment’s name comes from the Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. A black nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the experiment for most of its forty years. The promise of recognition by a prestigious government agency may have obscured the troubling aspects of the study for some. A Tuskegee doctor, for example, praised “the educational advantages offered our interns and nurses as well as the added standing it will give the hospital.” Nurse Rivers explained her role as one of passive obedience: “we were taught that we never diagnosed, we never prescribed; we followed the doctor’s instructions!” It is clear that the men in the experiment trusted her and that she sincerely cared about their well-being, but her unquestioning submission to authority eclipsed her moral judgment. Even after the experiment was exposed to public scrutiny, she genuinely felt nothing ethical had been amiss.
One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment was how zealously the PHS kept these men from receiving treatment. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, the men were prevented from participating. Even when penicillin was discovered in the 1940s—the first real cure for syphilis—the Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the medication. During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their success, the PHS representative announced: “So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment.” The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization’s Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that “informed consent” was needed for experiment involving human beings.[/quote]
So here we have doctors, nurses and a zillion others, who were all aware, all covering up, and all keeping it quite, all proud of what they were doing, no moral authority, no outrage, and even when the truth came out, they felt that they had done nothing wrong, or that they were just following orders.
What really stands out to me, that I discovered recently is that in 1976 Gay men in New York/San Francisco were offered free Hepatitis B vaccines. The thing that really struck me is that on those posters they used this slogan.
[quote]Last Chance for gay men to join the Hepatitis B* Vaccine Program![/quote]
This happened in 1976? Just 4 years after they had to stop the Tuskegee experiment. Plus the usual investigations into their wrong doings, which never amounts to anything. What stands out are the similarities with the slogans and the “last chance for free vaccination” line, vs “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.”
[quote]Unlike most Americans, Africans are aware of the man-made theory of AIDS, and the possibility that the WHO’s extensive vaccine programs in Africa in the 1970s are connected to the severe outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s.
On May 11, 1987, The London Times, one of the world’s most respected newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, “Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus.” The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa. Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a “dormant” AIDS virus infection on the continent.
Many people allude to the fact that AIDS started in the gay community, and many of the people who had undergone the special Hepatitis B Vaccination program were the first to come down with AIDS. Also the African AIDS is said to have started after the American outbreak, with people taking part in similar vaccination programs coming down with AIDS first.
If this is true, it would mean these types of experimentation’s that were prevalent and condoned by the U.S. government for over 50 years, might have just continued on in a different form with a different virus.
Again going after targeted communities where they felt that their actions would far outweigh the consequences based on who was being targeted. Those attitudes have not changed significantly, when it comes to experimentation’s as we saw with MK Ultra and other such programs.
There are a large number of females, ethnic minorities targets in the Targeted Individual community. As the post goes on to say the reason for the more women than men, might have a eugenic aspect to it. They might be simply trying to make sure that you can not give birth to the next generation of independent free thinkers, and thus free people. It’s no accident that there is a multi-generational aspect to the targeting.
I thought it was important enough and so I would update you on it.
[quote]“For some reason, there are considerably more women targeted than men. Why would women be targeted at a much higher percentage than men? This is another question we may never have the answer for, so this is partially speculation. But one possible answer is that the elite have sponsored eugenics projects worldwide for decades. Removing fertile females from a target population is apparently a standard eugenics procedure. Families such as DuPont, Harriman, & Rockefeller have funded projects for population control.
“It was John D. Rockefeller III who was appointed by Richard Nixon as chairman of the newly created Commission on Population Growth and the American Future,” stated Allen. He quotes Rockefeller as saying, “Rather than think of population control as a negative thing, we should see that it can be enriching.” Allen contends, “Curbing population growth is just part of the Rockefeller war on the American family.”[/quote]
If you are a chic and you are targeted, expect them to try to fry, microwave your reproductive organs, and if you are lucky enough to still be able to get pregnant after that, then expect them to try to go after your child in-utro. If you are pregnant, my suggestion, don’t mention it. If they have not already tried to destroy your reproductive organs, or unborn, then don’t give then reason to.
The thing about being female is you carry all the eggs you will ever have, and if they do fry and destroy what you have, that might be it, well expect for cloning ofcourse.
If you are a guy, expect them to go after the nether regions, luckily guys can reproduce from scratch and it won’t mess up your reproductive organs, unless they use the radioactive stuff like they did in East Germany.
Still you are better off being a guy than a female when it comes to this aspect of the targeting.
People you never want to see get back together again.
This post has very little to do with gang stalking it’s mostly just fluff.
I was on the Internet the other day and I saw a picture of Briney Spears and Justin Timberlake and the caption was something like back together again.
I was like what. So I read the article, and it was just about them appearing on stage together again, thanks to Madonna.
I was relieved, but then I thought about it. I mean would it be so bad if these two kids got back together again? I don’t know how I feel about this one, but there are couples out there that I never want to see get back together again.
My top favorites I have mentioned before, but I will recap.
Now had they lived in modern day times, Samson and Delilah. Never want to see these two together again. One minute he’s nice and normal killing lion’s and eating honey out of their carcasses, the next minute he’s building bombing philistines. What’s up with that?
(Please take this post in the humorous context that it’s meant to be taken in.)
Charles and Diana. Had she lived, I would not want to see these two get back together. Reading and watching bit’s of her biography, I was really saddened to see what this pretty princess went through in silence. I think some people just have a bad effect on other people. I think that relationship did not reflect well on either party and how could it, when there was a third party involved for most of their marriage.
I think seeing Charles now with Camilla, we see him truly acting the part of the prince for the person he really loves, and yes it clearly makes a difference.
I think just before she died, it was nice to watch Diana regain a bit of what she had lost during the Charles years, but they get my vote for the never getting back together list.
Who knows in another lifetime it might have worked out.
Britney Spears and K-Fed. Now I was never really a Britney fan, but this made me really sympathetic towards her. Sure it was uncool for her to take K-Fed from Shar in the first place, and I was say the head shaving, mental hospital thing kind of balanced out the karma, but I felt really bad for her.
I would not want to see Britney back in this relationship. Yeah I know they have kids, but I think the effect he had on her was pretty devastating.
It actually left him looking like the stable party out of the two, and the more fit parent. I saw a YouTube video which really opened up my eyes about the effect he had on her, and it was not good.
I think some people bring out the best in others, and some people because they don’t have anything to give, or they don’t have any value in the person, brings out the worst and bring them down to the lowest common denominator possible.
They also get my vote on the not getting back together list.
Whitney and Bobby. Again what can I say. Away from Bobby, Queen of pop, respectable, high class, the greatest love of all, on the bobby train, spiraling out of control, drugs, not singing, paternity suits, him cheating on her, not a good look.
This also left Bobby at times looking like the more stable of the two. I again think it’s a value issue. If you are around people that do not love you, or value you, I think this is the sort of effect that we start to see.
For these two getting back together. I am going to say hopefully not, not my idea of a fairytale ending.
Oh Ike and Tina. I don’t think I have to say anything else here.
The point is if you are around people who do not value you, eg. Gang Stalking parasitic elements on a daily basis, people who don’t care about you, who do not value you, who do not have he best intentions towards you, it can bring out the worst in you. It can send you spiraling out of control, and bring you down to the lowest common denominator. Many people exist in the world that are just like that. Emotional sappers as Mark M. Rich calls them. They literally feed on the energy of others.
Anyways it shows that people can go through some challenging situations and still come out of it ok. It takes a lot to turn your life around when you have been through a train wreck of a situation but it is possible.
Gang Stalking is no different, we can find ways to rise above what is happening to us. I am not saying it will be easy, or even 100% but you can rise above challenging situations. You have to. Things can bring you down, but then you have to fight you way back up and out of whatever is dragging you down.
It’s the challenge that we face everyday, some better than others. I do get some of the emails. It’s possible though. Take it apart one thing at a time. Find a work around, one thing at a time. If they are taking away your sleep, focus on finding a way to sleep. Then meet the other challenge, until you find a way to conquer what is happening. Go after one element at a time.
Anyways to situations that do have happy endings, if they are still out there, I wish them well. To those in the world that help others to get through challenges, or fight for those they care about to bring them back from challenging situations, light like that is needed and appreciated in the world.
This article came out about a month ago, but it’s a great article about being single. I think the difference between being single and happy and being single and miserable is all about choice. If you choose to be single, then it’s one thing, but if you don’t then it can be a living misery. Also if you choose not to be single for the wrong reasons it can also be a huge misery. I think in this as with anything you have to find out what works for you. Also remember that at different stages in your life, what worked yesterday, might not work tomorrow.
[quote]I’m fifty-four years old and I have always been single. I love my single life. But for a long time I rarely said that out loud. I thought I was the only happy single person.[/quote]
NO there seem to be a lot more happily single people in the world. I think it’s only the perception that has thrown others off. Being single can be a good thing if that is where you are at.
[quote]Years later after I had read hundreds of scientific studies about marital status, happiness, and discrimination, and after I conducted my own program of research, I realized that much of the conventional wisdom about people who are single was either grossly exaggerated or just plain wrong. The place of singles in society and the significance of getting married have changed dramatically over the past decades. But our views of single and married people have not yet caught up.[/quote]
The perception is if you are single, male or female that you can’t be perfectly happy, and the reality is, with modern day society you can be. More so infact than some of your married counter parts. Now I am not knocking marriage or being not single, but I am just pointing out that there are an increasing amount of happy single people out there.
[quote] In one set of studies, for instance, we created profiles of married and single people that were exactly the same (in terms of the person’s age, hometown, interests, employment, and so forth) except for their marital status. In one experiment after another, we found that the single people were viewed more negatively than the married people. For example, they were seen as unhappy, lonely, and self-centered compared to their married counterparts. (The one exception is that single people were consistently viewed as more independent than married people.)[/quote]
Again a lot of this goes back to perception and what has always been in the past conventional wisdom, or rather what seemed to be conventional wisdom. In the past for many reasons you needed to be married to keep the household running, to have children, and ofcourse to be seen as anyone in the community.
[quote]We looked up federal statutes and found more than a thousand instances in which official marriage was linked to federal protections and benefits. We found discrimination against singles in the workplace and the marketplace. We then did research of our own on discrimination and found that realtors (and other people we asked) would prefer to rent to married couples than to single women, single men, unmarried couples, or a pair of friends — even when they all had equally positive references and ability to pay.[/quote]
Again the biggest obstacles that single individual seem to have is society itself and their negative mindset. Once they get past this, many single people do lead very happy and fulfilling lives.
[quote]The story that was taking shape in my mind was becoming clear. Single people are not as happy as married people in part because they are targets of stereotyping and discrimination.[/quote]
This is so true. The article goes on from there and I recommend reading it if you are choosing to be single and loving it. I think in modern day society people have more choices than they did in the past. I think if living single is your choice, then don’t let anyone make you think that you would be happy or better off not living single. You can live single and be happy, if it’s a choice.
[quote]Increasingly, people who are single are living their lives fully. Those who have the resources to do so are buying homes, traveling the world, and pursuing their passions. Their lives are meaningful — and yes, they are happy.
Again it all comes down to what works best for you. An interesting article I thought I would share.
- Above top secret
- Abu Ghraib
- Active denial
- Active Denial Weapons
- as the world turns
- Asain Male
- Asian Female
- Astral Plane
- Background records checks
- bad luck
- Black female
- Black Females
- Black Male
- black women
- Brain reading device
- Britney Spears
- brown coats
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- changing vibrations
- Citizen Informants
- Civilian Spies
- Community harassment
- community mobbing
- community policing
- concentration camps
- constitutional change
- Controlled society
- Covert investigations
- Cultural diversity and multiculturalism
- david icke
- devinci code
- domestic spying
- East Germany
- electromagnetic frequency
- Electronic harassment
- Emotional Vampires
- False Prophets
- files updated
- Gang Stalking
- government corruption
- GPS tracking
- Guantanamo Bay
- Health and Safety
- Heath Ledger
- High technology
- Honey Trap
- Indigo Ribbon
- Informant System
- Intimate Infiltarations
- Jeremy Blake
- Joan of Ark
- John Lennon
- Kilmeer Gill
- Lord Of The Rings
- Marian Fisher
- Mark M Rich
- Markus Wolf
- Martin Luther King Jr
- Meat production
- mental concentration camps
- metropolitan police
- militarized police force
- Mind Control
- Mind Reading
- Minority women
- Naomi Ebersole
- National Security Letters
- Neurolinguistic programing
- New World Order
- one handed signals
- Online Stalking
- Passive Aggressive Manipulative
- Personal Identifiers
- Police Abuse
- Police Corruption
- Police State
- Production Company
- psychological harassment
- Quantum Physics
- Record keeping
- records updated
- Red Squads
- Robot Sentient Project
- Rosa Parks
- School Shooting
- sexual harassment
- sign language
- Skin Heads
- Social Control
- Spiritual Based Products
- Spy cameras
- spy satellites
- State target
- Stop snitching
- Targeted Individual
- The Matrix
- Theresa Duncan
- Third wave
- Thought Police
- Threat Assessment Teams
- time travel
- twilight zone
- violent persons registry
- Voice to skull
- walls of jericho
- whistle blower
- white female
- White Male
- workplace mobbing
- Young and the restless
- zero tollerance