Tag Archive: Monarch Mind Control


Some Homework For New Readers

Put ‘Monarch Mind Control’ into my blog’s search and watch the Youtube video.

Advertisements

I wrote this on Saturday.  I was going to change the title, but I’ve forgotten what to.  The link I am inserting relates to the end of my post where I mention Newsnight and Simon Schama, who was the historian in the first post on this blog in May last year.

I’m not sure why I’m putting it out.  I feel a bit dissociative at the moment.  Apologies to Peter Dobby if I have got him completely wrong.  I know I’m not the only person who thinks that everyone else is evil when they are in a crisis they haven’t made themselves.  A bad thing isn’t made good because it is done with good motives – she says moralistically.  I don’t even know if that is right in this case, where I feel protectively stalked by the media.  If I say I feel protectively stalked, why am I not protecting them?  Maybe because I am a vengeful, selfish and cynical cow.  I don’t know why I’m not protecting them, and I feel wrong for not doing.  I should be so grateful, I feel, in some ways.  As for Peter, I saw his own distress, and I feel really bad about what I said in other posts and what I have include here.  I’m interpreting everything selfishly and cruelly.  If anyone is exposed by what I’ve said about him it is me and not him. I hope so.  I’m sorry, Peter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zfmwq/Newsnight_Revolution_2011/

My computer keeps being crashed.  Last night I lost the biggest chunk of text I have ever lost on WordPress.  It normally saves automatically.

As I was saying, Peter Dobby is a complete bastard, a cruel and unkind person who delights in the devastation he causes another to feel.  he can barely hide it.

I was also saying that, although these people might seem soft and casual, don’t be deceived.  They have a rapacious agenda they know about but do not acknowledge to us, they carry it out ruthlessly.  They seem soft and casual, but they are highly driven, hardsell people, and are inquisitors and torturers.  Deliberately.  It isn’t that some of them are hard and some of them are nice.  They have the same agenda.  It’s called the iron fist/velvet glove approach.

Jesus said don’t cast your pearls before swine, or they will turn again and rend you to pieces.  They act like velvet, don’t they?  Like a glass of Baileys.

Peter Dobby just said ‘plenty more to come in the programme’.  As he was saying it, or something just before it, he was looking down on the desk, looking at the desk like a kind human being looks at a friend, but when he lifted his face up to the camera, he put a blank, hardly there for anyone look on his face, completely untouchable and contemptuous and as if he had a bad smell under his nose.  We were meant to see both.  The ones of us that get attacked by them were meant to want to fly at him in retaliation, or beg him to stop or something, at which point he would get our story, and suddenly our minds would be wiped clean and we would be back in favour and no longer under threat and none of the tactics they had used would matter to us anymore, because breaking and giving them what they wanted would seem like the right and reasonable thing to do.  There is so much of the ending of 1984 in this.  The couple are separated from each other, passing each other in the street and hardly seeing each other, the torture and betrayal have been that deep and awful, and the final scene is something involving an imposed consciousness of ‘Big Brother’, a voice or a picture or something like that, and the man sits there in tears, realising, as I think it is the last sentence of the book that says this, that he loved Big Brother.  They had been caught by surreptitious and deceptive state surveillance and their relationship broken by torture.

The face Peter Dobby lifted to the camera, that is the programme. Or part of the programme, the psychologically violent one.  When they talk about the programme, they are using so many therapy type things and terms, and guided fantasy methods and word pictures (bodies and buildings, for instance) that I hear ‘programme’ as psychological programme, and I think that is what they mean.  I was going to say they all do it, but now I am confused.  I’m pretty sure they do.  I’m emotionally breaking at the moment, what they are doing is making me feel  disorientated and dislocated and really bad, especially the delight they appear to be taking in my humiliation.  It’s so bad, I even feel guilty about reworking a post, the blank, Frankenstein’s monster look he puts out with the provocation very few people are meant to see and understand makes me feel hysterical and incapable of communication.  So does my neighbours’ silence when I react to their invasiveness and provocation.  It seems to me their silence is as deliberate as everything else.

I’ve said before that they go for my throat.  I just watched, for the second time, this time just because it was on the television when I switched it on, Thursday night’s Newsnight, talking about the Libyan uprising.  One of the guests said it was as if something had been taken off of their throats and their voices now sounded clear to him.  The historian Simon Schama, who I have written about before, was there, and he picked up the significance of that and looked very guilty and shocked.  I believe he was thinking about me, perhaps, at least among others.  But the look of guilt was there.  They put the stalking into the community, play on your controlling feelings, for instance, guilt and shame, and using your neighbours as the people who hold you up against the wall as they beat you up, they lay into you. It’s occultism and salacious insolence.  It is so outrageous you want to hit back, if they’ve already worked you over and you understand what they have done and are still having to live with it, and at the same time they put their faces into yours, through the camera, and say ‘what are you going to do about it?’.  The way they eyeball the camera, eyeballing the person their speech is tailored to, and hold your eye while they shout the name of their colleague, which might or might not be your name, is abusive.  It IS deliberate and it IS abusive.  It’s intimidation, and it’s like staring down a dog.

Yesterday in Parliament

https://suebarnett.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/i-followed-a-search/

This is a link to a post I wrote a while ago, about something called Monarch Mind Control.  I refer you to it to help you understand the rest of this post.  Included in that post is a link to an interview on Youtube between two very high profile people in America, one of whom was a special agent in charge of a police department.

The issue of Monarch Mind Control has come up for me again after watching the House of Commons broadcast yesterday. 

I have said before that I have been accused of paedophilia, although I am not a paedophile.  Yesterday Theresa May was talking about changes and appeals processes, and even before she got up to speak I was thinking that what had gone before seemed to be adopting a popularist stance.  I noticed that Nick Clegg was close to tears, and I noticed that, as in so many times in the past, David Cameron came in focusing and shutting everything out and down as much as he was able, and when I see that I find it frightening.  That the Prime Minister needs to focus in that way, in Parliament, before his electorate.  I feel that saying this could be to my harm and embarrassment, because it occurs to me in writing that he might have my safety and welfare in mind, at least in part.

Speaking of popularism, listening to Theresa May I believed she was doing the same thing, going for a projected popularist view.  The reason I say ‘projected’ is that I believe most of us are far more human and compassionate in our approach to this issue, especially those of us who have the slightest hint of understanding of the psychology of abuse, which should be most of us.  She presented herself as speaking for all right minded people, but as far as I am concerned she was appealing to the vigilante element of society, and her approach to the subject was in line with that.  She said that the judges who insisted that the human rights and privacy of people tagged and hated in this way were paramount were out of touch with the rest of us.  I, obviously, disagree.  She also said that the final decision in the appeals process on this issue was not for the courts, but for the police who, she said, were best placed to make this decision as being in touch.  That frightened me and I started thinking in terms of a police state.  Clearly I am speaking with heavy sarcasm and irony when I say that of course the police have always been squeaky clean and whiter than white and perfect models of humanity who have never harmed anyone and never acted with prejudice and never perverted the course of justice and never set anyone up or bullied anyone or consented to their bullying.  These are obviously the best people to handle such a sensitive issue (sarcasm and irony maintained).  I believe I have an idea of how long they were holding this accusation against me before I even knew about it, and how long they stood by, in spite of my complaints of harassment, and let people get on with it. That also goes for my housing association and the mental health authorities.

The issue of Monarch Mind Control came up for me again because there was something I didn’t understand about the presentation.  Then I remembered the interview in the post I have provided the link for, where the woman being interviewed said that, as far as she knew, it went back as far as her father.

I know, I am painfully aware, that this could be complete coincidence, but the dress she was wearing was identical in style and colours to a coat my father bought me when I was little. I can’t remember how old I actually was, but he died when I was 11.  He overdosed on sleeping tablets.  I don’t know if it was his intention to die, he didn’t say in his note, and he had done the same thing before and survived.

But Theresa May’s dress was almost identical.  And she was standing there adopting an almost vigilante attitude towards sex offenders, dripping with hate, contempt and loathing, it seemed to me, and saying how devious they are (they say the same about people they call mentally ill, it is or was part of the training for mental health professionals to view mental health patients as devious), downplaying if not completely invalidating the role of the courts over this issue, saying that parliament makes the laws, not the courts (but I say the courts uphold the law and no one is exempt from the law, including parliamentarians, as we have seen, thankfully, but if they are able to invalidate the courts, and cut us off, as Europeans, from the European Court of Human Rights, which they are saying they want to do [whether or not that is just a decoy talking point without teeth to distract from more important issues we are not talking about I don’t know, it’s one of the things they’ve always managed to talk about for years], how are they going to be held accountable?).  These lovely parliamentarians, calling groups devious and inciting hatred against them, you would think they had never done a devious thing in their lives, except me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

If the coat and the dress are not a coincidence but deliberate, why? I’ve already contacted people and asked to talk and not been acknowledged, so why would they want to do something like that?  They teamed it all up, as well, with talk about mental health.  It doesn’t matter what they are trying to say, when someone has already asked for assistance they shouldn’t be using those methods.  And if it was deliberate and they have known all along, then presumably it has been handed down to them over the years, and the government or whoever it was that had this knowledge that has been used in this way stood by and watched my father, with all his personal pain and inadequacy and lack of access to this kind of mass communication tool, insist that this was happening to him and being treated as mentally ill and in the end killing himself.  My dad.  My daddy, as I called him at the time and still think of him.  11 years old.  A younger brother and sister as well.  Whatever kind of person he was, it was wrong for something like this to be done to him and to me and to our family.  It is just as wrong for it to continue.  That is what I believe.  The one question I am afraid of is, ‘am I right?’  Am I right to believe this is wrong?  It might be good, kind governmental wisdom, and it might be better for me to go with it.  That is how I feel.

They were laughing a lot yesterday, which seemed to me completely inappropriate when handling such a serious and painful issue, but which also made me feel as if the arms of love and acceptance were being opened and offered to me, and a place of refuge, safety and protection and reconciliation.

I’m vulnerable to this kind of approach, at this particular point, because I had a bad experience in hospital last week when I was taken ill with severe stress related symptoms.  I was later contacted by the British Embassy and asked to confirm that I was OK, and I recounted the experience and everything involved in the stress that brought it on and asked for a reply, but I didn’t get one.  That was on Friday.  I want to say the Consul’s name, but people talk about discretion, and say if you are indiscrete and other people involved with you know that, they will not trust you.  I don’t know if, in my situation, discretion should be demanded of me or not.  What about me and my ability to trust?  But I don’t think officials should be subjected to vigilantism any more than anyone else should.  But this has gone so far, and I can’t afford legal representation, but I’m afraid if I mention his name on this forum anyway it might disqualify me for future help, either from the embassy’s own complaints procedure or from the law.  I don’t know what to do, because they themselves are acting illegally, it seems to me, and certainly if I don’t say his name the opportunity to move in on me again might be used.  It’s not a personal thing, I like him, at least to some extent, it’s about my own security in this situation.  I don’t know how to protect myself other than by naming him, but if I do that also might go against me, maybe even more long term.  I don’t know how it works.

On Monday (St Valentine’s Day) my housing association contacted me.  My housing association has often decided not to answer my emails and to set things in motion without consulting with me to have me apprehended under the mental health act.  The people who turn up unannounced often look appalled and apprehensive about me, and also are often very aggressive and insistent in their approach, and have even been violent and scathing, without me even knowing the specifics of why they are there.  So I replied to this person, my housing officer, Andy Minett at Hexagon Housing Association in Sydenham, made my position clear, reminded him of how he had handled things in the past and had often seen fit not to answer my emails but to go behind my back and over my head and not help effectively with community bullying and harassment, and I asked him not to resort to force or coersion but to inform me of his intentions because I believe I have a legal right to be informed.  I aksed him to clarify a few things, and as yet neither he nor anyone else from the housing association has contacted me.  Also, while I think of it, I have copied my emails on to the mental health team at Speedwell in Deptford, and they also do not acknowledge my emails, and I am afraid they are standing by and trying to force a crisis.  I asked for a response to one of them, through my CPN, from my psychiatrist, and although the CPN, Susan Farmer, said she had passed the email on to him, I have never received a response.

In this situation, and with these two most recent emails unacknowledged, on Tuesday evening someone rang my doorbell from downstairs and said what sounded like an Italianisation of my name.  I immediately thought it was the police and I was frightened, and I told him I spoke English and didn’t understand him, which was over all the truth, although not the issue for me at the time.  He said ‘OK’, and went, and I haven’t heard anything since.  But I was frightened and still am.  He came unannounced and unexpected, I didn’t know who had sent him or why, and I don’t think it should have happened that way.  I think that is really wrong. I’m afraid they might come back with instructions to arrest me under the mental health act.  But whose unprofessionalism and negligence is creating my fear and stress in the first place?  I think I could and can say ‘whose secrecy?’ and not be wrong in this case.

I’m tired now.  I might add more later, but right now if there was somewhere else I intended to go with this or something else I intended to say, I can’t remember.

Intermediate edit note: I’m recording Premier, and at the beginning John Pantry played a song called ‘Everything Was Done So You Would Come’, and he back announced it with tears in his voice.  He then moved on immediately to pray a prayer which sounded to me, in this context, as if he was instructing decision makers on how to pray and how to feel and how to view what they have done.  I obviously might be wrong, but it isn’t my opinion that I am, and if I am right I still think they are wrong to be doing this.  I still maintain it is stalking.  And I still maintain it is deceiving most of their audience.

I Followed a Search

One of the searches that brought someone to my blog was ‘Monarch slave that’s been woken up’.  I thought at first it was about the Queen, and today I decided to follow the search myself and see if it was real, because I doubted it.

I discovered it is about a mind control programme, Monarch Mind Control.  I tried to watch one of the videos on YouTube that it returned, but my connection is bad and keeps cutting out.  I got to the end of one interview between a woman called Brice Taylor and a man who is a former special agent and was in charge of the FBI in Los Angeles.

It also returned something about the Illuminati.  I received what claimed to be Illuminati literature and invitations, which contained a statement that they have ways of dealing with people who oppose them.  I intend to follow this search myself later and offer it now for your own information and research.

I find it hard looking at things like this, because I approach it with scepticism.  If I myself am a victim, I am sceptical about myself, as well as angry with everyone else.  That’s where my paralysis comes from and why my anger feels so toxic.  I believe I never needed to be a victim.  So it makes me sceptical about the claims of others who do not claim any responsibility in what happened to them or how they co-operated with it.  I find myself doubting the veracity of the interviews and the level of credulity expressed and what looks to a well-taught Christian eye like an attempt to extricate yourself from blame and responsibility for your own actions.  That is my Pentecostal upbringing that I believe and my former pastors continue to hold as paramount for understanding and action, unless I misinterpret them.

If I AM a victim, even if at the hands of agencies other than government agencies, there have been times when I really felt I had no choice but to do the things that were being suggested to me.  The interviewee talks about drug programmes and psychiatric assessments for updating and reinforcement, and hypnotic techniques.  It started with her father, she said, who ,when she was small , knelt in front of her and told her he had lost control of her because big things were happening and he was sorry, I think she said, because he couldn’t help her.

She was programmed to have a photographic memory.  She talked about light and sound programming, food and sleep deprivation, I think electric shocks as well.  She was used to have sex with people, including former presidents, sometimes if not always for purposes of blackmail.  The link at the end of this post will take you to a lot of similar material.

Maybe I shouldn’t be sceptical.  Maybe we didn’t have as much choice in it as I have been taught I always have, and therefore responsibility.  Who can you go to if you don’t co-operate if you are under threat, constantly bombarded and can’t think, and everyone at least pretends they don’t believe you or that it is your own fault if it is true.? Jesus might be the answer.  But he isn’t the answer on the terms of those who say he is and refuse to approach you to offer help if you don’t accept those terms.  Even if you have offended them.

I need to do some more research.  Even then I won’t know what to make of it wthout appropriate help.  And some people, especially talk radio people (does anyone bother with them?  I wish we wouldn’t) come down really heavily and scathingly on people who say things like this, dismissing it as conspiracy theories and making out it’s lunacy.  I wonder about their honesty.  It’s where the buzzwords come in.  I’m never prepared for them and the blatancy of it is always shocking, it is all pervasive and dislocates your mind, it is that deliberate and violent.  The buzzwords are deliberate.  Even if that is the only thing I can say with certainty and accuracy.  I don’t find them funny.  There was something else in the search that says that Monarch Mind Control is used to programme people for social violence.  I feel silly and that I should just lighten up and deal with situations as they arise and stop seeing connections where they don’t exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_c7JTADT_k

WAGblog: Dum Spiro Spero

"While I breathe, I hope"

Emerging From The Dark Night

Working through the Dark Night of the Soul to emerge as me.

The Elephant in the Room

Writing about my experiences with: depression, anxiety, OCD and Aspergers

The Sir Letters

A Tale of Love

The Seeker's Dungeon

Troubling the Surf with the Ocean

Seroquel Nation

Onward and upward...

We are all in this together

it's gonna be okay.

my last nerve

psychology | psychiatry | neuroscience | n stuff

A Philosopher's Blog

A Philosopher's View of the World...assuming it exists.