KHA40-Mind Control in Odd Places

Be the 1st to vote.
 K Ham Radio Episode #40

 

Date: June 25, 2015

Download

Subjects include:

  • Tiger Woods and the US Open in Tacoma, Washington. Was it worth $200 a ticket?
  • Words we say

Does it matter?  Should we be checking our word usage every time we have a conversation? Adam Curry and John C Dvorak think we should.  Or are we just mind controlled by them?

  • Hoods, are they just mind control

A hood has a specific purpose in the movies; going incognito, turning on stealth mode.  In real life, you look guilty as heck if you wear a hood in public.  Could the use of hoods in the movies be a mind control technique for petty criminals to point themselves out or self identify to the authorities?

  • Alex Abella, and the RAND Corporation

Cuban born national, interviewed by Chris from Oklahoma, found on Hoaxbusterscall.blogspot.com…. Alex is known for his Rand Corporation expose. What is going on with the Rand Corporation and all the information Alex Abella dug up on them?  Alex is the author of Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire.  The more I heard Alex talk the more I was convinced that this book was really a commercial, advertising the RAND Corporations services to those power brokers who hire companies like RAND to get their goals achieved. Peppered throughout Ale’s talk was double speak, reverse logic, meaningless slogans and odd titles of ideas all to confuse you.  Alex wanted to stop you from thinking the obvious: RAND Corporation is hired to conceive of and perform psychological operations.

Links:

The Third Offset Strategy

Alex Abella: Inside The RAND Corporation, from PrisonPlanet

 

 

 

8 thoughts on “KHA40-Mind Control in Odd Places

  1. khammadkhammad Post author

    MONEY&POWER BROKERS

    It would seem that those who are really in charge, the secret groups and secret societies, are most likely right out there in the public. It takes a lot of effort to ‘hide’ oneself from prying eyes. It would seem more logical to just call yourself by another name and hide in plain sight so that operations can resume as normal.

    I cannot claim to know the names of the people/groups that are really in charge, but we can find out who they hire to do the dirty work for them. I would assume that the people who are in charge buy the services of organizations who have the most influence and are able to make the most change.

    The interview from Alex Abella, by permission of The RAND Corporation, shows us some insight into the groups who seem to be involved in all manner of influence and are able to make change in our society. Influence comes from money and power, which any government has in abundance, ripe for the picking. It appears that monies and power to be gained from the government are shared between brokers, split rather nicely into separate categories, in order that the money and power brokers don’t step on each other’s toes, or territories (a lesson learned from the past?). Why should you be interested in these brokers? They might be the precise players behind psychological operations and the hoaxes that support them. The Brookings Institute and the RAND Corporations have a long history of interfering with government public policies.

    Psychological operations and hoaxed events are one of the means by which public policy (influence) is derived. When naturally occurring events are not available to exploit, then events are simply made up and presented to the public for their edification. Who are these brokers that set up the exploitation of events, real or faked, for public policy changes in the first place?

    Two of the broker giants are The Brookings Institute and The RAND Corporation. You can watch their Hegelian Dialectic in progress. For example, The RAND Corporation has, on its board, officials from media giants who constantly put out stories about ISIS, then RAND comes along and writes oodles of policy papers about ISIS, what changes need to be made, and who will pay for them. RAND also has the ears of senators on special committees who implement these changes. I find it interesting that these two giants split interests, so that basically, no one is stepping in the other’s territory. Below is a simple graphic that shows the divisions. There are a few overlaps, and these seem to be to money grabs for their clients.

    Right now, the investigation is limited to these brokers, but later, I would like to investigate their lists of clients, if they can be found. It would seem that knowing these clients might get us a little closer to finding out who really is in charge.

    For a more readable list, see below.

        1. khammadkhammad Post author

          A more readable list of influence differences between The Brookings Institute and the RAND Corporations

          RAND Corporation
          RAND Policy Focus:
          * Children and Families
          * Education and the Arts
          * Energy and Environment
          * Health and Health Care
          * Infrastructure and Transportation
          * International Affairs
          * Law and Business
          * National Security
          * Population and Aging
          * Public Safety
          * Science and Technology
          * Terrorism and Homeland Security
          Founded in 1948 after split from US Air Force
          Alex Abella claims ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign came from Brookings Institute
          Revenues increase when Republicans are in charge
          Military Manufacturing Industry main clients
          CIA is supportive of Brookings papers on military strategy
          Fights US enemies: terrorists

          Brookings Institute
          Brookings Research Topics:
          * Business and Finance
          * Defense and Security
          * Economics
          * Education
          * Energy and Environment
          * Fiscal Policy
          * Global Development
          * Health
          * International Affairs
          * Law and Justice
          * Metropolitan Areas
          * Politics and Elections
          * Social Policy
          * Technology
          * US Government
          Founded 1916 on government reform
          Third-Offset Strategy (a proposed US Military strategy to funnel funds in a certain direction)
          Revenues increase when Democrats are in charge
          Pharmaceutical and Health Industry main clients
          Joint operations with Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
          Spreading Democracy throughout the world
          Fights communism with capitalism
          Fights US enemies: social issues such as poverty, war on drugs, arms control

  2. Daydream Believer

    K, thanks for this great analysis of our interview. Unfortunately you are correct on a lot of points. I say unfortunately because you showed how he danced around certain questions in ways I didn’t even think of at the time of the interview. I knew he was side stepping questions but a lot of times I am not fully cognate of the way and the depth of how the question is being side stepped,then conversation tends to digress and you lose your train of thought. I appreciate you taking interest in our effort and I will use it to better myself as an interviewer. I am sure you are aware already that I enjoy your broadcast. Keep up the great work. Thanks again.

    1. khammadkhammad Post author

      John,

      You and Chris did a wonderful job interviewing Alex Abella. I counted 5 times you and Chris asked him to acknowled or explain how the RAND Corporation tricks the public into believing false ideas. There were 5 times Alex did not answer you.

      Thank you for bringing up fakery, that’s all you can do.

  3. Master of None

    It sounds like Rand is doing it’s part to bring about the Zeitgeist (movie) and Technocracy approach to life. If we can still call it that.

    1. khammadkhammad Post author

      The RAND Corporation does a good job of pretending to be technocratic, but I don’t think they are at all. They are analyzing statistics like all other companies do, but then RAND just calls it a fancy name, like Numbers Based Reality.

Leave a Reply