Taking Lives Pt 3

Taking Lives
(Part Three)

Blutkitt
Blutkitt is a German word meaning “blood cement”

“B____ E___’s ilk want power so badly that at some point in their lives they make a conscious choice to embrace evil. It’s not a gradual seduction. They do it without reservation, and that’s when they leave the rest of us. You know it when it happens, too. No amount of cosmetic surgery can mask the psychological deformity in their eyes.” James Lee Burke, page 367, of “A Stained White Radiance”

“We Never Forgive Them Whom We Have Wronged” by unknown

 

“This planet is run by crazy people. Remember what they have to do to get where they are.” Carl Sagan in his book “CONTACT”

*****************************************

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-106-05.html :

From the transcripts of the Adolf Eichmann Trial:

Q: At that time did you ever hear the term Blutkitt – ‘blood cement’?

A: Yes, definitely, Blutkitt became a familiar phrase. I would put it this way – the other words, the other play on words, “blood cements.”

Q: What does that mean?

A: Having the same blood makes a link between people.

Q: I see. Did it also have another meaning?

A: It was also used in terms of descent, for example in the Waffen-SS divisions, where the so-called Germanic…it was used… I must just think about this…

Q: No, that is not what I mean. Did Blutkitt mean: Blood shed together acts as a cement?

A: No, I did not understand it to mean that, but that common blood acts as cement.

Q: No, no. What I mean by Blutkitt can be expressed as follows, for example: “We are all in the same boat, and no one is allowed to alight; if anyone wants to turn his back on me, I will force him to become an accomplice, so that there is no turning back for him.”

A: Linguistically that is correct, this term would readily fit here, but I have never heard it in this form.

Q: Well, I can tell you that at that time this was not a rare occurrence. And I shall read this out here from Wisliceny’s report (T/84), where he says that your principle (Eichmann’s principle), “that his principle, he once told me to my face in Hungary in the course of a heated discussion.” And then it says: “We are all in the same boat, and no one is allowed to alight; if anyone wants to turn his back on me, I will force him to become an accomplice, so that there is no turning back for him.”

A: About this, I have said that in fact…that it is not my way to deal with my people in such a dictatorial and aggressive fashion. I also have no recollection of having said anything like this.

Q: Very well, that will do. This sentence I read out to you…

A: Yes.

Q: …comes at the end of two previous sentences, which read: “Eichmann’s principle in his staff policy was never to release anyone who had once worked in his Section for another job. Even volunteering for the army or the Waffen- SS he refused as a matter of principle.” And then comes this sentence. What do you have to say about this?

A: I would like to say about this…

 

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/glossary/glossary.html

Blutkitt (Blood Cement): Hitler’s concept of bonding through shared atrocities and horrible experiences. Probably derived from the writings of Michael Prawdin and his two books on Genghis Khan.

(Link Broken)

Medical sciences in Nazi Germany,” Dr. Alexander writes, “collaborated with this Hegelian trend [“rational utility”] particularly in the following enterprises: the mass extermination of the chronically sick in the interest of saving ‘useless’ expenses to the community as a whole; the mass extermination of those considered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted; the individual, inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal with the ruling group; and the ruthless use of ‘human experimental material’ for medico-military research.”(3)

  Organizations with humanitarian-sounding names were immediately set up to execute “health” programs, again, under deceptively, euphemistic terms.

   What these examples illustrate is an age-old method used by inimical elements, in this case the SS, of consciously and methodically making suspects of disloyalty clear themselves by participating in a crime that will definitely and irrevocably link them to the organization. The SS called this process of reinforcement of group cohesion “Blutkitt” (blood cement). It is important to note that Dr. Alexander opined that ideologically conditioned crimes against humanity may be motivated not just by perversity, but by cowardice and fear, especially fear of punishment or of ostracism by the group.

   There can be no doubt that in a subtle way the Hegelian premise of ‘what is useful is right’ has infected society, including the medical portion.

http://www.ninehundred.net/control/mc-ch6.html

   The SS soldiers called this the magic action of the “Blutkitt,” the tie of bloody crime binding them together and preparing them for Valhalla.

(Link Broken)

   1938 The SS Training Office orders a specially revised and expanded, one-volume edition of Michael Prawdin’s two books on Genghis Khan (See 1934, 1935). This book was frequently given as a Christmas present by Himmler and every SS leader received a copy. Hitler is said to have derived his ideas concerning Blutkitt (blood cement) from this source.

(Link Broken)

   He had solidified his relationship to his Auschwitz group by means of what was called ‘blood cement’ (Blutkitt), meaning direct participation in the group’s practice of killing…In that way the Auschwitz self was ‘baptized’ by passing the test for ‘hardness’…Selections also provide a ritual drama. Whether the Auschwitz self entered into that drama with integrated élan (as in the case of Mengele) or with hesitation and conflict (as in the case of many others), participation in that ‘cultural performance’ tended to absorb anxieties and doubts and fuse individual actions with prevailing (Nazi) concepts, as does ritual performance in general. Here Auschwitz epitomized the overall Nazi preoccupation with ritual, much of it having to do with healing and killing…The healing-killing paradox so dominated Auschwitz as to create a world of selections.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/prwar.html

Deforming Consent: The Public Relation Industry’s Secret War On Activists” by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

“Activists, he explained, fall into four categories: radicals, opportunists, idealists, and realists. He follows a three-step strategy to neutralize them: 1) isolate the radicals; 2) “cultivate” the idealists and “educate” them into becoming realists; then 3) co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry.”

“Opportunists and realists, says Duchin, are easier to manipulate. Opportunists engage in activism seeking “visibility, power, followers and, perhaps, even employment….The key to dealing with [them] is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial victory.” And realists are able to “live with trade-offs; willing to work within the system; not interested in radical change; pragmatic. [They] should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue…. If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/psychopath-brain-hardwiring-concern-for-others_n_3 149856.html

https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/5458/MichaelRichardson-MScThesis.pdf;seque nce=1

New England Journal Of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM194907142410201 “Medicine Under Dictatorship” by Leo Alexander MD

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article28.htmlEuthanasia, Medical Science, And The Road To Genocide” By: Miguel A, Faria Jr., MD

MSNBC 2-27-2011 “Ugly Past Of U.S. Human Experiments Uncovered” QUOTE:

U.S. officials also acknowledged there had been dozens of similar experiments in the United States–studies that often involved making healthy people sick.” “At best, these were a search for lifesaving treatments; at worst, some amounted to curiosity-satisfying experiments that hurt people but provided no useful results.” “These studies were worse in at least one respect–they violated the concept of “first do no harm, a fundamental medical principle that stretches back centuries” “When you give somebody a disease–even by the standards of their time–you really cross the key ethical norm of the profession, said Arthur Caplan, director of the University Of Pennsylvania’s Center For Bioethics.”

 

Club

Shakespeare’s KING LEAR Act 3 Scene 4 “The Prince Of Darkness is a gentleman.
“Everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded…” Luke 12:48

Here is what we do not know and we are not supposed to know:

   Like I said before, the lawyers are “officers of the court” and have taken a loyalty oath to the judicial branch of the seated fiat government; they will never be working for you because their first loyalty lies elsewhere. Their job is to protect the other “club members” FROM US and from the consequences of their “club’s” criminal activity and misbehavior inflicted upon US, protect each other and themselves from the “outsiders” they parasitize: WE ARE THE OUTSIDERS. Get it? Their job is to make sure ALL “club member” dirty-work goes unpunished and their victims continue to be forced to carry the whole burden for all—unchallenged and unrelieved.  This has nothing to do with truth, merit, or justice—it is all about creating and maintaining control. It has to do with the parasitic, criminal, power-elite keeping its host-body under control and producing for their collective benefit and enrichment. If you are an “outsider” to this seated, fiat, government and its self-serving systems, and have been tagged “low priority” in its databases, you will not be able to get real justice of any kind anywhere when going up against its membership—not for love nor money.

   The “club” protects itself and its membership; the lawyers are in this “club”, are seated in the topmost positions, and we are not and never will be. They have their job serving the whole club-­and the doctors, government officials, agencies, law enforcement, and such have their particular jobs working to protect and maintain the best-interests of the whole. All work seamlessly together to serve just one segment of society: theirs. And only theirs. That is the way it is.

   Once we understand this we will see the lawyers (and their cohorts) for what they really are.

The doctors themselves often own stock in our health insurance companies (who often own the hospitals too) and they can own outright, or own stock in, or own the controlling stock in, their own malpractice insurance company. At one time the Ohio State Medical Association owned the controlling stock in PICO, the second-largest medical malpractice insurance company in Ohio. (it is now the largest with the demise of PIE.) There is a new malpractice insurance company in Ohio owned by doctors. When the doctors own stock in our health insurance companies and own stock in, or own outright,  their malpractice insurance companies the financial incentives to hide/bury victim’s injury cases are clear. (and remember: the doctors have to keep the “three strikes” from building against their names too) And what if the principals of the law firms who specialize in medical malpractice also own stock in the doctors malpractice insurance companies and our health insurance companies? WHO will always come up on the short end of a deal like that when money is the motivator? (HINT: it is not them) Everyone in the “club” has their hands in each other’s pockets, have more than one incentive to do whatever necessary to protect each other’s interests.

   What kind of access to justice, relief, protection, or ethical health care can we realistically expect from people who own the companies responsible for paying out their own victim’s claims? When the same people who injure us are the same people who are expected to pay out claims for the injuries they have created, the conflict-of-interest is overwhelming. Get it?

   Doctors and lawyers (tagged “high priority” patients) have a hidden agreement that goes something like this: the doctors will not use the lawyers and their family members (or any “club member” whatever their area of specialization—also tagged “high priority” in their centralized computer databases) for dangerous student surgery training, covert medical experimentation, drug testing, device testing, student training and other such violations foisted upon those tagged “low priority” outsiders. The lawyers and their families will get the very best care possible at the highest levels of excellence available. In exchange for this consideration, the lawyers will protect the medical community from the natural consequences of its vast array of institutionalized criminal activity and human rights violations, will aggressively help hide its most heinous secrets.

   What are the medical syndicate’s  most heinous secrets? Covert medical experimentation and device testing without informed consent. Pelvic and rectal exam practice by groups of green students on anesthetized men and women in the operating room without informed consent.

Dangerous surgery performed solely for student training or experimental purposes and all the criminal activity that goes with hiding this kind of crime and subduing those injured by it, deliberately infecting people to sicken them then skimming off a targeted population to use up training unneeded surgery on, getting consent for one surgery then performing another surgery instead (or concurrently) simply for experimental or training purposes (people going in for another surgery often wake up to find their gallbladder has been removed without prior permission: the teaching hospital has students to train and just help themselves), hiding medical records, falsifying medical records, denying necessary medical intervention injury victims need to halt progression of their doctor-caused injury because the cover-up protocols come first, running injury victims through a gauntlet of expensive, painful, and dangerous medical testing done solely to stall/stonewall and plunder the targeted victim’s assets,  the murder of the victims who become inconvenient embarrassments or whose injury will cost too much money to fix and/or maintain.

   Those who do not follow “club rules” to the letter are incrementally punished by the “club”: the doctors who step out of line are routinely punished with all referrals being cut off. In a city like this one, without referrals from other doctors, a thriving practice can quickly die out. On the other hand, the most reliable “team-player club members” get rewarded with the most referrals and get the opportunity to become filthy rich. The lawyers who do not follow “club rules” to the letter are cut off receiving preferential treatment by the medical profession and cut off the perks and benefits particular to the legal profession. Any “club member” who breaks “club” rules is demoted from “high priority” status down to “low priority” status; them and their whole families are removed from all the perks and benefits associated with that “high priority” label.

   In short, these pigs and their piglets will lose their place at the trough. Each community has a selection of first-rate doctors who care for the “high priority” criminal elite and their families. By contrast, each community also has a selection of doctors who are first-line referrals for all the injury victims created, crossing all areas of specialization: radiologists (who can be trusted to tamper with x-ray films and written reports), gastroenterologists (who will lie, withhold intervention, and verbally abuse without conscience), testing laboratories who have policy and procedure to support “finding nothing but normal values” when results are anything but normal, psychiatrists who will dig out injury victim’s weaknesses and attack those areas hoping to break the uncontrollable victim down and render them less of a threat to the “club members” parasite’s paradise, and so on.

   The doctors who are selected by their peers to perform this dirty-work in service to the medical syndicate are especially low-grade sociopaths with a mental pathology that revels in the suffering they can inflict on others: in short, they enjoy abusing people, get off on it. They really like their work in a way that just isn’t human. That is why they have been singled out and recruited for the job. It takes a particular kind of person to perform this nasty service to the medical syndicate because normal people recoil from, and are emotionally damaged by, those particular behaviors.    

But not the doctors selected for this service; they enjoy the work—some so much so that they can hardly contain themselves. (one of the local gastroenterologists injury victims are routinely referred to after injury at gallbladder surgery is bent in that direction: this sadistic monster, when abusing patients for profit, lights up like a child on Christmas morning, can hardly contain his joy, grins like an idiot and is very cartoonish in his whole demeanor when in the middle of a patient-abuse session: his specialty is abusing women. His senior partner is the same. I used to wonder what kept them from jumping up and down and clapping with glee at times…disgusting, vicious, pig-men) Could it get any better for them than being actually encouraged to freely practice their perversion and getting paid for it too? The doctors recruited for this dirty-work are the very worst of the worst. Unlike normal people, who recoil from abusing and deliberately damaging others, these sadistic monsters thrive on it, have deficient, depraved personality flaws that allow them to cross boundaries with no conscience whatsoever—they are extremely dangerous and best avoided. If they feel they have to kill you to get their way, they will do it. Without hesitation. They WILL criminally reverse the standard of care, will not hesitate to improperly perform dangerous invasive procedures, have no qualms prescribing the wrong drugs, or two drugs in deadly combination, deliberately prescribe drugs known and charted as allergy-alerts, will wantonly withhold antibiotics…

   It is useless to plead with them, cry, or any number of common victim behaviors reflexively done in response to the abuses heaped on by these sadistic monsters: it only feeds their sickness and rewards them.

   There is a saying that goes something like this: “the strong take from the weak but the smart take from the strong.” Why is it always about “taking from”? That is how a parasite’s mind works: take. Not produce. Not earn. Not work for. Just take. Let others do the donkey-work then conspire to wiggle away the fruits of their labors by whatever means possible. Whatever happened to evolving into mature, responsible, self-sufficient, ethical adults who earn their own way in life and working for what they want, doing for themselves and “taking” from NO ONE, standing on their own two feet like mature adults and keeping their hooks to themselves and off others? Our biggest mistake in dealing with these parasites is that we are applying normal values to people who are anything but normal.

   One thing “club” absolutely will not tolerate is one segment stealing from another segment. Most of the cases that actually get prosecuted in their courts, and are put up for display to the public in their content-controlled media outlets, have one thing in common: someone committed an unauthorized theft of some kind, usually from Medicare or Medicaid–or some other such coffer under “club” control. The interesting feature in all of these cases where people suffered actual harm is that NOTHING is done for, or given back to, the ones actually harmed! Fines are imposed, sometimes the thieves are sent to prison…but that does nothing for the PEOPLE who suffered the actual harm and losses.

 

Citation:

United States Department Of Justice 5-21-2010 “The Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati and the Christ Hospital to Pay $108 Million for Violating Anti-Kickback Statute and Defrauding Medicare and Medicaid”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/health-alliance-greater-cincinnati-and-christ-hospital-pay-108-million-violating-anti

“10 Big Anti-Kickback Cases Involving Hospitals in 2010,” Written by Jaimie Oh | January 26, 2011 http://www.beckersasc.com/stark-act-and-fraud-abuse-issues/10-big-anti-kickback-cases-involvin g-hospitals-in-2010.html

United States Department Of Justice 3-1-2016 “Medical Device Company Will Pay $646 Million For Making Illegal Payments To Doctors And Hospitals In United States And Latin America” https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/medical-device-company-will-pay-646-million-making-illegal­payments-doctors-and-hospitals

“Hospitals to pay $118 million on accusations of paying doctors for referring patients” By: Carrie Teegardin 9-22- 2015 http://investigations.blog.ajc.com/2015/09/21/adventist-health-to-pay-118-7-million-to-settle-whis tleblower-suits/ QUOTE: ““Patients are entitled to be sure that the care they receive is based on their actual medical needs rather than the financial interests of their physician.” http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002747716

 

“The best apology is changed behavior” Author Unknown

 

Suicides and Murders

   I have a large file of cases I have collected about doctors, and other medical professionals, killing their annoying, or unwanted, spouses or domestic partners.

   The interesting part in all of this, from an observation standpoint, is how this freedom to kill in the workplace has unexpectedly extended into the “club member’s” private lives and is no longer contained to the workplace anymore: in recent years many stories have been featured in the mainstream media about doctors and nurses killing off their troublesome, unwanted spouses: instead of divorcing them they just kill them to get rid of them. In July of 2000 these killings became such a problem in Massachusetts that it caught the attention of the Massachusetts Medical Society and inspired them to sent out information packets to the state’s physicians listing resources to help them by offering free, confidential counseling!

   The boundary between killing in the workplace (and being allowed to get away with it) and killing at home has gotten unclear from extensive exposure to it and now certain individuals cannot differentiate as well between the two: at work they freely kill anyone who irritates them or gets in their way, is costing the health insurer too much, etcetera. There are no real consequences to these workplace kills anyway–their colleagues help hide their crimes and protect them from consequences.

   Their programming and protected experiences have become so entrenched in their minds and hearts that they are carrying the resultant attitude home with them–and when the spouse begins presenting with the same irritants and barriers to the instant gratification and blind obedience  they have come to expect they automatically respond, knee-jerk, with what they have been conditioned with and move forward to correct the irritant just like in the workplace: give the irritant a nice stiff dose of Pavulon, potassium chloride, or poison of another kind, drown them, etc. and simply kill them off. Problem solved, irritant removed.

   But, unlike the freedoms and protections granted to kill in the workplace, these freedoms and protections do not always extend to the home life and many are shocked and surprised to find themselves called to account and are arrested, charged, and prosecuted for the crime they have committed outside the work environment.

 

Citation:

The Columbus Dispatch July 21, 2000 “3 Killings Spur Group To Send Counseling Advice To Doctors” By Lisa Lipman, Associated Press

   There has also been an upswing in the number of medical students and doctors committing suicide. Not everyone has the native capacity to witness and endure the constant exposure to the horrors, abuses, and terrible insider knowledge New Medicine and its utilitarian ethic has imposed in recent decades. Not everyone can perform to the inhumane cost-saving demands of the insurance industry. Only the ones who can turn off thinking for themselves, feeling for others, and can be bent to perform to the dictates and will of the criminal elite already established can, and will, be allowed to prosper and flourish under the current regime.

   The pressure to conform is overwhelming to the ones who can’t let go of their own conscience and give themselves over to programming, rote-response conditioning, and micro-managing by corrupt others. They see too much, hear too much, know too much—and can’t live with what they have come to see, hear, and know.

 

Citations:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/23/american-doctors-are-killing-themselves-and-n o-one-is-talking-about-it.html

Why Doctors Kill Themselves

While there are many articles written about physician suicide and the presented reasons for it, almost nothing is written about medical harm victims being deliberately driven to suicide by the medical syndicate.

   Four of my associates were methodically driven to suicide after suffering a medical malpractice event. All four were psychologically battered to death by the medical syndicate and its brutal, sociopathically inhumane, cover-up program–as outlined in this book. Their death certificates say “suicide” but in reality they were murdered by a concentrated, unified effort to break them down. And it worked. Some people cannot withstand that level, and intensity, of psychological abuse.

   One woman’s story, my friend Lucille Iacovelli, was (is) featured in an HBO documentary called “Plastic Disasters”. She sent me a copy for review.

   What stood out to me is how she went from doctor to doctor trying to find help and was turned away without treatment or answers every single place she went–and they all knew what her real problem was and didn’t tell her: nerve damage. Not fixable. The last doctor she saw strongly hinted at it, on camera, after she left his office so discouraged at yet another wasted hope. What caught my attention, while this doctor was speaking to the camera out of her presence, was the smirk on his face. That particular expression, under that particular kind of circumstance, has a name: DUPING DELIGHT.

  Medical malpractice victims become all too familiar with this physical phenomenon, that tell-take smirk; the ones delivering the programmed-in lies absolutely cannot control it. We would all do well to study this phenomenon so we can recognize, and correctly respond to, it and the person inflicting it. We can save ourselves a load of angst and self-blame when we know what kind of people we are really dealing with.

   In my many years of exposure, I came to notice something very, very interesting–and telling-­about these people: their eyes. They ALL had the same expression in their eyes: cold, hard, flat. Predatory. These people can control what they say and do with their intent to deceive but they cannot control the expression in their eyes.

   My friend Lucille committed suicide August 2, 2010, not long after the documentary was made. If she was told the truth she might have found the strength to cope and focus effort on learning as much as possible about her true condition in order to seek appropriate relief.

Citations: (duping delight examples) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pni_kDv9BsU

The Bible: Isaiah 3:9 and John 3:20

 

The Painful Truth: The ORDER FOLLOWER always bears more moral culpability than the order-giver, because the order-follower is the one who actually performed the action, and in taking such action, actually brought the resultant harm into physical manifestation. Order-following is the pathway to every form of evil and chaos in our world. It should never be seen as a “virtue” by anyone who considers themselves a moral human being. Order followers have ultimately been personally responsible for every form of slavery and every single totalitarian regime that has ever existed on the face of the earth.  Author Unknown

 

Medical Boards

   The Medical Boards are NOT what we have been led to believe they are and can inflict their own form of punishments to doctors who will not follow “club” rules. Trumped-up drug charges are a huge favorite here and elsewhere. (sex charges are second to that.) Why? Because drug charges have federal implications. As “club member insiders”, the doctors just know too much and know local or state charges cannot hold them—and exactly why not. (the detail is too complicated to get into here) Ever notice how the Medical Boards take little-to-no interest in doctors abusing and killing patients? How the only cases they will actively respond to are drug and sex cases? You might want to consider why…

   In my early trust and ignorance I was uneducated enough to believe I could go to the State Medical Board for resolution of my surgeon’s very obvious, heavily recorded, criminal activity and myriad abuses. (we can trust the Medical Board, right?) Boy was I wrong! I was given an appointment with a top-level staff member and she asked me to sit down and discuss my case detail with her. I had  brought in medical records for “show-and-tell”, of course, not knowing any better at this early stage of my ordeal.

   The things that were the most incriminating pieces of evidence, the things that corrupt woman took the most interest in, “disappeared” after she asked to take my material into another room for copying: out of my sight she had carefully picked through the stack I had given her “to copy for their files” and each piece she had remarked on as concrete evidence in my presence earlier was removed/stolen. I did not notice this theft until after I arrived back home and was unloading the box for re-filing. Good thing I had brought in only copies of the originals, eh? That crooked monster did not get what she believed she had stolen! Ha! And I phoned her immediately to tell her so. She was really angry. Too bad, huh? Nice try though; better luck next time! But there isn’t going to be a next time now that I know the truth about the crooked Medical Board staff.

   Can we trust the Medical Boards? Absolutely not! They are not working for us. We are outsiders, not “club members”. Their job, just like that of the lawyers, is to protect the other “club members” from US. It is one huge set-up and con-game. Like the lawyers, they will steal evidence if they can and the only reason they are allowing you into their offices at all is to see with their own eyes exactly what evidence you have on the “club member” doctors so they can pass that information along to the most interested parties. And if they can manage to steal our evidence while we are there, well, they will. They are not interested in the misbehavior or criminal activity of the doctors and never will be; we are wasting our time. And, if asked, they will freely tell us, point-blank, that they do not, ever, pursue cases brought to them by anyone but doctors or law enforcement! So WHY do they bother to give the common person appointments at all? To collect information from us, that’s why! NOT to see what harm the doctors are doing to us (because they already know) but rather to see what WE are up to and what concrete material we have collected on the doctors! Get it?! Nobody seems to notice that however many complaints they get the crooked Medical Boards NEVER actually act on the cases presented no matter what happens. They will, however, go after the doctors who do not follow the “club rules”.

   What interests me most about this is the methods used by both entities are the same. That would indicate to me that this cover-up and protection “program” is taught to ALL “club members” in a standardized fashion at a central point.

   Here’s their excuse:

   When I asked why they would not pursue my case against my surgeon in spite of the concrete evidence of criminal activity I had provided, I was told something I did not understand at the time–but do now:

   “We do not have to pursue anything we don’t want to. We do not owe any duty to any individual.”

   On the face of it, this appears to be a facetious remark–but this person was telling the truth, albeit a truth without explanation. So, what is the explanation?

The case of Warren Verses The District Of Columbia:

Warren v. District of Columbia is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to individual citizens based upon the public duty doctrine.

   The public duty doctrine extends to agencies such as the state medical boards. They really DON’T “have to” investigate or call to account ANY case any outsider brings to them no matter the content, however criminal or meritorious. Get it?

 

The Law And The Greater Good,  https://thereasonablelady.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/the-law-and-the-greater-good/ QUOTE: The Law and Utilitarianism There are various cases in which the law and the theory of utilitarianism seem to go hand in hand. Take for example, tort cases with the police such as Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989]. The Police do not owe a general duty of care to the individual but to society as a whole. The policy reasons for this decision was clear: the argument that if the police owed a duty of care to the individual then they would not be flooded with claims and therefore not be able to do their duty to society, and therefore they would not be able to do their job for “the greater good”.

Columbus Dispatch 12-6-1992 “Few Patient Complaints Result In Formal Action” By: Laurie Loscocco QUOTE: “Patient complaints about doctors are much less likely to result in disciplinary action than are complaints from professional sources, an Ohio State University study says.”

 

Controlled-Opposition Camps

Most, if not all, of the so-called patient’s-rights groups are controlled-opposition camps. The leadership (not the members who usually don’t have a clue about what/who they are really dealing with) have been courted and groomed by the criminal elite and placed in a leadership position and then funded heavily to keep them there.

   The members come in trusting and naive, looking for affirmation and help. They are not going to get it, not from these people. Their job is to keep the members busy with do-nothing, time-wasting projects and away from activities that would embarrass or expose their handlers and/or the people their handlers work to protect.

One of their jobs is to put out fires. And to quell dissent. Or discredit, character assassinate, or evict the ones they can’t control–the ones who persist in telling the truths nobody is allowed to talk about.

   The leadership of these groups are not direct victims themselves but the parent, child, spouse, or sibling of someone who had been killed by medical malpractice, or has been permanently injured and was granted monetary relief through the “club” courts as one of the rare, few showcases that are allowed through each year–or was settled out of court. You will never see a direct victim in a leadership position in any patient’s-rights group that is allowed to have media access or is funded by outside sources.

   It is no accident none of the other mainstream “help agencies” will lift a finger to help or intervene. Those who contact one after another get the same icy response no matter where they go. There is a good reason for that but rather than go into detail here, below I will recommend a book, and an article, that does justice to that topic in the detail it requires.

 

Citations:

Book: “The Committee Of 300″ by John Coleman

Article: “Deforming Consent: The PR Industry’s Secret War On Activists” By: John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/prwar.html QUOTE: DIVIDE AND CONQUER Ronald Duchin, senior vice-president of another PR spy firm Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchin would probably have labeled Steinman and Tylczak radicals. A graduate of the US Army War College, Duchin worked as a special assistant to the secretary of defense and director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars before becoming a flack. Activists, he explained, fall into four categories: radicals, opportunists, idealists, and realists. He follows a three-step strategy to neutralize them: 1) isolate the radicals; 2) cultivate the idealists and educate them into becoming realists; then 3) co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry. According to Duchin, radical activists:    “want to change the system; have underlying socio/political motives and see multinational corporations as inherently evil. These organizations do not trust the  federal, state and local governments to protect them and to safeguard the environment. They believe, rather, that individuals and local groups should have direct power over industry. I would categorize their principal aims right now as social justice and political empowerment.” Idealists are also hard to deal with. They want a perfect world and find it easy to brand any product or practice which can be shown to mar that perfection as evil. Because of their intrinsic altruism, however, and because they have nothing perceptible to be gained by holding their position, they are easily believed by both the media and the public, and sometimes even politicians. However, idealists have a vulnerable point. If they can be shown that their position in opposition to an industry or its products causes harm to others and cannot be ethically justified, they are forced to change their position. Thus, while a realist must be negotiated with, an idealist must be educated. Generally this education process requires great sensitivity and understanding on the part of the educator. Opportunists and realists, says Duchin, are easier to manipulate. Opportunists engage in activism seeking visibility, power, followers and, perhaps, even employment. … The key to dealing with them is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial victory. And realists are able to live with trade-offs; willing to work within the system; not interested in radical change; pragmatic. They should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue. … If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution.“ “BEST FRIENDS MONEY CAN  BUY” Another crude but effective way to derail potentially meddlesome activists is simply to hire them.

 

How To Identify Controlled-Opposition Camps and Individual Infiltrators

One unexpected detail I never considered when I began my activist work back in the early 1990s (in response to my own injury and the subsequent abuses heaped on me by the medical syndicate and their cohorts) was the intensity with which the “bad guys” would attempt to silence activists and shut down any potentially-effective gathering. They do not want their parasite’s paradise exposed or interfered with; in the current set-up the getting is just too good, is a real gold-mine. I guess I did not expect infiltrators and such because, in my early ignorance, it was difficult to imagine people so depraved and uncaring they’d do ANYTHING for money, position, or power. I received quite an education on human nature real fast. I also learned a person doing my kind of patient’s-rights work will find out who their real friends are and how their coworkers, neighbors, and even family members truly feel about them when money, position, or power has been introduced into the picture to corrupt it.

Controlled-Opposition Camps The largest patient’s-rights groups are ALL controlled-opposition camps. Maybe they started out clean but eventually they’ve ALL succumbed to infiltration and takeover by the “club”. These particular so-called patient’s-rights groups are funded by the ones who need to maintain the status quo to serve their own purposes: trial lawyers, the AMA, etcetera. RED FLAG #1: they get their funding from the ones we should be working against.

These groups are the ONLY ones allowed to have mainstream media access of any kind (television, radio, print) and their top-level leadership (hand-selected and placed at the top by the “club”) are the only ones allowed to speak; we will see and hear the same representatives speaking in the mainstream media over and over again. Why? Because these people can be trusted to speak only the words approved by the “club” and will discuss only the topics the “club” will allow in the controlled depth of detail necessary to spark interest in the  public mind—but not enough to do any real damage to the “club”.

RED FLAG #2: The leadership of these groups are the only ones allowed mainstream media access.

The leadership of these groups are NOT actual medical malpractice injury victims themselves; they are the child, spouse, parent, friend, grandchild, etcetera of a direct injury victim but they are NEVER a direct victim themselves. Why? The “club” cannot allow direct victims in leadership positions and expose the direct victim’s personal ordeal/experience to public view: the direct injury victim could deteriorate and die right in front of lots of people who’d be watching carefully and the detail of their ordeal would be exposed every step of the way. Other victims would be exposed to the suffering and the pain, the standardized abuses, and the details of the criminal activity and catch onto their own reality quicker. When the “club” goal is to squelch dissent and prevent active response it would be disastrous to their cause to allow direct victims leadership positions. The leadership, never being direct injury victims themselves, trade on the information of their loved one’s case material—someone who is usually dead from the malpractice event and cannot speak for themselves. (But not always dead, sometimes permanently injured.) Direct injury victims are usually ill and poor, not in the best physical or financially-stable condition to work a leadership role. The leadership of these groups, whose loved one was the actual injury victim, usually has another feature in common: the cases have already been finalized as one of the content-controlled “showcases” in the legal system and has been settled or gone to trial accordingly: there is nothing more the “club” can offer them through legal channels. RED FLAG #3: The leadership are NOT direct injury victims, do not have the same level of urgency, motivation, intensity and focus direct victims would have.

The leadership of these groups push the AMA’s standardized propaganda message of: “errors, mistakes, and system failure” at every turn, chant it over and over in response to just about everything that comes up. “No INDIVIDUAL is responsible for anything that has happened to a patient; it is a failure of the whole medical system!” and “doctors do not commit deliberate acts that damage patients; they make mistakes, commit errors!” The buzzword “ERROR” is a huge “red flag”; if someone is sticking exclusively to the word “error” we will know who they are really working for and whose best-interests they are actually protecting. The “club” goal is to implant into the public mind the notion that the responsibility for anything that goes wrong actually covers such a vast area (the WHOLE system) that accountability is impossible to assign or determine under such circumstances. Who can we hold accountable when a whole community has colluded to commit a crime? They have to inflate our opponent so large as to be impenetrable. Otherwise, we’d focus and move forward with purpose. If a single doctor or hospital is not responsible for whatever went wrong in our case, then WHO is? The whole system. The whole system does not have a name or a face so WHO can we be upset with? WHO can we expect restoration from? Nobody. That is how the “club” wants us to see things. And the leadership who has been placed at the top of the patient’s-rights groups will push the “club” message into infinity. We will recognize them by the words they have been given: “error”, “mistake”, and “system failure”. If we say “crime”, “deliberate”, or “premeditated” we will be quickly corrected and silenced. RED FLAG #4: The leadership of these groups chant the AMA’s “errors”, “mistakes” and “system failure” propaganda in response to all victim concerns.

The leadership actively discourages, or shuts down entirely, any discussion of medical crime and the details of the criminal activity. If an injury victim persists in talking about it the leadership becomes incrementally aggressive about shutting the talk down. Victim’s rightful expressions of anger are shamed, ridiculed, and dismissed, vehemently discouraged, treated as a major social violation. Anger is normal under certain circumstances—don’t let anyone tell you different. RED FLAG #5: The leadership will not allow free discussion of medical crime or normal expression of anger. The incremental aggression applied to victims who refuse to be controlled and complete intolerance of discussion of topics off the “politically-correct” list is key here.

If we approach the leadership to talk about current, active cases of concrete patient abuse that requires an immediate, direct response to save a person’s life, prevent financial ruin, or stop specific acts of patient abuse and you ask the leadership of these groups to take action THEY WILL NOT MOVE for any reason. When attempting to interest them in cases such as this and trying to get them to commit to any useful action at all it is routinely deflected by the leadership by changing the subject over to the detail of their OWN case information and going on and on about it as long as it takes to stop our discussion entirely (they are not direct victims themselves, can only speak about another person), will not let us get another word in edgewise about the issues brought to them for active response. They are strangely cold toward and disinterested in the actual victims themselves, stick exclusively to things (like gathering media attention and fund-raising) which require no direct hands-on activity with real injury victims. They are oddly unaffected and unmoved by actual victim’s current suffering and losses. When pressed for taking useful action they will offer distractions instead of solutions: “she needs to take up an absorbing hobby to get her mind off her troubles”, “he should get counseling to learn how to handle his anger”, “we are a support organization and not here to work solutions”. The goal is to keep the membership distracted, controlled, and off exposing the “club”. RED FLAG #6: The leadership has no real interest in victim’s current cases and will not take useful action in anyone else’s behalf for any reason. They will not embarrass the “club”; “club” interests come first.

The leadership makes statements like: “let’s focus on the future and upon prevention of these errors and mistakes” with the idea in mind that if they can convince the others in the group to forget about what is going on RIGHT NOW the “club” will NEVER have to be accountable or deal with anything they do not want to deal with, no changes in the present will have to be made, and no VICTIMS in the present will have to be addressed. Of course, “today is yesterdays tomorrow” so this golden future they are trying to get us all focused on never actually arrives—it doesn’t have to. Nothing changes because we have let every TODAY slip past us without action. Distraction, not action, is the key focus. They will say things like: “there is no point wasting time on today’s injury victims: there is nothing we can do for them because they are already injured and doomed anyhow; what we need to focus on instead is seeing that the causes of their injuries stop so that people in the future will not have to endure it.” There is plenty that can be done for today’s injury victims: the standardized program of denying necessary medical intervention to prevent progression of the damages, the routine financial enslavement, the verbal and physical abuse episodes, the psychological battery, the threats, the myriad other violations routinely heaped onto injury victims unfairly. This needs to stop TODAY. NOW. RED FLAG #7: Today’s needs are not responded to; talk is always spent on future goals of prevention, never a direct response to what is happening today.

The leadership keeps the group members busy with pointless, time-wasting, manufactured busy­work activities designed to make a big public “show” but which have no useful substance in reality. One example is getting a “patient safety week” on the calendar. If the group can be led off taking useful action in their own behalf and can be convinced to allow their energy and momentum be redirected and replaced with pointless, time-wasting activities that go nowhere (but makes people feel like they are “doing something”) the “club” is protected. Because their OWN necks are not on any chopping block, because THEY are not being tortured, or robbed, or getting their injuries compounded by the medical syndicate, or being murdered, there is no real urgency in the leadership’s incentive to get anything done. Time is not nipping at THEIR heels—they have all the time in the world to waste, stall, and fool around. They don’t mind wasting our time too. RED FLAG #8: Nothing truly useful ever gets accomplished. The group is kept very busy but nothing truly useful in real life ever actually materializes to show for all that work. Distraction, not action, is the goal.

The leadership does “damage control” and is very aggressive about discouraging talk within the group pertaining to “politically-incorrect” topics such as medical crime. They assess the content and character of the group members and cozy up to the uncontrollable ones to find out as much as they can about them as individuals in order to better determine how to control and/or redirect them. If the injury victim proves uncontrollable a character assassination campaign begins, instigated by the leadership, and the others in the group are turned against the uncontrollable person by whatever means possible. Example: every time the “club” thinks people are listening to me too much for their comfort one of their large patient’s-rights group’s leadership will start circulating a story about me being attached to the KKK/Clan or say I belong to a gun-toting militia (as characterized by the mainstream media) and am extremely dangerous— “best to stay away from that kind of person if you know what’s good for you because when they get into trouble with the law everyone they associate with is going to go down with them.” RED FLAG #9: If the leadership rigidly refuses to acknowledge ALL patient’s-rights concerns, and refuses to allow free discussion of ALL patient’s-rights concerns, actively shuts down free speech on specific topics, then we can bet they have a reason for it—and that reason will never serve the true patient’s-rights cause. If they ridicule or character-assassinate the most vocal members within the group, whose information presented makes the most sense, and try to evict those people from the group to keep them from talking further it is because that uncontrollable person is working AGAINST the “club” who placed and pays the leadership.

The leadership uses all the standardized “buzzwords” and “buzzphrases”, standardized thought-terminating cliches they have been programmed with, to gain and keep control over the group members and to keep activity and conversation flowing in the direction they choose. (Interestingly, these buzzwords, buzzphrases, and thought-terminating cliches are the SAME ones used routinely by the medical and legal syndicates and all their attached “industry mouthpieces”. It is as if they have all been given the same manual to study and work from) They make pompous references to uncontrollable member’s grammar and spelling mistakes, loudly accuse people of watching the most insubstantial television programs and reading the most vapid magazines as evidence of “where that person got their information from”. I’ve heard them refer to “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” and “Ladies Home Journal” often. They take pot-shots wherever they can fit them in. “WHO told you THAT?!” they bellow, when a victim discloses any particularly controversial piece of information that cannot be acknowledged or discussed freely with outsiders. One favorite is: “methinks the lady doth protest too much”, delivered with a smirking grin. My defense to these standardized pot-shots is: “YOUR PROGRAMMING IS SHOWING!” They do not like this response. The leadership demands every single project and action go through them and insists everything has to meet their personal approval to go forward with their blessing—even projects they have no hand in.

(Example: individuals, who have a right to take independent action as they see fit, putting up personal websites containing information damaging to the “club”)  The message given out to the members is the leadership sits in the driver’s seat and everyone else has to answer to them and justify to their satisfaction, then get approval for every move made. When victims do not blindly comply the leadership’s complete control is threatened and the resulting hissy-fit thrown is all out of proportion to what the leadership is due in real life: “How dare you put up that website without asking ME first!?” they scream—as if we have to beg permission first! What nerve! The leadership assigns offices and duties to the other members, clearly dispensed from the top of things. RED FLAG #10: The leadership sets themselves above the other group members  and takes on the role of tyrant “superior”, someone we HAVE to answer to and justify ourselves to. Independent action is discouraged and punished.

The groups goal’s are pointless and questionable. These groups link up with other questionable organizations in the mainstream: organizations who have expressed an interest in involuntary euthanasia, groups who have said only the young, healthy, and well-born should be allowed to live undisturbed, and so on. Too much interest is paid toward fund-raising. RED FLAG#11: Can’t pin the leadership down on goals, plans.

Groups having just one or two of the features listed, that can be explained away to believable causes, should be given the benefit of the doubt until more experience with them is gained and a clearer picture can be gotten. If the group’s leadership is dirty it will manifest soon enough. And there is always the possibility that a group can start out clean but succumb to infiltration and takeover later. How can we identify the “clean” groups then? What measure can we use to sort the dirty from the clean? Well, the clean groups have these particular features:

1.) The clean groups fund themselves, out of their own pockets. The clean groups are generally poor, without flash and glitz, just do not have the resources to spend on presentation that the dirty groups have received from their dirty funding sources. The clean groups owe no favors to anyone.

2.) The members of the clean groups are not allowed to have mainstream media access and nobody is ever asked to be a spokesperson representative of their particular clean group.

3.) The founding members of the clean groups are direct victims themselves and struggle daily with the limitations and losses their injuries (often terminal) have created in addition to donating activist work.

4.) The words “errors”, “mistakes”, and “system failure” is used only where it is truly applicable. Falsifying medical records, denying necessary aftercare, referral to lying and abusive specialists and such with the intention to cover up doctor-caused injuries is not a mistake/error and no clean activist will try to brainwash you into believing it is. The dividing line between a true “error” and crime is the presence of premeditation and intention.

5.) The clean groups will not discourage expressions of anger; anger is a normal response to being abused and violated and anyone who tries to tell you different is working their own program that has nothing good in it for you. Nothing corrodes slave chains faster than anger. Anger can provide the energy necessary for doing what needs to be done. The clean groups will not limit or discourage discussion of medical crime details or expressions of anger.

6.) The clean groups have no problem sticking their necks out when necessary, on an individual’s behalf, where possible and warranted. The clean group’s focus is planted firmly on TODAY and NOW with the idea in mind that when TODAY’s problems are addressed and solved the dirty groups’ nebulous “tomorrow” will take care of itself, will follow suit. We have to start somewhere; TODAY is the most effective place.

7.) Clean groups have no interest in warm-and-fuzzy, contrived, media/public displays or content­ controlled meetings. Clean groups do not censor what is presented for public inspection with the intention to sanitize or package anything: the clean groups lay the factual and provable truth out flat “as is” and let the recipients deal with it directly, or not, as they see fit. The understanding is the truth is not going to change for any individual and if people are not made aware of what is out there waiting on them they cannot possibly protect themselves from predation, even a little. In the current “club” system, with the way things are set up NOW and TODAY,  PREVENTION IS THE CURE. That is ALL we have going for us right now: prevention of preventable predation. There are no real outside protections in place. We have to protect ourselves. Knowledge is power. First comes education; when enough are educated the system abusing us will be forced to find its own cure eventually.

8.) Clean groups do not attempt to evict anyone because they persist in talking about topics other than “errors”, “mistakes” and “system failure”. Clean groups do not refuse admission to people known to speak freely about medical crime.

9.) The clean groups aren’t into hierarchy or assigning offices, all work according to their individual gifts and talents, donate as much or as little as they feel they can. The word “donate” is key here: activism is a gift. The giver has the exclusive right to decide who, what, how much, when, and where based on their individual determination of comfort level. Nobody stands over anyone else demanding performance or expecting production; nobody sits higher than anyone else dictating choices and workload from above. Nobody is expected to “answer to” or “get approval from” anyone else before beginning any project: if someone wants to take up a project and work on it, alone or with agreeable others, they just do it. Nobody is expected to “get permission”.

10.) The clean groups goals are crystal clear: they want the myriad criminal activity, human rights abuses, and patient abuses to STOP. TODAY. NOW. There is no time for stalling and fooling around with pointless “feel-good” projects that go nowhere, do nothing. The most-serious and most-disruptive issues need to be addressed, directly and persistently, until change is forced through exposure: the records-tampering, withholding correct diagnoses, denying proper aftercare of iatrogenic injuries, covert medical experimentation, lack of informed consent, and so on needs to stop immediately; it never should have been allowed to become institutionalized to begin with! However it got started, and whatever entity keeps training it to new doctors and other “club” members to keep it alive and growing, it is time to get rid of it and start over with something better. There is no place for these low-grade behaviors in a decent society and we should expect much better than “gutter ethics” from educated people placed in positions of trust: doctors, lawyers, legislators, medical staff of all specialties, and so on. Educated people should know better ways of dealing with the problems they have created than to lie, cheat, steal, sneak, oppress, coerce, threaten. What kind of depraved minds and hearts would create such a monster and continue to feed it year after year?! These behaviors are beneath educated people in a decent society. The foundation of trust has to be rebuilt from the ground up. Earned. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE CRIMINAL, ABUSIVE WORKINGS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM. The same twisted left-brained geniuses who thought the current “program” up and set it into place, activated it, perpetually teach and enforce it, could just as easily and with less total effort manufacture a better system that gives dignity and respect back to patients and doctors both. It would cost less too; the current system incentivizes medical crime and rewards “bounty­ hunters” in law and media.

   Doctors (and other “club” members): The solution is a very simple one: tell the factual truth, always. Just tell the truth and take the natural consequences like mature adults. Respond ethically. Hide nothing. If you always tell the truth you never have to remember what you’ve said. Yes, patients are not always going to like what you have to tell them but I can guarantee when the truth is told and responded to ethically both sides will come away from the exchange with their dignity and respect intact. Injury victims will be able to say: “I didn’t like what I just heard…but at least the doctor did not lie to me!” And that is still respectable under ANY circumstances. Grow up! There’s no time like the present…

 

Individual Infiltrators

   Over the years I have had many individual informants clapped on me; there were times I would no sooner identify and get rid of one than another would be clapped on. In all the years of exposure I have had with this nasty “club” protocol some good came out of it. It is an ill wind that doesn’t blow someone some good so I am going to take those experiences and use them for what good can come out of it all:

   The individual infiltrator often works for money, position, or power but they can also work for other benefits under the control of the “club”: some work a deal to get a loved one released from prison, others work to get pending criminal charges dropped for themselves or someone else. Some want to keep a home threatened by back taxes or divorce; others want to be granted custody of minor children in a divorce situation.

   Or it can be as simple as what my former neighbor told me about why she did it to me: she gets Target store gift certificates in $25. increments, depending upon the kind and volume of information she carries back to the local hospital administration she works for.

   I would like to believe that my life and well-being are worth more than that but in the real world other people don’t often care about you as much as they care about themselves and it is a sad day when we find out how little we are actually worth to certain ones.

   Family members will sell us out in exchange for being allowed to win a pending lawsuit or the lottery. Co-workers will sell us out for advancement on the job. Neighbors will sell us out for cash and all of a sudden luxury items they were never able to afford before appears: swimming pools, new cars, satellite television, pedigree dogs.

   All of a sudden we will have a steady stream of “new best friends” and we will wonder where they all came from. The feeding frenzy is ignited by outside sources and the “new-best-friend­wannabees” can get very aggressive in their pursuit, very persistent, and intrusive.

   The informants/infiltrators are usually selected from our own environment. It is more likely we will accept and trust people we recognize as our own kind and already know, however slightly. There is no point sending in “new best friends” from the white-collar crowd when we live a blue-collar life so the “club” takes a look around and sorts through the ones they think they can recruit who are most like us. If we like gardening, sewing, and antiques then the first-choice informants sent in will match those interests; if we have nothing in common it is unlikely the match will be successful or last long enough to bring a good return to the “club”.

   The informant(s) selected will have to move quickly because they cannot know how long it will take before we identify them and kick them out. So they will try to get in and grab as much vital information on us as fast as possible right out of the starting gate. This starts with non-stop questioning. Some are more subtle than others, will try to slip a question into the middle of a conversation and hope it goes unnoticed for what it actually is. Others are more clumsy and just blurt out anything in their heads. I have had to deal with both kinds.

   These informants can be very aggressive and pushy. They will call us and ask if they can come over for a visit; when we say “no, I am too busy today” they will show up on our doorstep anyhow and scream to be let in. (I had this happen once) They will show up on our doorstep uninvited and unannounced, barge in and take up our whole day if we let them, will fire question after question at us, walk around the room picking up and looking at private mail, examine our calendar for appointments, snoop through the postings on our bulletin board or refrigerator front. They will ask inappropriate, personal questions without batting an eye and will channel conversation in the direction that best suits their own purposes. If we wander off-topic they will quickly bring us back because they can’t afford to waste time talking about what we want to talk about; time is money: “I don’t want to talk about that; let’s talk about this instead…” and we are set back onto their selected path again.

   They adopt a superior demeanor and place themselves above us, take on an authority role and try to make us feel that we have to answer to them and do their bidding—and will not accept “no” for an answer. If the “club” wants us out of the house on a specific day they will do whatever it takes to get us out of the house on that day. If the “club” makes a suggestion to us that we do not want to follow our “new best friend” will be right in there pitching for them, trying to convince us to comply. (one of my “new best friends” thought I should comply with the suggestion my health insurer’s medical director and staff attorney made that I should be sent out of state and locked up in a mental institution “for an attitude adjustment” because I would not bend to their bullying and threats–and they don’t like people who refuse to do what we are told: I was ordered to shut up about my doctor-caused injury and wouldn’t do it. My “new best friend” thought I should just go to the mental institution the “club” selected for me “if only to see what they want”. “Why don’t you just go and see what they want?” she said, smiling. My family doctor of the time told me if I had gone “they’d have pickled your brain”—his exact words.) The informant will support and extend any work-in-progress by the “club”.

   There is a measure of bullying in this intrusive behavior; they can’t know how far we can be pushed before we catch on and ditch them so they have to set themselves up where they can grab as much as they can get—quickly.

   They will want to know what we like and dislike, want and don’t want. They will want to know all our friends names and where they live—the exact address and city, what they do for a living, what our family member’s names are and where they are located. They will ask us if we abuse drugs or alcohol in the present, if we have ever abused drugs or alcohol in the past. There will be NO quid pro quo: we are not allowed to ask them any questions of the same kind–and this is a big “red flag” that should tip us off. The informant is there to ask all the questions, not answer them. If someone will not answer the same kinds of questions they are asking us, it might be wise to consider the possible reasons why.

   The informant will want to dig up some dirt on us; if they can’t find any skeletons in our closet through the usual channels, that the “club” can hold over our head, they will try to create some, are not above encouraging us to commit petty crimes or setting us up in a situation where we can be arrested under the guise of something else. (one of my “new best friends” nagged me relentlessly to sneak into someone’s yard and steal a rose bush I had admired in passing; I refused to do it) If someone else present makes a comment about us that is even slightly negative they will dash across the room to question that person further: “Ooh, oooh, ooh—wait! Stop! I want to talk more about THAT!”

   If we do not keep an eye on them, give them an opportunity, they will steal from us: manuscripts, personal mail with interesting return addresses, and such that they feel their handlers would want to acquire—for a price.

   They will come to our home armed with large, open-topped purses or bags that they keep in their laps and fuss over the openings—which are aimed at us as we speak like microphones. The informant will fire off question after question in a manner normal conversation between regular people just doesn’t follow. We are being recorded. Want to test this? Start talking about someone else’s criminal activity: the informant will jump in and attempt to change the subject real fast. If we persist they get more aggressive. (ignore them and keep talking anyhow, see what happens next…) They do not want their tape “contaminated” for all time with controversial information about other people—people not under “club” investigation at the present. Now, our “brother John, the cocaine dealer” or “uncle Ned, the career house burglar” doesn’t have to be a real person at all (and shouldn’t be)—what we are shooting for is the over-reaction of the informant jumping in to shut the conversation down as quickly as possible and refusing to allow it to go any further. (one of my “new best friends” used to come to my home with a large, drawstring-closure purse. Instead of sitting it on the floor beside her like normal people do she kept it in her lap and aimed the wide opening at me, kept fussing with it. I ping-ponged from the fireplace hearth to the bench as we were speaking and she could hardly keep up with aiming that thing at me and keeping the top open just right. Once she phoned me, started grilling me with questions as usual, gasped as she remembered she had forgotten to turn her recorder on, and I heard the click.) Don’t worry about giving them false information and deliberately sending them off on wild goose chases; this low-grade person doesn’t deserve the truth and isn’t going to use the truth for anything good to our benefit. Tell them whatever you want to, but it is best not to speak to them at all or allow them access.

   I had three immediate neighbors who worked for the local healthcare syndicate at my previous home; two worked for the medical system who targeted and butchered me, and abuses me still. (and countless others) I wasn’t interesting enough to bother with for the whole thirteen years I had lived in that house before I was injured by a doctor; all of a sudden I became the most interesting person on the street. All of a sudden these particular neighbors started showing up on my doorstep—a LOT. Excessive, sudden interest is a huge “red flag”.(so is appearing immediately following a personal crises) One was more aggressive than the other two, was shameless in her pursuit. It got so bad I stopped answering the door when I looked out and saw who was knocking. She did whatever she could think of to overcome this obstacle: if I was in the yard working, or talking to someone else, and she saw it from her window, she would fly across the street and try to engage me before I could go into the house to avoid her. If I had company with me she would latch onto my company real quick hoping I would not make a scene in front of them and chase her away—it is too hard to explain the reasons to visitors who don’t know the history involved, and she shamelessly took full advantage of that. Whenever I had visitors and she saw their car pull up to my house from her window, she would fly across the street and just walk into my house uninvited, at the rear of the invited group, hoping that once inside it would be much more difficult to get her back outside the house again. She was extremely shameless and persistent. Some people will do anything to anyone for money, even “good Christians” like this greed-crazed neighbor.

   Another neighbor, whose wife worked for the same hospital system and is close friends with the first neighbor mentioned, would shamelessly creep around behind the tall hedges that separate his backyard from my driveway and eaves-drop on conversations. What he couldn’t see from his yard he would climb up on his roof for a better look over our privacy fence on the other side of the driveway. He would intercept our company going from their cars to our house and question them. He’d grab workmen we had hired and question them too. The “last straw” was the day I caught him on a ladder in my driveway peering into my dining room window–we locked eyes and he retreated. When my husband came home from work that day I told him we need to move–to a place with no neighbors, and what is what we did. I seldom spoke to these neighbors and had cut off all access possible–and it wasn’t enough; they shamelessly did whatever they could do to get the information they wanted through the only channels left to them–to the point of the ridiculous.

   My mail would arrive pre-opened and taped shut. My phone calls were intercepted at a remote location–diverted to a nearby hospital switchboard, I found out later.

   This collection of incidents has a name: GANG-STALKING. It took me a long time to find this out but once I did, and studied the subject, I came to the understanding that what I was being put through followed the patterns of that particular abuse to the letter.

https://gangstalkingworld.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/gang-stalking-techniques/ https://targetedindividuals.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/gang-stalking-techniques/

   Just like the infiltrators seated in the leadership positions in the largest patient’s-rights groups, these individual informants are unnaturally cold and unfeeling about the injury victim’s suffering and losses, unresponsive in a way that isn’t normal. If symptoms arise that they can see they will immediately jump in and fire off benign, dismissive “reasons” for the symptoms that are as far away from the true cause as possible—to the point of the ridiculous at times: “everyone urinates blood like that!”, “you are twitching because you ate that pie at lunch!”, “you’ve turned yellow because you eat too many yellow vegetables!” 

   Informants are not limited to working on just the injury victim or activist; they can also be clapped onto the victim’s spouse, child, or another close family member. The “club” is not above sending our parents, siblings, or children “new best friends” too. Or sending people to question others closest to us. But it can get worse sometimes:

   Injury victims who become activists, single or married, often get sent a “love interest”. The reasons are obvious; these “love interests” can be selected from the targets own environment and be pressed into service by the “club” or it can appear and start the chase as an interesting stranger. I know of several cases where the informant was clapped onto the spouse in the form of a “love interest” who aggressively and skillfully pursued its target until it got close enough to extract the information it wanted and gain the influence it desired—by whatever means necessary. If that meant the informant had to suggest and supply all manner of sexual services to inspire the level of trust and incentive for the spouse to talk freely and/or do its bidding then that is what happened. These kinds of informants will appear out of nowhere (as a stranger who takes a sudden, unexplainable interest or a person the target already knows who takes a sudden, unexplainable interest), will initiate the relationship and will aggressively chase their target right out of the starting gate with the full knowledge their target is married. They will make no promises, however, and will not be pinned down on “planning a future together” as is normal to a genuine romantic interest as it progresses. They rush their target into a sexual relationship immediately, will say and do all the “right” things to get things going—whatever it takes, as long as it takes. One of the first things they do is start giving gifts and they nearly always make a custom-cut, personalized,  “romance” music and/or talking audio-tape/CD, usually adding in  their own voice, so that their target can listen to it whenever they are not around to keep the inspiration going and the fake “fire” burning. The ones who fall for this con gets burned badly because the informant has no real interest in their target, isn’t creating anything real or lasting—it is all a contrived performance. And when the informant gets everything they are after they will drop their target like a hot rock, become as cold as ice for no apparent reason; the personality reversal is so abrupt it can be as if the informant split into two people. This tactic is called “Divide And Conquer” and it has several nasty purposes: sending in an aggressive informant to turn interest away from the targeted spouse causes the targeted spouse to lose their main support-and-protect system; the spouse who was sent the fake “love interest” can even be manipulated into hostility against the targeted spouse when under the spell and influence of the informant.

   If someone is trying to get close to us or our spouse, is acting pushy and interested out of proportion to what the situation warrants as appropriate, is saying all the “right” things, well, we’d better keep our backs to the wall…the thing chasing us might not be genuine. (remember the movie “The Verdict” with Paul Newman playing a malpractice lawyer? How the opposing law firm sent a woman to cozy up to him real quick and stick by his side so she’d be there at all the “right” times…and how she turned on him and attacked when he hit a low point? Just doing her job…)

   Informants disgust me to the core. If I ever become so greed-crazed I will sell a life away I hope someone will shoot me because I’d not consider myself fit to live any longer.

   The Internet hosts its own kind of informant: the “club members” troll certain Internet hot-spots where topics not on their approved list might be freely discussed by outsiders wandering in, like chat rooms or discussion boards, and their job is to monitor and control. If an outsider wanders in and initiates a discussion on medical crime and starts listing detail they quickly jump in with their standardized attack routine. I call them “barking watchdogs”. If you want to lure them out, find out who they are, just toss out a medical crime scene for discussion and see what jumps out at you: I call it “waving a rag over a box of snakes”— they can’t help but strike. I have done this deliberately, many times, on many boards. I then collected whole conversations that ensued and captured their standardized programmed-in responses for study. What a bunch of brain-dead automatons! Talk about your cult-conditioning!

 

Barking Watchdogs And Internet Trolls

Our national and international patient’s-rights alliance of activists have a team who posts here and there on the Internet, individuals posting in one place or many places at once.

   Over the years, and through many experiences, we have come to acknowledge and expect “sniper attacks” from the “industry mouthpieces/watchdogs” scattered here and there, who lurk and watch our dialogs progress and when it reaches the point where people express interest in what we have to say or too much sensitive information is being disclosed, these “watchdog-mouthpieces” jump in quickly and aggressively attempt to change the direction of the dialog to more “politically correct” exchanges.

   Failing that, these snipers will dig deep into their insider programming and drag out all of their well-worn and easily identifiable “thought-terminating cliches” and games, ridicule and satire, victim shaming. The more we talk, the louder they “bark” to try to shut us down.

   One such game is “ego attack”. “Ego attack games” are designed to place the target, psychologically, into an inferior position with vicious personal insults, demands, task assignments…the old, tired “you must answer to ME” posturing. This game is a favorite of the internet trolls/industry mouthpieces who roam the internet discussion boards for practice sessions–gotta keep those teeth nice and sharp.

 

Citations:

“Mind Wars” (out-of-print book) By Ron Dalrymple “The seven deadly forms of mind games: intimidation games, ego attack games, emotional withholding games, denial of responsibility games, emotional button-pushing games, sex games, and reality distortion games, all of which seek to undermine and destroy.”

THE 25 RULES OF PROPAGANDA https://www.sott.net/article/319148-The-25-rules-of-disinformation-and-propaganda

“When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you, you know your nation is doomed.” Ayn Rand

 

Law Enforcement  

(Click here to continue on to Part Four)