Brandon Raub and The Soviet Art of Brainwashing

Brandon Raub was released on August 23 from being detained without warrant by the FBI at a psychiatric ward. The ObLure does not endorse Raub's views on 9/11 or his decision to vaguely post violent rap lyrics on his Facebook page. However, we are appalled that the FBI morons would use such behavior as a justification to detain him. Raub made no actual threats whatsoever, and hence the judge correctly ordered that Raub be released. Raub should be able to sue the FBI and win a large settlement.

Interestingly, the idea that a sane person who criticizes government officials should be put in a mental hospital has been expressed in a book called "The Soviet Art of Brainwashing" in the 1950's. Admittedly, the book is fake and was not written by actual communists, but it contains some chilling ideas about institutionalizing people who criticize what are called "psychopolitical operatives" ie communist insiders:

Should anyone attempt to expose psychotherapy as a psychopolitical activity, the best defense is calling into question the sanity of the attacker... The next best defense is the actual removal of the attacker by giving him treatment sufficient to bring about a period of insanity for the duration of the trial.

What is scary is that officials can force a sane person in a psyche ward to take drugs that make him crazy, in an attempt to justify the initial detainment therein. Hopefully the FBI didn't hurt Raub by means of electro shock therapy and like while he was in there.

If a person is legitimately crazy to begin with, and is doing obscene things in public or actually threatening people, then committing him seems like the right thing to do for his protection and that of others. For example, if a deranged homeless man is defecating in public or harassing people and has a history of doing so, then a mental hospital seems like a necessary remedy.

But if someone merely has bad taste in politics or music and isn't crazy, he should not be institutionalized. Although many of us may bemoan his bad taste, people need to be free to make mistakes. Sometimes a person's involvement in politics can eventually lead to the acquisition of better, more sophisticated beliefs. Today's conspiracy theorist may evolve into tomorrow's political theorist.

Also, sometimes conspiracy theorists, because of their intense scrutiny of those in power, actually have better overall political inclinations than many non-conspiracy people and are less likely to be bamboozled by politicians. This is because they tend to apply a higher standard of honesty to politicians and others in power. Thus, sometimes mistaken beliefs or those based on conjecture can have good side-effects.

People like Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar, advocate government intervention to stop people from believing what he calls "false conspiracy theories". This makes one wonder whether the FBI targeted Brandon Raub according to such reasoning, since many people randomly quote violent rap lyrics but only a conspiracy theorist was arrested for doing so. Was the detainment of Raub an attempt to associate craziness with conspiracy beliefs? In any case, people should only be committed for legitimate craziness and not aberrant political beliefs or conspiracies.

Demonic Possession in Zombie Attack?

UPDATE June 27 MMXII
The results are in. The autopsy reveals that Eugene, the face eater, "was apparently not high on bath salts or any other exotic street drug at the time of the attack." He could still have been on some unknown drug for which there exist no forensic tests. But this finding leads us to the conclusion which we suggested earlier: that "if no drugs were found, possession may be the only explanation."
______________________________________________________

The face-eater, Rudy Eugene, allegedly growled at police after being shot and, of course, tried to eat a living homeless man zombie-style. Given the disturbing nature of these events, something more than drugs may have been influencing him.

Many have speculated that a drug referred to as bath salts was responsible. Others claim it was Zanex or a combination of things.

But his girlfriend maintains that he was a decent man who did not do drugs: a man who watched televangelist Creflo Dollar every morning and was good with her children. Additionally, a Bible was found in his car.

However, famous exorcist Fr Malachi Martin contends that even seemingly religious people such as priests can become possessed.

Eugene's girlfriend believes he was drugged by somebody, but as we stated earlier, it seems even a drug could not make someone act just like a zombie. More believably, a drug may have set the stage for a demon to manifest itself in him and make him behave like a zombie.

Malachi Martin also stated that no one can be possessed against his will. Rudy Eugene may well have explicitly allowed some being to possess him and may not have used drugs.

But if drugs were involved, he still could have been possessed, but only if he willingly took them. The reason, according to Pastor Joe Schimmel, an expert on how drugs can be a gateway to demonic possession, is that when one willingly takes drugs, he chooses to open up his will to the influence of the drug, and by virtue of this, the drug may accept the demon on his behalf. Schimmel notes that the founder of LSD experienced psychedelic feelings by accidentally absorbing the drug but did not experience what is called the "LSD demon". He experienced this demon only when he purposefully took LSD so he could enter an altered state of consciousness.

This is a very interesting idea, that there are indirect methods by which someone can accept possession through accepting something else that subverts the will to a drug. Schimmel notes that this occurs when sorcerers take things in order to experience another level of consciousness and connect with the spirit realm. One example of this is the use of peyote by Indians in traditional shamanic practices. According to Schimmel, drugs can function much like a ouija board would in terms of being a gateway to the demonic, as long as the person is looking for it.

Schimmel puts a new wrinkle on things by comparing the decision to experience a heightened reality through drug use to Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit and gain knowledge of good and evil. Just as Adam and Eve disobeyed God, so also drug users disobey God's will that they be sober and not indulge in pharmacia, which Schimmel points out is a cognate to sorcery, and those who practice sorcery will not enter the Kingdom of God according to the apostle Paul. Yet, whereas Adam and Eve fell from grace from eating forbidden fruit, drug users participate in an even greater evil that leads them not only to fall from grace but to become possessed.

However, Malachi Martin contends that there is no known criteria by which someone can be prone to becoming possessed. If drugs were a serious gateway, we would expect Martin to say drug addicts were much more likely to become possessed. It should be noted that despite being an experienced exorcist, Martin held some heterodox views on possession, including that people can become what he termed perfectly possessed.

But if someone were in a state of grace as Catholics say, or had Jesus in his heart as protestants say, then one would obviously be incapable of being possessed since a demon cannot reside where Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit is active. As long as the person wills it to be with Christ then the demon cannot possess him. But if a person doesn't have Christ in his heart, he can become possessed but only if he accepts possession.

If it is true that one can become possessed through ceding his will to a drug, then the act of doing so necessarily rids one of having Jesus Christ in one's heart and opens one up to possession. This is why the Bible forbids pharmacia, or use of mind altering drugs. Since drugs take over the will for a long period of time, it is possible that during this time the person cannot stop himself from doing what any would-be demon wants since his will is gone. And if he were possessed after taking drugs, he had to have taken them willingly.

Malachi Martin notes that there are a variety of demons and that each have specified functions. Could there be some sort of zombie demon out there? And if so, why haven't there been previous reports of such incidents? Could the demon have gotten the idea from a zombie movie, or could a demon have actually inspired the idea of there being a zombie, and then fulfilled it?

There is the possibility that there was no demonic possession involved. Could the abundance of zombie movies have affected Rudy Eugene somehow? Did he watch too many of them? Did whatever drug he was taking lead him to believe he was a zombie, and Did he find the prospect delightful?

Another interesting theory is that some drugs subvert the will more than others. Some are more conducive to possession than others. Could certain drugs always induce demonic possession? Could it be a sort of possession that is totally contingent on the presence of the drug? Would this necessarily be possession then, or simply a profound effect of a drug?

Only an autopsy can answer whether drugs were involved, but potential demonic possession must be left up to speculation. If no drugs were found, possession may be the only explanation. If drugs are found, then it is still a possibility.

Regardless, this incident may be a sign that the public needs to take a break from drugs and zombie movies for a while, or at the very least not combine the two.

The Population Conspiracy

Much of modern American culture and politics is conveniently conducive to population reduction.

Many conspiracy theorists believe genetically modified crops, certain vaccines, bio-weapons, and particular chemicals in the environment are part of a stealth plan by the elite to reduce human fertility and hence reduce population growth. These conspiracies, if true, are certainly important; after all, Thomas Ferguson of the Office of Population affairs stated "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or disease, like the Black Death." ¹

However, we would like to point out some less scary forces that lead to a reduction in population, forces that may be hiding in plain sight. The methodology for this article is deductive, that is, it is not focused on amassing evidence per se, but on answering the question: "If I had a lot of power and wanted to reduce the world's population, what sorts of cultural norms would I promote among the people that would lead them to have fewer children?" This article is not meant to take the side of someone of that persuasion, but merely to discover some methods that such a person would use so that he can be stopped.

Before answering this question, some evidence is necessary to prove that at least some people in power are asking it. Consider the following quotes:

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." -Ted Turner, media mogul

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." -Georgia Guidestones

"The Population Act of 1981 declares it to be the public policy to promote national population stabilization...[and directs] all Federal agencies to use reliable demographic research in planning and decisionmaking which affect national and global population characteristics." ²

A notorious supporter of the failed The Population Act of 1981, Richard Ottinger, makes it very clear that "population stabilization" means zero population growth.¹ Ted Turner and the Georgia Guidestones go even further by setting a number that is less than one tenth of the present human population of the world. Moreover, Ted Turner obviously has power over what airs on CNN and other Turner Broadcasting companies. The Georgia Guide Stones were allegedly created by a powerful person as well. The entire country of China imposed a one-child policy as a means of population control.

Many of these individuals may keep their beliefs secret so they do not jeopardize their business interests or elicit public resistance, so Turner and promoters of the never-passed Population Act of 1981 may be just the tip of the iceberg of de-populationists. So inevitably, there are people in positions of power who want to stop population growth and many still who wish to reduce world population. A question we will leave unanswered is just how many of them exist and how much power they wield. Regardless, what follows are some means they would use to reduce population.

Warfare

Breakdowns like in El Salvador...won't be enough to make a difference in global population growth... But [such breakdowns] could easily degenerate into a hundred Cambodias, where, if they haul off and kill one-third of the population-which would be delightful for the demographers-this is a much more plausible way to affect world population growth. -Harlan Cleveland 1981, former diplomat and US ambassador to NATO³

Advocating war in order to reduce population is nothing new. Thomas Malthus was one of the earliest thinkers to suggest war as a means to reduce population. His intentions, however, were not all that sinister considering economic theories prevalent in his day, the early 19th century. Malthus believed that population would increase at a faster rate than food supply. Sooner or later, there would be no food left to sustain population growth.⁴ Malthus must have reasoned that people would be continually starving to death in such a state of affairs, and that the most humane way to deal with it would be to start wars which would clear out the excess hungry bellies, leaving more crop yields left over for the survivors so that they would not have to live in conditions of constant starvation; that is, until their population numbers started rising again.

There were two factors, however, that undermined Malthus's population theory. The primary one was improvement in crop yields, which to this day have kept up with increasing population. Another was new contraception methods. Malthus had correctly assumed that humans would be unable to resist acting out on their passions, but he did not anticipate the development of new contraceptive methods.

Malthus's theory probably wasn't borne out of hatred for humanity, similar to how many people view humans as a "cancer" of the planet today, because another influential thinker of his day, David Ricardo, had a similar theory that labor would always trend toward a subsistence-based level because of certain economic forces. These men lived before the days of powerful unions, efficiency wages, and welfare programs, so if technology and other forces had remained as they were in the early 19th century, Malthus may well have been right.

Today, modern Malthusians forecast that humanity will eventually run out of food. Chief among these is Paul Ehrlich, who has been proven wrong so far, because a population apocalypse has never arrived... yet. The same factors of contraception and advancements in agriculture have, at least for the moment, doomed his theory to be unfulfilled. But there are individuals on the global scene who push for continual war, especially for the US. Might they have population reduction as one of their goals of calling for war?

Women in Combat
It is conceivable, however, that if powerful people believe such a population apocalypse is coming, they may consider warfare as a way to stave it off. One "problem" with modern warfare is that it usually involves only men. Even if the male population were significantly reduced due to warfare, one man could circulate through multiple women, and thus cause almost as many births as if there had been no wars and more men around. It is socially unacceptable among most people to cause civilian casualties, so population reductionists cannot achieve the deaths of women that way. To fix this "problem", they would have to put women into combat. This way, it is guaranteed that there would be less potential for births because there will be fewer women.

Indeed, if a man donates to a sperm bank, he can become the father of hundreds of children only if there are hundreds of women. But if there are hundreds of men and only one woman, there can only be one child. Therefore, it would make sense to have women instead of men go into combat if the war's main goal is the reduction of population. The founders of Mormonism understood that women were more important than men when it comes to multiplying one's numbers, and for this reason they allowed men to have multiple wives. Conversely, the key to reducing population lies in reducing the number of women. The Chinese have done this through abortions of female babies. Assuming some western elites wanted to put women in combat to reduce population, is there any evidence of this happening?

One of the most popular modern singers, Katy Perry, just came out with a music video depicting a young woman who, having her heart broken by a womanizing boyfriend, joins the military. The implication is that she will one day participate in combat, because she engages in combat training in the music video. In recent news, two female army reservists have sued the army claiming discrimination over not being allowed to be in combat.⁵ The news media is all too happy to take their side, but it seems like an all too happy coincidence for those who want population reduction.

Incarceration as a Prophylactic
In combat women can either be killed or maimed to the point where childbearing is impossible. But it often happens that women become pregnant in the military by their lonely male counterparts. An even more sure way of preventing pregnancy would be to confine women to an area where there are no men for the duration of their fertile years. But women commit far fewer violent crimes than men. Therefore, we would expect a population control advocate who wants women to be in jail, away from men, to support laws that put women in jail for as many non-violent offenses as possible since they commit so few violent ones. Chief among these non-violent offenses would be drug violations. Keeping drugs illegal means more women in jail, where they cannot become pregnant. If they can be kept there until they are no longer fertile, then population is effectively prevented from increasing and even reduced. This would also please eugenicists, who probably view the type of women who go to prison as having genes.

Promotion of Homosexuality
For a very long time a concerted minority of liberals and homosexuals have promoted the normality of homosexuality, primarily through entertainment, selective news reporting, and more recently, public education. This minority has blossomed into a slight majority, especially among young people. Population reductionists would be delighted with this cultural development, and would actually have an incentive to promote homosexuality, even to the point of pushing people into becoming homosexuals since such people tend to have fewer children. (Obviously, they are also incapable of engaging in procreative activities with their "partners".) It is a strange sight that elite entertainment figures like Madonna are much more likely to be found kissing a woman and promoting homosexuality than members of a small band playing a gig in a little bar. Much of the push for homosexuality has come form places of prominence and power, including elite ivy league universities, according to David Kupelian in The Marketing of Evil.

One sad story related by a public school teacher involves an instance of pro-homosexual propaganda actually peer-pressuring a young girl into partaking in a lesbian relationship. Although the girl in question frequently told the teacher of her attraction to male classmates, she admitted one day to reluctantly going out with one lesbian student who had asked her out. She said she was afraid that saying no to the lesbian would constitute bigotry, and felt compelled to date her despite having no feelings for her. Nothing could be more pleasing to a population reducer.

Prolonged Educational Requirements
Many people, especially those with graduate degrees, spend so much time in school that, after they finish and finally get their careers started, many are totally infertile or have few years of fertility left. So a population reductionist would certainly push for many, many years of education.

Feminism
All forms of affirmative action for women would certainly please a population reductionist. If women are career-oriented, they will put off having children until they are on firm ground in their careers. But the more concerned they are with their careers, the more they may forget about any dreams of having a family.

Barbie Dolls
In the '50s little girls played house and carried along with them doll-babies, with whom they would perform various motherly duties. Today, they play with Bratz dolls, where the emphasis is not on pretending to be a mother, but rather on fashion styles for the doll. All the Bratz do is party. Barbie had many careers but also a house and Ken as a husband and even a baby. However, even Barbie drew attention away from being a mother. Staying fashionable is expensive and far less affordable if a woman has to raise children, notwithstanding any physical toll bearing children may take.

High School Sports
Sports in high school are great, but when sports become the main thing, they distract a student from real, achievable career goals since most people are not athletic enough to be professional athletes. This sometimes prolongs the career-finding process since the person is too busy with sports in high school. A more distant career often means a longer time until marriage and child-bearing.

Considering all these things, if population reduction promoters can be found among the ranks of people advocating these things, this Population Conspiracy will gain a little more clout. This isn't to say that these phenomena do not have supporters who genuinely believe in feminism, drug prohibition, many wars, idealizing homosexuality, etc. Even a population reductionist might genuinely believe in these things, but we should not forget his other motives.
___________________________________
Sources

1. "Congressmen plan hearings to impose population control" EIR Volume 8, Number 12, March 24, 1981. Page 55
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1981/eirv08n12-19810324/eirv08n12-19810324_055-congressmen_plan_hearings_to_imp.pdf

2. S. 1771 (97th): Global Resources, Environment, and Population Act of 1981 Introduced: Oct 26, 1981.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/97/s1771

3. "Harlan Cleveland: 100 'Cambodias'" EIR Volume 8, Number 11, March 17, 1981. Page 53.
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1981/eirv08n11-19810317/eirv08n11-19810317_051-stockmans_global_2000_approach.pdf

4. History of Economic Thought Harry Landreth, David C. Colander - Houghton Mifflin (2002)

5 "Women in Combat" New York Times. June 3, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/women-in-combat.html?_r=1

Special thanks to Br Michael Dimond

Why Evangelicals Like Rick Santorum

Growing government, taking away freedoms, catering to lobbyists, hysterical warmongering, deference to the UN; what do these things--Santorum's true trademarks--have to do with Evangelical Christianity?

Most evangelicals are suckered in by Santorum's grandstanding on social issues because they are too ignorant to have developed ideas on economic policy, so social issues are all they have to go on. (This is not a criticism of them in particular; most people know very little about economics and other policy-related topics.)

Evangelicals think about politics in a very idealized, impractical way. They'd rather vote for Santorum, a corrupt lobbyist lover, based solely on the fact that he sounds like them in ideals, regardless of whether he can actually deliver the moral utopia he seems to promise. Santorum sweeps them off their feet, and captivates them in his little conservative fantasy world...and once elected, he deceives them into going to unnecessary war, wastes their money and votes to take away their freedom.

Santorum doesn't seem to understand that when he votes to grow government, he necessarily spreads secularism since all federal buildings are prohibited from featuring religious materials. The supreme court rulings to this effect are unlikely to be overturned any time soon. True cultural change must come from the bottom up, from evangelization and not from Santorum. America became more liberal during Santorum's tenure in Washington despite what he would have people believe.

Evangelicals are also brainwashed into supporting the military industrial complex via their support for what they think is Israel. Dispensationalism is a tragically flawed heresy that perverts a Bible verse into meaning that one must support imperial wars commandeered by war hawks and war profiteers. The Iraq war that Santorum pushed for and war with Iran he's presently pushing for come to mind.

To make matters worse, the idiot media is now "Palinizing" Santorum by attacking not his corruption, lobbyist relationships, record of growing government during the Bush era, nor his confusing illogical rationales for supporting the unconstitutional Lybia war, or trigger locks, but instead they attack his alleged conservative cultural background. Thus, evangelicals are provoked into defending him just as they were into defending Palin because they believe they share his views on moral issues and view him as one of them. They confuse defending their evangelical morality with defending him, and then it's a wash; its all over for them. They follow their pied piper off the cliff and fall to tyranny...and another war possibly with a draft which Santorum's adult kids probably wont have to fight in.

Huffington was Moonstruck by Gingrich

Strangely enough, Ariana Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, was moonstruck by Speaker Gingrich in the '90s. According to Politico

Back then, when Gingrich helped the GOP recapture the House and took on the Clinton administration as speaker, Huffington was one of his strongest supporters. “She was a big champion of the Newt Revolution"

Now, she is an Obama fan and her website is critical of Gingrich. She must now think she was chasing moonbeams back then.

Concerning Newt's dreams of a moon colony, it reveals that despite his strong ties with the establishment, employment with Freddie Mac and friendship with the Tofflers. Nevertheless, Newt does have some eccentric originality to him. He has always been chasing moonbeams, or moon dreams rather, and has always considered himself to be a savior of the environment and of education, which explains his sitting on the couch in a commercial about "climate change" with Pelosi and his private visit with Obama on education in 2009. Newt's originality isn't up to our tastes...

Herman Cain Loves Big Government

Herman Cain loves big government (after it leaves the US border).

Herman Cain doesn't focus much on foreign policy, and with good reason: his beliefs thereon conflict with his image as a pro-small government candidate.

When asked about the war in Libya, Herman Cain did a proverbial Rick Santorum impression and said that going to war there was right but that Obama hadn't done it in the right way--that Obama hadn't made the objective clear. This is another way of saying: "I also support Obama's unconstitutional war, but I'm going to try to get you dunderheads to believe that my policy would be substantially different from Obama's." Would a Cain-led no fly zone be all that different from an Obama one? Could it? Probably not, but we shouldn't have gone in to Libya regardless of policy employed there. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Michele Bachmann are the only candidates to have condemned the unconstitutional Libya war; Gingrich was for it before he was against it. Romney seems to be itching for war according to his latest book.

Herman Cain has openly sought to affiliate himself with the raging globalist Henry Kissenger. Kissenger is the poster child for big government intervention in the form of the military, and perhaps no figure better represents the forces of internationalism than him. Hermain Cain's 9-9-9 plan may seem anti-establishment, but when it comes to foreign policy, he might as well be the neo-con Rick Santorum.

A Syn of Times

We recently happened upon a music marketing company known as "The Syndicate." It's website is called www.thesyn.com. This may be seen as a provocative name--alluding to "sin", but this company actually refers to its employees as "Synners" in a job solicitation (so much for being inclusive to Christians). Yet no name could be more fitting for a modern music company, as modern music has been utterly co-opted by the forces of evil; and is rife with such "playful" satanism.

Even from a glance at the website, one notices a video with a menacing beat, featuring a person with a goat-head interspliced with brief, disturbing clips of fans doing weird, bad stuff.

But the bad behavior is really accidental to the evil wound into the music itself. Many have commented that Katy Perry's piece, ET, is so aggressively diabolical-sounding that they actually feel like their very soul is somehow damaged just from having listened to a portion of it--their breast feeling a horrible darkness within it, having come from the song. One man reported that his heart hurt for several minutes after hearing it. Lady Gaga is another perpetrator who goes to extremes in promoting a form of demented sensationalism in many of her pieces.

The strangest part about it all is that many of these pieces are composed by apparently normal human beings; it seems they should have been composed by a cult of satanists, or a coven of witches for how evil they sound. It is so difficult to believe that a mere human would want to propagate something so disturbing, even if it netted him or her lots of money.

For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? It seems like the modern music industry is composed solely of those whom have sold their souls.