“PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON”. “Ok officer, you put your weapon down first”. Here is an example of where the public’s perception has been altered. We believe that the police officer’s weapon is legitimate but the member of the public’s weapon is somehow unlawful. Both weapons whether held in the hands of either parties are unlawful if used in an incorrect manner. Right here a typical member of the public would say that police have a rough job and thus have a right to carry weapons on them to defend themselves and I would agree. However, I would then ask these questions. Why cannot a member of the public do the same thing in order to protect his/herself? Does the policeman/woman have anymore rights to protect his/herself on the streets than a member of the public? Aren’t both parties exposed to the same dangers? Think about this for a moment.
Notice that I refer to the tools that police carry to protect themselves as weapons, because they indeed are. However both the public and police carry weapons and both are lawful to use in self defence when needed. One party has no more right to carry and use weapons than the other party. Do you believe that the police have more rights to defend themselves than you? The correct response should be an absolute NO in this case however, because of the forceful indoctrination and brainwashing executed by the mainstream media on the public daily, most people believe that police have more rights to defend themselves because they have been conditioned into thinking that the police are “gods” and that they have a right to have their boots licked by the “civilians”, put simply.
In the eyes of the elite the public must be predictable, predictability is the key. The elite of this world fear a man/woman who does not think in a linear fashion like the majority, who thinks outside of the box, who acts as an individual and actually thinks things through before making decisions. This is why you may have noticed more recently that people who hold to different opinions on a topic to the majority will be laid into and grilled until they change their minds and come to the so called “right” conclusions. This technique is called Social Disapproval.
The public’s perception has been altered in order to remove the wild random actions that people would normally carry out if unrestricted. This makes the public predictable and thus safe to the elite who absolutely fear the individual. People receive updates much like a computer, bits and bites of information daily to add to the already existing “programmes” that they have been uploaded with ever since their parents sat them down in front of the television. This is the main point at where the programming begins. Take a look at some of the automatons the controllers of this world have produced. Note the uniform actions and the lack of emotion on their faces:
Lets go through a few examples of the public perception altering technique and show you the real deal:
Note how the innocent victims of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and referred to as “Insurgents” or “Militants”. These words automatically associate something evil with the people being talked about and so people without thinking “automatically” conclude that they are an enemy and feel no empathy towards them. Let us have a look at some of these so called “Insurgents”:
This is all part of another sub technique called Dehumanisation, where you are downloaded with phrases, terms and slogans which make you switch off your emotions and not care about your fellow man. Horror and slasher films have also been used to embed this technique into the minds of people. A typical example is how most people will walk past a genuinely homeless person and not batter an eyelid or even a person who has just been stabbed, shot or mugged. The technique has worked well. However, this gives you a sad indication of how people will respond to YOU when YOU are in dire straits and need help.
Embryo, fetus. These words were purposely chosen to alter the perception people have about a child inside the womb. Before, the child was viewed as a child from conception, a treasure, an invaluable approaching member of the family and a blessing, whereas now the child is viewed as a thing, a hassle, a pain in the backside, a hinderance to a loose sex life, a liability that can be gotten rid of at anytime with no emotional quams. Margaret Sanger who headed up the eugenical Planned Parenthood organisation referred to the unborn child as a “parasite” in the woman. Planned Parenthood ethics still haven’t changed, they still view the unborn child as a parasite especially those children from black origins. Lets have a look at some of these so called “parasites” Planned Parenthood are talking about:
The public perception has been altered so much on this issue that they believe it is murder to kill a man/woman who has the ability to defend themselves but it is quite the right thing and not an act of killing to take the life of a child who needs protection and who cannot defend his/herself, why, because of the changing of certain words and phrases to alter your perception. When debating pro choice advocates, note how they will use the typical talking points, slogans and words that have been handed down to them by the mainstream media. They will never use any angles outside of the propaganda that they have been given.
Women have been really worked on with the perception altering technique because it is women by and large that spend more time in the home than the man, and because of this at least 70-80% of advertising is aimed at the woman. The Perception Altering technique for women really began in the 1960s with the Women Liberation Movement which was nothing but a front to destroy the family unit, get the woman to turn to the State for her needs instead of her husband and to have her listen to the state over her husband/man. The indoctrination that the “woman was being oppressed by the man in the home” has worked well to where the average woman has a innate vendetta against men, sees the man as a threat and will typically listen to the government “authorities” over the man. For example in the US many women will typically freak out at a person exercising their 2nd Amendment right like in this case:
However they will feel safe and secure when these type of characters lands on the scene:
Or even this:
Is this correct women, that you feel threatened seeing you fellow man or woman exercising his/her 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, a person who could be of much value if you were to land in some trouble on the street, but you will welcome with open arms and lick the boots of these jack booted thugs and you do not feel afraid of a man/woman wearing a black ski mask so you are unable to see his/her full face, an SS nazi helmet, full black body armour and carrying a fully automatic weapon? I know from history that we ought to fear the people in the bottom 2 photos, not the person in the top one. Women in America particularly need to snap out of this brainwashing and should actually purchase a gun and take gun training lessons to begin breaking the programming and conditioning that has brought you to this point. There is nothing wrong with the gun, the fault lies in the person who uses it. In the UK however because of the law banning guns, most women will immediately defecate themselves and faint at even a photo of a gun……….except when the guns are seen in the hands of corrupt police officers. Is this what you want women?:
TO BE CONTINUED……….