© Unknown
On the 22nd of September, Ark and I were on the road to Marseille where he was scheduled on the 23rd to give a seminar at Luminy for a select group of French scientists. The expenses for our trip were covered by the French University system. Thus, it was particularly ironic to receive a phone call from my children telling me that convocations from the Police Judiciaire in Toulouse had just been delivered by the local police (most of whom know us and can't figure out what is up with those people in Toulouse - but they do their jobs). Needless to say, this was disturbing. But, our trip wasn't entirely spoiled because we had a good time meeting with Ark's colleagues and telling them about the witch-hunt over dinner.

Monday morning of this week, I received two books in the mail from a professor of psychology in Montenegro (educated in the U.S.) which had been rudely torn open, and stapled shut. The next day, a package from Germany, sent to me, but for my daughter, containing a set of coloring markers, had similarly been ripped open and barely re-closed. The following day, a letter from my insurance company arrived having been slit open, and then taped shut at the top. Today, a package sent from a friend containing sheep's butter had been opened...

We photographed the last three items (the first one was considered to be a fluke) and inquired of the supervisor at our local post office. We were told that sometimes customs people used to open and inspect packages, but when they did, they always re-taped them with a special customs' tape that notified the recipient that the package had been inspected. But then she looked very troubled and said: "Things have changed lately... 'they' open packages and no longer notify the recipient that the item has been opened. But it is still illegal unless there is an official order. Contact your attorney who can inquire if there is such an order." We will certainly do that, but the odd thing in this explanation was when she said "things have changed lately..." with that guarded, disturbed look on her face. "Lately"? Like since the election of Sarkozy, one assumes, because that IS what is bothering a lot of people in France, not just us.

My sister-in-law, who lives and works with us, came into the kitchen as we were discussing this matter of the police opening people's mail and said with shock: "My god! It's like Communist Poland under martial law! They did things like that!"

And she's right. France, under the leadership of Sarkozy 'the American', has taken the U.S. as a model and things have definitely changed. But it is clear that these changes have been some time in the making as reported by Joe Quinn in his latest article about anti-cult legislation in France and the very mysterious way it was pushed through. That merely signifies the covert way France has undertaken to install systems that accomplish the same things that the U.S. Patriot Act does in America and they are doing it under the guise of "anti-cult" investigations.

Of course, Americans have been terrorized by the 'cult' word for a number of years as well. First, there was the CIA-run experiment, Jim Jones' 'People's Temple' suicide in Guyana in 1978, followed by Waco - where the U.S. government basically burned alive a bunch of fairly harmless people (certainly, the children were harmless), based on the advice of Zionazi Rick Ross, the criminal "cult expert", and later still, the deaths of the Heaven's Gate group who were psychologically driven to suicide by New Age propaganda propagated by those I consider to be agents of disinformation in the alternative fields.

What is most curious about all of these incidents is that, when examined closely, they all appear, smell, and taste like PsyOps. Heck, when you look closely at French MIVILUDES, you get the faint imprint of MOSSAD and the CIA appearing like a watermark on copy paper. Regarding the Jim Jones massacre, Wikipedia informs us:
The incident in Guyana ranks among the largest mass murders/mass suicides in history, and was the single greatest loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001. Among the dead was Leo Ryan, who remains the only Congressman assassinated in the line of duty as a Congressman in the history of the United States.
Right there you have the link between Guyana and 9-11 spelled out (not intentionally, of course, but that's what makes it so interesting!). Plus, you have the assassination of a U.S. Congressman who, according to various sources, had to be eliminated because he was there to explore the People's Temple-CIA linkages.

So the 'cult' word was armed and ready for deployment when needed, and especially so in France where a particularly 'interesting' educational system prepares the average French man or woman to be 'good French citizens', which means submissive to authority either from fear or because they believe the propaganda about France being so superior they don't need to bother to learn anything from any other point of view. Sound familiar? It's like that in the U.S., the only difference being that the U.S. has gone to extremes in the other direction. Don't you just love being part of an experiment in how education can be used to brainwash people? In fact, there is a lot about the French educational system that is similar to the Jewish system. As Joe Quinn wrote in his article Cult-ivating Terror:
In a recent article for the long established Egypt weekly paper AL-AHRAM, Jonathan Cook, a British writer living in Nazareth, makes an interesting point about the similarity of the 'mind programming' effects attributed to 'cults' and the effects of mainstream religion (in this case Judaism). He suggests that the reason the persecution of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli military continues unquestioned by the Jewish people is not due to ignorance of the situation but is instead dependent upon various factors, not least of which are the dictates of Judaism, he comments:
"[It depends upon Jews] passing through an education system that transmits historical and moral values of exclusiveness to the religious and the secular alike: premised for the former on a biblical mission to be realised by God's chosen people; and for the latter on the overriding need to provide a sanctuary for a people blighted by centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust.

It also depends on a military rite of passage to adulthood that cements Israelis to their society, itself perceived as their only protection from a hatred, anti-Semitism, to which -- if they are to believe their teachers, media and government -- every gentile in the world is susceptible. This is their unique fate as Jews -- and Israel is their one and only insurance policy.

Israelis who believe this -- and almost all do -- feel that they have no choice but to submit to the collective good. Not a universal good, one of values shared by all mankind, but a collective good reserved only for Jews.

Talk to Jewish anti-Zionists in Israel -- a tiny number of people, barely reaching four figures out of a total Jewish population of five million -- and most will tell you how hard they struggled to overcome the Zionist training they were given from birth. Many say they are still fighting to defeat their own racist assumptions to this day.

Jeff Halper, an academic and leading Israeli activist against army abuses in the occupied territories, recently described to me the decades-long process of "unlearning" his Zionist responses. Deprogramming is what he called it. The kind of thing we read about in the papers when vulnerable youngsters need to be revived from the dangerous ideas implanted by a cult. But how do you loosen the grip of a cult when a whole nation is under its spell?"
Just replace "Jews" with French people and you have a very good idea of how the mind of the average French person works vis a vis authorities and France, itself. However, people in France ARE uneasy because many of them are realizing that they have walked into a sweetly baited trap.

Getting back to the book that arrived in the mail from the professor in Montenegro which actually was quite syncrhonous:'s entitled The Slave Soul of Russia and it's by a Frenchman, (Americanized), Daniel Rancour-Laferriere. In the flyleaf, my professor friend notes: "This argument could be applied worldwide."

What is the argument? Excerpts from the Introduction should make it clear:
Russian history offers numerous examples of the exploitation and debasement of human beings.... To this day ordinary Russian citizens, who often have difficulty obtaining the minimum goods and services necessary for subsistence, contribute to the production of goods and services which only an elite class ... has access to.

...historians who have written that the tyranny of the Tsars conditioned the nation to accept the tyranny of the Communists have missed the fact that Russian habits of obedience have been the cause, not the result, of political autocracy. ...

The social practices and cultural phenomena in question exist at the level of the collective, not at the level of the individual. ... But such facts depend on the actions of individuals... An individual who regularly participates in a social practice has a persisting attitude toward, a mentality concerning, what he or she does ... in his or her social environment. That mentality, or aspects of it, may be shared with other members of the collective. To the extent that sharing takes place, or to the extent that the shared mentality contributes to social developments ... the mentality deserves the attention of historians, scholars, sociologists, anthropologists... but a mentality is first and foremost an object of psychological study. It persists in the face of historical and environmental change...

... there exists a widespread attitude of submissiveness toward authority and a tendency toward self-defeating and self-destructive behavior... But even a social system which is oriented toward victimizing individuals requires a certain amount of cooperation from those individuals.

... In the context of a totalitarian government the nontraditional choice requires courage. Here an essential question arises: what do you call those people who attempted to fight the system? Were they people who behaved self-destructively (after all they knew they were in danger of being repressed), or were they persons who were trying to preserve their integrity amidst the general collapse? Official psychiatry insisted that the actions of Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, and Grigorenk fell under the category of paranoia insofar as these individuals were characterized by an inability to make compromises. But I am strongly inclined on the contrary, to label those who opted for compromise as the ones with self-destructive behavior. For, in a situation of unfreedom, compromise is always a betrayal of the self. It has always seemed to me that a readiness to compromise and, consequently, to carry out assignments handed down from on high, is itself self-destructive. ...

The individual who knuckles under to the collective is betraying himself or herself. ...
And so on. He is, of course, describing mainly the Authoritarian personality that Bob Altemeyer has written about so eloquently and entertainingly (I think he uses humor because what he has learned about the average person actually scares him to death!) Anyway, Bob tells us:
OK, what's this book about? It's about what's happened to the American government lately. It's about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It's about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It's about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It's about how the "Religious Right" teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It's about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

"Well," you might be thinking, "I don't believe any of this is true." Or maybe, you're thinking, "What else is new? I've believed this for years." Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the "Whole Book" link on this page?

Because if you do, you'll begin an easy-ride journey through some very relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.

For example, take the following statement: "Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within." Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.
Don't think for a minute this doesn't concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we're passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.

If, on the other hand, you're way ahead of me, and believe the extreme right-wing elements in America are poised to take it over, permanently, I think you can still get a lot from this book. The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they've done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?
© Unknown
Altemeyer's answers should scare any serious, thinking, person of conscience half out of their mind! This is a large percentage of any population, individuals who are basically blank slates and their only personality structure is what is created by the socio-cultural system they live in. There's nothing else there! That's what makes them such good robots, followers of pathological types that use them to represent the majority view, or at least, to reinforce it. There's a very good example of this from Nazi Germany.
In 1951, almost half of the citizens of Germany who responded to a public opinion poll, said that the period between 1933 and 1939 was the time during which things in Germany were better than they had ever been during any other period in history. [Herbert, Ulrich, quoted in Life in the Third Reich]
How can it be that half the people of a country that was almost totally destroyed in a war, STILL perceive all the events leading up to that war as "the best there ever was?" How did they perceive - IF they perceived it at all - the deaths of 65 million other human beings? How did they justify the fact that their own culture was essentially gone forever?

Many observers of the Nazi takeover in 1933, and the Nazis themselves, emphasized the "peaceful" and "democratic" nature of the "German Revolution." In 1933, Germany did not crumble, there was no civil war, the army did not intervene, the trains ran on time, and there was no large scale violence accompanying Hitler's takeover. It was only after the Nazis were finally able to gain control of all the ministries and police headquarters throughout Germany that the campaign of terror began. Americans ought to sit up and take notice of this fact.

The fact is, long before Germany was officially declared to be a "one party state," open political activity directed against the Nazis had come to a screeching halt. (For more details on how political suppression was achieved in Germany, read The Mystic vs. Hitler.)

The term "Liberal" could be used to describe both the Leftists and the Communists of Germany who were the targets of the Nazis. The Leftists of Germany were known as "Social Democrats." These were largely trade unions, worker's organizations and so on who supported the Social Democratic Party or the Communist Party. There was "back door" encouragement by the Nazi government for the violence against the "Left." The police, having been subjected to endless propaganda, saw the communists and labor unions as "evil." Anxious to make a good impression on their new masters, to be promoted, and most certainly, to not end up in a detention camp themselves, were easily manipulated to act against their fellow citizens in hundreds of illegal ways. The courts, similarly "pressured," acted in favor of the government's wishes and "law and order" became "what the Nazis wanted, the Nazis got." The same rules obtained for the majority of newspapers. The left-wing press was suppressed, and by the time of the elections in Germany, the Left had been driven from public view.

Leading members of the left-wing parties were arrested as the various police forces and Nazi formations began to coordinate their activities. After the election, the Nazis turned their attention to rooting out and destroying the supporters of the now underground Left and Liberal parties. The once impressive supports of German Social Democracy, which had withstood Bismarck's attacks for fifty years, were destroyed piecemeal.

The campaign against the Left and Liberals was all the more effective because of its ambiguous nature. There was no single, decisive confrontation. It was carried out both within and outside of the existing legal structure just as we see happening in the US and France today.

Analysts suggest today that even if the Left and the Communists had been united, they would not have prevailed because once the Nazis and their conservatives controlled the State organs of power, the police and the army were used effectively to eliminate opposition. Sound familiar?

If the history of the Nazi seizure of power teaches us anything, it is that there is little the Liberals can do to stop a powerful Right Wing movement that has mass support - or has created the illusion of mass support - allies in powerful places (such as the media), and control of the repression apparatus of the State.

Of course, the Left Liberals were not the only targets of the Nazis: there were the Jews as today there are the Muslims. It should be clear, however, that the assault of Germany's Jews took second place behind the attacks on the Left.

The Third Reich was only able to establish and maintain itself by being in a perpetual state of emergency. And mostly, they targeted "Liberals." It seems that a liberal then and now is anyone who values human life even if that human is different. So, when you start flaming Liberals, Communists and the "Left," or people who are different or have different beliefs, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are a Fascist - a Nazi. (But again note that pathological deviants can infiltrate and subvert any group or movement, so what calls itself "Left" or "Liberal," may be just a name and the original ideology has been completely twisted and perverted.)

It is important to note that Hitler was NOT given the "keys to the kingdom" by violence. Hitler had seen the folly of openly confronting law and order in 1923. The Nazis were thus committed to gaining power by "legal means," even if those means only appeared to be legal.

The Nazis promised a radical change back toward traditional values which appealed to both the rough lower class and the worried middle class. The SA appealed to young men who needed to prove their manliness and who could not do so otherwise - they couldn't even get a job. The Nazis provided a hierarchical structure that was "safe" and handed out attractive uniforms to those who felt their lives had no meaning or direction.

Utilizing propaganda to create a "straw man" in Marxism and Communism, the Nazis vowed to restore law and order that had been disrupted by the eeeevil Commies. This posture of using violence in defense of order is one of the central paradoxes of the Nazi movement. It was the "attraction" of this ideology that enabled the Nazis to attract massive support and to consolidate power rapidly.

But what is important to us here is the Gestapo and how it operated. For this segment, I am going to quote directly from Chapter 2 of The Nazis: A Warning From History by Laurence Rees. This book was written as a companion to a BBC Series about the Nazis that I highly recommend that everyone watch at the soonest possible opportunity. It is full of rare, original film footage that will open your eyes to what happened in Germany in a way that nothing else will. (U.S. version of the DVD HERE.)

Chaos and Consent - The Nazi Rule In Germany
[...]In those first months of power the chaotic terror was directed mainly at the Nazis' former political opponents. Josef Felder was an SPD member of the Reichstag who was picked up by the Nazis and taken to the newly established concentration camp at Dachau, outside Munich.

He was thrown into a cell and chained to an iron ring, and his Nazi jailers removed the straw palliasse which was lying on the concrete floor, saying: 'You won't be needing this because you'll only be leaving here as a corpse.' The abuse continued as the guard took a rope and demonstrated the best way Felder could use it to hang himself. Felder told him, 'I have a family. I'm not going to do that. You'll have to do it yourselves!' He was eventually released after more than eighteen months in Dachau, having contracted a lung disease.

The pragmatists among the Nazis' political opponents either escaped Germany or tried to conform to the wishes of the new regime; only the exceptional, like Alois Pfaller, tried to resist. In 1934 he tried to restart his old Communist youth group. It was a heroic act but, against a ruthless regime that singled out Communists as a particular enemy, failure was inevitable.

Pfaller was betrayed by a double agent - a woman who worked for both the Communist Party and the Gestapo. He was arrested, taken to a police station and brutally interrogated; his nose was broken and he was beaten unconscious with leather belts: 'And when I came to again, they did it a second time, again unconscious, the fourth time, again unconscious, then they stopped because I hadn't said anything.'

Now the interrogation tactics changed. One man sat at a typewriter to take down Pfaller's 'confession', while the other smashed his fist into Pfaller's face every time he failed to answer a question. The interrogation grew worse after the violent policeman sprained his right hand and began using his left. Now he hit Pfaller on the side of the head and split his ear-drum. 'Then I heard an incredible racket,' says Pfaller. 'It was a roaring, as if your head was on the sea-bed, an incredible roaring.'

Pfaller resolved to kill the man who was beating him, even though it would also mean his own certain death. He had learnt judo when he was young and he intended to stretch out and stick his fingers into his interrogator's eyes. But just as he decided on this course of action, he hemorrhaged. The interrogation stopped and Pfaller was given a bucket and cloth and ordered to clean his own blood off the floor. Then he was taken to a cell for the night and subsequently transferred to a concentration camp. He was not released until 1945. [...]

Most Germans did not confront the regime. More common was the experience of Manfred Freiherr von Schröder, a banker's son from Hamburg, who welcomed the new regime and joined the Nazi Party in 1933. He thought himself an idealist and believed that 1933 was the beginning of a wonderful new period for Germany:
'Everything was in order again, and clean. There was a feeling of national liberation, a new start.'
Like most Germans, von Schröder knew that Socialists and Communists were imprisoned in concentration camps, but he dismisses this as unimportant in the context of history:
'You have never had anything of this kind since Cromwell in England. Closest is the French Revolution, isn't it? To be a French nobleman in the Bastille was not so agreeable, was it? So people said, "Well, this is a revolution; it is an astonishing, peaceful revolution but it is a revolution." There were the concentration camps, but everybody said at that time, "Oh, the English invented them in South Africa with the Boers."'
...It should be remembered that the camps which sprang up in 1933 were, for all their horror, not identical to the extermination camps of the Holocaust which were to emerge during the war. If you were imprisoned in Dachau during the early 1930s, it was probable that you would be released after a brutal stay of about a year. (Alois Pfaller's experience is unusual for a political opponent arrested in 1934, in that he had to endure eleven years in a concentration camp.) On release, former inmates were compelled to sign a paper agreeing never to talk about the experience, on pain of immediate re-entry to the camp.

Thus it was possible for Germans to believe, if they wanted to, that concentration camps were 'merely' places designed to shock opponents of the regime into conforming. Since the terror was mostly confined to the Nazis' political opponents, or to Jews, the majority of Germans could watch what Göring called the 'settling of scores' with equanimity, if not pleasure. [...]
Such a regime only begins with oppressing SOME of the population. And those who do not see this at the beginning generally are doomed to suffer by it.
Academic research shows that [the average German] is not unusual in his/her rosy view of the regime during this period. Over 40 per cent of Germans questioned in a research project after the war said they remembered the 1930s as 'good times'. As this survey was conducted in 1951, when the Germans knew the full reality of the wartime extermination camps, it is a telling statistic.

Unexpected as it may be to discover that many Germans were content during the 1930s, this news is as nothing compared to recent revelations about the infamous Nazi secret police - the Gestapo.

In popular myth the Gestapo have a secure and terrifying role as the all-powerful, all-seeing instrument of terror that oppressed an unwilling population. But this is far from the truth.

To uncover the real story you have to travel to the town of Würzburg in southwest Germany. Würzburg is a German town much like any other, except for one special attribute: it is one of only three towns in Europe where Gestapo records were not destroyed by the Nazis at the end of the war. Resting in the Würzburg archive are around 18,000 Gestapo files, which exist more by luck than design; the Gestapo were in the process of burning them as the American troops arrived. They had begun to burn them alphabetically, so there are relatively few A-D files left; otherwise the files are complete.

Professor Robert Gellately of Ontario was the first person to uncover the secrets of the files. As he started work on them, an old German man saw what he was studying and said to him, 'Perhaps you'd like to interview me, because I lived here during that time and I know a lot about it.' Professor Gellately talked to him over a cup of coffee and asked him how many Gestapo officials there had been in this part of Germany. 'They were everywhere,' the old man replied, confirming the conventional view of the Gestapo.'

Yet after studying the files, Professor Gellately discovered that the Gestapo simply couldn't have been 'everywhere'.

Würzburg lies in the administrative area of Lower Franconia, a district covering around a million people. For that whole area there were precisely twenty-eight Gestapo officials. Twenty-two were allocated to Würzburg, and almost half of those were involved only in administrative work.

The idea that the Gestapo itself was constantly spying on the population is demonstrably a myth.

So how was it possible that so few people exercised such control?

The simple answer is because the Gestapo received enormous help from ordinary Germans. Like all modern policing systems, the Gestapo was only as good or bad as the cooperation it received - and the files reveal that it received a high level of cooperation, making it a very good secret police force indeed.

Only around 10 per cent of political crimes committed between 1933 and 1945 were actually discovered by the Gestapo; another 10 per cent of cases were passed on to the Gestapo by the regular police or the Nazi Party. This means that around 80 per cent of all political crime was discovered by ordinary citizens who turned the information over to the police or the Gestapo. The files also show that most of this unpaid cooperation came from people who were not members of the Nazi Party - they were 'ordinary' citizens.

Yet there was never a duty to denounce or inform. The mass of files in the Würzburg archive came into being because some non-party member voluntarily denounced a fellow German. Far from being a proactive organization that resolutely sought out its political enemies itself, the Gestapo's main job was sorting out the voluntary denunciations it received.

The files teem with stories that do not reflect well on the motives of those who did the denouncing. One file tells of a Jewish wine-dealer from Würzburg who was having an affair with a non-Jewish woman who had been a widow since 1928. He had been staying overnight with her since 1930 and they had declared their intention of getting married. The file demonstrates how Hitler's becoming Chancellor coincided with the widow's neighbours starting to voice objections to the presence of the Jewish man and confronting him on the communal stairs. As a result, he stopped staying overnight with the widow, but continued to help her out financially and to eat with her.

Then, a 56-year-old woman who lived in the same house sent a denunciation to the Gestapo. Her main complaint was that she objected to the widow having a relationship with a Jew, although it was not then an offence. From correspondence between the party and the police it becomes clear that she and a male neighbour pressurized the party into taking action. The local Nazi Party then put pressure on the SS, who, in August 1933, marched the Jewish man to the police station with a placard around his neck. The placard, with its despicable message painted in blood red, is still carefully preserved in the file. In neatly stencilled letters it reads, 'This is a Jewish male, Mr Müller. I have been living in sin with a German woman.' Herr Müller was then kept in jail for several weeks before leaving Germany altogether in 1934. He had broken no German law. ...

Denunciations could also be used for personal gain; you want the flat an old Jewish lady lives in - you denounce her; your neighbours irritate you - you denounce them too.

During his many months of research in the Würzburg archive Professor Gellately struggled hard to find a 'hero' - someone who had stood up to the regime, an antidote, if you like, to the bleak aspect that the study of the Gestapo files casts on human nature. He believed he had found just such a person in Ilse Sonja Totzke, who went to Würzburg as a music student in the 1930s.

Her Gestapo file reveals that she became an object of suspicion for those around her.

The first person to denounce her was a distant relative, who said that she was inclined to be too friendly to Jews and that she knew too much about things that should be of no concern to women, such as military matters. This relative said that he felt driven to tell the Gestapo this because he was a reserve officer (though there was nothing in being a reserve officer that required him to do so).

Totzke was put under general surveillance by the Gestapo, but this surveillance took a strange form: it consisted of the Gestapo asking her neighbours to keep an eye on her.

There follows in the file a mass of contradictory evidence supplied by her neighbours. Sometimes Totzke gave the 'Hitler greeting' (Heil Hitler) and sometimes she didn't, but overall she made it clear that she was not going to avoid socializing with Jews (something which at this point was not a crime). One anonymous denouncer even hinted that Totzke might be a lesbian ('Miss Totzke doesn't seem to have normal predispositions'). But there is no concrete evidence that she had committed any offence.

Nonetheless, it was enough for the Gestapo to bring her in for questioning. The account of her interrogation in the file shows that she was bluntly warned about her attitude, but the Gestapo clearly didn't think she was a spy, or guilty of any of the outlandish accusations made against her. She was simply unconventional. The denunciations, however, kept coming in, and eventually the file landed on the desk of one of the most bloodthirsty Gestapo officials in Würzburg - Gormosky of Branch 2B, which dealt with Jews.

On 28 October 1941 Totzke was summoned for an interrogation. The Gestapo kept an immaculate record of what was said. Totzke acknowledged that, 'If I have anything to do with Jews any more, I know that I can reckon on a concentration camp.'

But despite this, she still kept up her friendship with Jews and was ordered once more to report to the Gestapo. She took flight with a friend and tried to cross the border into Switzerland, but the Swiss customs officials turned her over to the German authorities. In the course of a long interrogation conducted in southwest Germany, she said:
'I, for one, find the Nuremberg Laws and Nazi anti-Semitism to be totally unacceptable. I find it intolerable that such a country as Germany exists and I do not want to live here any longer.'
Eventually, after another lengthy interrogation in Würzburg, Totzke was sent to the women's concentration camp at Ravensbrück, from which we have no reason to believe she ever returned. Her courage cost her her life.

We decided to follow up Professor Gellately's research with this file by trying to find living witnesses to Totzke's denunciation. Eventually we traced Maria Kraus, who had lived with her parents less than a hundred metres from Totzke. At the time we interviewed her, she was 76 years old and no different in appearance from any of the respectable elderly ladies one sees on the streets of Würzburg, itself a solid, respectable town.

But lying in Totzke's Gestapo file there is a denunciation signed by a 20-year-old Maria Kraus on 29 July 1940. The statement begins: 'Maria Theresia Kraus, born 19.5.20, appeared in the morning at the Secret State Police.'

During our own interview with her we read her the statement, which includes the section:
'Ilse Sonja Totzke is a resident next door to us in a garden cottage. I noticed the above-named because she is of Jewish appearance.. . I should like to mention that Miss Totzke never responds to the German greeting [Hell Hitler]. I gathered from what she was saying that her attitude was anti-German. On the contrary she always favoured France and the Jews. Among other things, she told me that the German Army was not as well equipped as the French... Now and then a woman of about 36 years old comes and she is of Jewish appearance ... To my mind, Miss Totzke is behaving suspiciously. I thought she might be engaged in some kind of activity which is harmful to the German Reich.'
The signature 'Resi Kraus' is under the statement. We asked Frau Kraus if it was her signature. She agreed that it was but said that she did not understand how the document could exist. She denies having given the statement and has no recollection of ever visiting the Gestapo. 'I do not know,' she told us. 'The address is correct. My signature is correct. But where it comes from I do not know.'

Whether Resi Kraus's amnesia was genuine or merely diplomatic is impossible to say. Of course, it is scarcely in anyone's interests today to confess to having denounced one's neighbour to the Gestapo. In a telling remark at the end of our brief interview with her she said: 'I was talking to a friend of mine and she said "Good God! To think that they rake it all up again fifty years later"...I mean I did not kill anyone. I did not murder anyone.'
But, in fact, she did. Just as everyone who does not stand up against the Fascism galloping across the planet today is just as guilty of murder as the one who commits the act.
I still have the image in my mind of Frau Kraus as we left her, after the interview, standing in the cobbled town square of Würzburg; a profoundly unexceptional figure and thus a deeply troubling one. If you want to believe there is a difference in kind between those who may have aided the Nazi regime and those who definitely did not, then a meeting with Frau Kraus is a shocking one, for in all respects, other than the denunciation signed with her name that lies in the Gestapo file, she appears an ordinary, decent woman - some­one who kindly enquired how old my children were and where we planned to go for our holidays. [The Nazis: A Warning From History]
And so it is.

The above is an example of how an army of Authoritarian Followers can aid and abet that which will destroy not only their freedoms but their lives; Slave Souls? Authoritarian Followers? It doesn't matter what you call them, they are the same everywhere and they are the tools of psychopaths anywhere and everywhere.

Also, remember that the other side of the coin of slavish following of authority is arrogance and being an authoritarian to those 'beneath' one... this works out well for a lot of authoritarian men who put women beneath them in the 'pecking order.' It is particularly interesting to observe in the U.S. and France (there are a lot of similarities between Americans and the French) because the initial impression one gets from both is arrogance and 'nobody tells me what to do...' And yet, they do exactly what they are programmed to do - programmed by their culture, their religion, and most of all, their clever, mind-manipulating politicians.

(There is another kind of person that Altemeyer studied and wrote about in his book Amazing Conversions - that is, people who grew up in authoritarian households or cultures but became free AND those who grew up in relatively free households/situations/cultures who later became flaming authoritarians (mainly religious). What this suggests, of course, is a genetic predisposition one way or the other; but don't think that waking up and getting out of social mind-control is easy just because you have the genes for freedom! What converts to religious authoritarianism have in common is a deep fear and need for a savior.)

The point I'm trying to make is this: Martial Law does NOT have to be overt and in your face as more and more people have been realizing since 9-11; just as in the Matrix movie, you can live in a prison of your own mind and; in fact, the majority of people do. I've said before that there is a disinformation program literally for everyone. No matter who you are - what your interests are, what your beliefs are, which way you're focusing - there is a website set up just for you to take you in and to vector your thinking and your attention into thinking the way that they want you to think. Check out this video explaining how the technocrats at g00gle et al have replaced the gatekeepers of old to vector people and keep them confined within individually tailored reality bubbles.

Now, let me change gears here just a bit. As most of our readers know, a British tech journal just published a short article about the French witch-hunt against SOTT. I had been corresponding with several internet friends about the situation prior to making it public and had noted:
What is bizarre is that I actually toned back our political activism and devoted more space on SOTT to diet and health and THAT is what scares them the most! Obviously, political agitation is not what gets them going - they want that because it gives them an excuse to crack down. But people getting healthy and able to control their stress and think? God forbid! We must be on the right track for this kind of nonsense to even happen! We must be scaring somebody to death!
Then, I sent them the link to the Inquirer article and wrote:
I'd like you to pay close attention to who does and who does NOT report on our current situation. ...
Now, why did I say this? Because it is a phenomenon we have noted over the past 10 years that is so strange that at first, we couldn't believe we were seeing it. It all began with my article MOSSAD and Moving Companies and Jeff Rense. Well, actually, it began before that.

Back in 2002, in October, to be precise, I published my first public commentary about psychopathy in power. You can actually see it HERE. (See how far SOTT has come since I was just starting to keep track of things and make observations about our reality?) Yes, I had made hints here and there about psychopathy in power before, but this was the first time I had just come right out and said it. I published an analysis of George W. Bush as a psychopath - heck, I had stuff to say about the whole darn family. :
However, there is something far more troubling about Bush's use of language. Have a look at some of his most revealing comments:
"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of the site, and this guy is just a garbage man." - Bush, commenting on the website

"I will do everything in my power to restrict abortions." - George W. Bush, Dallas Morning News October 22, 1994

"I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where? You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas." - George W. Bush whose state ranks 2nd in total number of children living in poverty to Austin American Statesman, 12/18/99

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." "If I decide to [run for President], it will be to restore the promise of America. And I'll define what that means later." (11/15/98)

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." (9/15/95)

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"The future will be better tomorrow."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." (8/17/93)

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." (9/22/97)

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it." (5/20/96)

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."

"I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children."

"You f--cking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." - to writer Al Hunt, 1998

"They misunderestimated me." - Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." - Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case." - Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." - Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." - Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000

"The senator [McCain] has got to understand if he's going to have - he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." - To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - Debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000
I'm just shaking my head in amazement that this man can even dress himself. And he's the head of state of the most powerful nation on Earth, for God's sake! Now, what is so troubling about these 'mixed up' remarks? Those of you who have read the segments of the 'Adventures Series' about psychopathy, are already aware that this "thinking discrepancy" is proposed as one of the observable symptoms of congenital psychopathy.

Hare writes:
What makes psychopaths different from all others is the remarkable ease with which they lie, the pervasiveness of their deception, and the callousness with which they carry it out.

But there is something else about the speech of psychopaths that is equally puzzling: their frequent use of contradictory and logically inconsistent statements that usually escape detection. Recent research on the language of psychopaths provides us with some important clues to this puzzle, as well as to the uncanny ability psychopaths have to move words - and people - around so easily. [...]
Here are some examples:
When asked if he had ever committed a violent offense, a man serving time for theft answered, "No, but I once had to kill someone."

A woman with a staggering record of fraud, deceit, lies, and broken promises concluded a letter to the parole board with, "I've let a lot of people down... One is only as good as her reputation and name. My word is as good as gold."

A man serving a term for armed robbery replied to the testimony of an eyewitness, "He's lying. I wasn't there. I should have blown his f---ing head off."
From an interview with serial killer Elmer Wayne Henley:
Interviewer: "You make it out that you're the victim of a serial killer, but if you look at the record you're a serial killer."
Henley: "I'm not."
I: "You're not a serial killer?"
H: "I'm not a serial killer."
I: You're saying you're not a serial killer now, but you've serially killed."
H: "Well, yeah, that's semantics."
And so on. The point that the researchers noted was that psychopaths seem to have trouble monitoring their own speech. What is more, they often put things together in strange ways, such as this series of remarks from serial killer Clifford Olson: "And then I had annual sex with her." "Once a year?" "No. Annual. From behind." "Oh. But she was dead!" "No, no. She was just unconscientious." About his many experiences, Olson said, "I've got enough antidotes to fill five or six books - enough for a trilogy." He was determined not to be an "escape goat" no matter what the "migrating facts." [Hare]

Sounds like Dubya, eh?

However, there is the problem of Bush's "unnatural power of persuasion." The polls indicate that there are people being persuaded by what he says - which is another symptom of the psychopath - even though they speak in a contradictory way, people are persuaded by what they say to such an extent that they will defend them against all attacks, even if the psychopath is caught doing something red-handed! The psychopath is able to persuade large groups of people to believe in them with no visible and logical reasons for doing so.
That's what I wrote then. Check the archive. That's before we knew all we know now about the Bush regime's war in Iraq and all the lies that were told to get us over there. But I could SEE it even then. And it wasn't because I was psychic, either! It was mainly because I had been observing the antics of a character named Vincent Bridges and the psychological power he exerted over people who 'ought to know better'. [Read all about Bridges and his cohorts here.] Well, as they say, if a person who should know better suddenly doesn't, then they never did. It's a clever saying, but knowing what I know now about the preternatural power of the psychopath (and other personality disordered individuals) to anchor their will in the minds of the uninitiated or instinct-injured using such techniques as reversive blockade, paramoralisms, suggestion, etc, I'm not so sure that people who get taken in are to blame. As Bob Altemeyer points out, these people just simply have brains wired a certain way and they can never be different: they need a leader to follow and that's that. Psychopaths know it and take advantage of it.

Anyway, there I was seeing what was going on in politics based on my observations and researches and it was shocking. It was hard even for me to believe what I was seeing, but there it was. Sure, Bob Hare and Paul Babiak and others are far more vocal about it nowadays, but back then, I was really going out on a limb to say that. I didn't realize that saying out loud (writing) that the leaders of the good ole US of A were probably psychopaths was going to change my life forever.

All hell broke loose.

Within just a few days of publishing that page, I received my first hand-written, snail-mailed death threat. That was followed by several emailed threats; our dog was poisoned and died; a dead cat was left under my bedroom window; my second daughter was poisoned and nearly died (she was in the hospital on life support); my eldest daughter was stalked by a lunatic in a car and was run off the road twice, later she was hit broadside: her car was destroyed, thankfully, she was not hurt.

Knowing that our home address had been published on a Zionist discussion group with the suggestion that someone go and "take care" of us, I spent night after night lying awake listening; I was sure that they would come and burn the house down around us while we slept.

That state of affairs, plus the fact that the defense sub-contractor that my husband was working for was pushing for him to be naturalized so he could be taken 'inside' under secrecy oaths for his work, in addition to Bush's beating of the war drums, convinced us that we had to leave and leave soon. That was actually the impetus for me to think of raffling off our house because I knew that it could take months and months to sell and I wanted to be gone before any war began. It was a rushed and bad decision made under intense pressure.

Once we had arrived in France and felt that we could leave all the attacks from Vincent Bridges and his gang behind, I started thinking about the whole thing. It occurred to me that what was wanted was for me to just shut up and go away. So, I tried an experiment: we took all our websites down - just deleted them from the web. Sure enough, all the defamatory websites that Bridges and his gang had set up came down a few days later. We monitored a list where Bridges held court, and he announced with satisfaction that he had accomplished his goal of getting rid of me so now on to bigger and better things. I said nothing. Besides, we had a lot of housekeeping to do with the Cassiopaea site. I was going to separate it from my Signs of The Times site and let others take it over so I could work on research and writing. Just getting things organized was a huge job.

We were also pretty busy at the time dealing with the movers we had hired in Florida and it was because of that experience that I began to do some research and stumbled on a few things that made me go 'huh?' The result was an article entitled "MOSSAD and Moving Companies". We put it up on the mostly bare website and went on with what we were doing which was trying to sort research priorities and figure out who would do what, when, where, how and so on.

I really didn't think the article was anything special; I had just been following my nose. But apparently, it struck a strong chord with many people and rapidly went 'round the world, being translated into a dozen languages within a week or so. I guess it was the first time anybody had come right out and said 'MOSSAD dunnit!' about 9-11.

I received an email from Jeff Rense asking me to be on his internet radio talk show. No sooner was my impending appearance announced than Vincent Bridges and his pal, Jay Weidner, leaped back onto the stage and the SERIOUS defamation began in earnest. It has only gotten bigger and worse over the past 10 years; there are a lot of Authoritarian Follower-type personalities out there that do not care about facts and data and are easily manipulated to be tools of psychopaths such as Bridges (not to mention the millions that follow psychopathic leaders in government). I should also mention that it was at that time that I began to get a funny feeling that something was not quite right with the Jeff Rense website and show. But that's a long discussion that you can read on our forum.

Coming forward to the present moment and situation (skipping tons of drama!), as I said, the other day, the courageous editor of the UK Inquirer published a short article about our situation - basically suppression on the internet by police-state methods; a sort of virtual Martial Law. It's interesting that it is a woman who has the cojones to speak out on our behalf.


Well, let me share another exchange we had yesterday. As many of you know, we have had issues in the past with the internet essayist, Les Visible. We have still continued to publish his essays now and then when they do not violate SOTT's editorial policy, which includes that we will not publish anything that glorifies the use of illegal substances. Anyway, I had been having an exchange with another well-connected correspondent about our own publication of the French Connection Redux article, and he was sharing it with a long list of correspondents that include the editors of a number of "Alternative News Sites." As I mentioned above, I wrote to him as follows, and here is the entire email:
I'd like you to pay close attention to who does and who does NOT report on our current situation. In the past, when we have faced other situations that should have given chills to honest, online sources, we have observed very odd things. For example, that whole thing about the Pentagon Strike that resulted in articles written for Popular Mechanics and Scientific American... even though Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote to me that our work had single-handedly re-vitalized the 9-11 Truth movement, not a single mention was made of in either of those articles (though they referred specifically to the video). We also observed a number of websites that felt they had to carry the video by popular demand, but in every case, they did NOT link back to SOTT, and in a couple cases, actually went into the video code to remove the reference to me and to SOTT from a couple of frames! That is the point: there is a concerted, deliberate effort to avoid any mention of SOTT while, at the same time, sites such as Rense are mentioned specifically in state department announcements about "disinfo sites" which, of course, is advertising!

So, observe this process of separating the wheat from the chaff that we have observed ourselves over the years. Because, the truth is: when you remain 'neutral' in respect of situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. (Tutu paraphrased)
Getting back to Les Visible, as soon as the Inquirer article was published, he was one of the very few (along with the Inquirer editor) who actually saw the significance of the situation and wrote about it: "Signs of the Times is in the Crosshairs."

But then, that strange phenomenon that we have been living with for ten years now hit him over the head. He wrote the following day:
Boy are you guys hated, especially Laura. Everyone is jumping on me with both feet, including some of my best friends.

I had no idea.

I'm not changing my stance but I won't be doing this again. Hopefully I won't have to.

Yup, Authoritarian Followers doing their perceived duty, no doubt. I wrote back to Les:
Les, if you haven't gotten your own team of assigned trolls/defamers, you aren't a threat to the PTB. I acquired mine back in 2001 right at the time of 9-11.

It is characteristic of psychopathy to go after a woman, most of all, too.

I'd be looking at the background and politics of those "best friends", or at least the possible ponerization.

Now you know what I have lived with for the past 10 years and why I'm rather strict about what I allow in my space. I know they are waiting to pounce and if there was one single thing they could pin on me, they would, and crow to kingdom come.

Read just the main page here to get an understanding of where and how it all started.
Les wrote back:
I'm just telling you what happened. I am not going to retract anything. I'm just stunned at the invective. I'm really tired and I have to go to sleep.
No need to be stunned at the invective, Les, that's Ponerology at work! Because they are Authoritarian Followers of a group of psychopaths, they really believe what they are saying. Just read Bob Altemeyer's book to learn what goes on in the minds of these types of people. I wrote back:
Yes, that sort of thing was stunning to me, too - all of us, in fact. It's designed to be that way. That's what got us started on researching pathology because we really couldn't understand how people could act that way and repeat such vicious lies and be incapable of thinking about actual evidence. What's more, the more evidence we provided that they were lies/liars, the louder and more frenetic they got, so it really was a laboratory for studying psychopathology.

It REALLY cranked up to unbelievable levels when I published MOSSAD and Moving Companies. That's when Rense revealed himself. Yeah, he's ostensibly against Zionism and promotes Zundel and all that, but it's a cover a la "Protocol 12".

They all learned pretty quickly that I wasn't going to tolerate that crap on my own website and that made them scream and rant even more. Damndest thing we'd ever seen.

It took us awhile to trace the connections, but it became clear that this was just a part of the whole Zionist/NWO/crap. The Zionazis are very accomplished at it and you will notice that they pretty much follow the Hasbara manual that we also published to expose them.

Of course, a lot of innocent people get taken in because the connections aren't so clear at first. It's only if you look at what we have written and published, and compared the reactions - kind of graph it - that you are able to see the "man behind the curtain."

The Pentagon video ramped things up big time... then there was Joe's article about the Pentagon hit that exposed that psy-op "abovetopsecret" (that is to say, they came out from behind the curtain and we saw them)...

Then, there was Bill Ryan and Project Serpo connected to abovetopsecret and their Jewish lawyers.... So now, we've got that Zionazi, Sarkozy and his gang on our tails, doing duty for the Jewish controlled CIA.

A few other 'bigger names' in the alternative news/9-11 Truth community showed themselves over time. It really was shocking to realize that the biggest ones were psy-ops from the beginning - EVEN IF THEY, THEMSELVES, WERE NOT AWARE OF IT! People who really have good intentions, but are afflicted with big egos and are driven by their emotions are easy to manipulate. It has taken time, careful observation, tracking, to see it. And they HATE it that we see it and regularly expose it.

In the end, it's not really JUST about Zionists, though they are ring-leaders, it's about psychopaths in power and the people among the public who are susceptible to their mental manipulations.

They really do hate it that we quit focusing on Zionists and turned our attention to psychopathy. And then, diet and health because people who are healthy are less easy to manipulate (see Pavlov's studies on Transmarginal Inhibition).

In the end, there IS something good that comes out of it: as Don Juan says, you learn to get over yourself and your sense of self-importance is destroyed. Then, the only thing that matters is the Truth and it does NOT matter what anyone says about you anymore. You no longer waste energy worrying about such things.

So, again, welcome to my world - you've had a small glimpse of what I live with every day.
That's why I say that the Inquirer editor has guts. She apparently is not backing down. Yes, the article she published has been flamed and probably she's gotten emails telling her that no one should ever say anything positive about me, no one should ever help me, and certainly, if you don't toe the line, you'll suffer! (It reminds me of the radio show host who was fired for having me on his show.) And the Authoritarian Followers that read Les Visible are obviously taken in by the propaganda and that is having an effect on him, too. That's how it works. Study the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich and you'll see the pattern clearly.

The PTB are not happy about anybody who searches for and exposes facts. In the face of such a situation, they usually use two methods.

First they try to "remove" the truth speaker by one or several of the following: defamation, threats, false accusation, planted evidence to get them arrested, offering funding, luring into glory, association with vectors, "accidents", ego maneuvers, etc.

If they don't manage to "remove" the truth speaker or their influence, they go into the second mode (which is not mutually exclusive from the first one): damage control. Since the truth is out, their objective will be to minimize its impact: reduce distribution, product availability, give bad press, distort and twist whatever the person says or writes, create "replica" of organizations and books, cut fundings... but mainly, defamation.

If all else fails and the seekers of truth become really annoying, you can't kill them because martyrs are powerful things; so you try to kill them effectively with large scale smear/defamation and possibly even searching out one little thing that you can hang them with and lock them up. Again, this is where the psychopath and Authoritarian Followers come in. That's where the internet defamation campaign against me has come in so handy for the French authorities.

That's how it works; that's how psychopaths do their job. They start ranting about something, and soon they have a whole slew of Authoritarian Followers who basically help them to destroy people who are working night and day to try to help humanity - and no, I don't mean anything airy-fairy like the Cs, I mean real research and analysis which is what is about.

And so today I've 'todayified' (we editors have a button that does it instantly) a whole bunch of older articles we've archived on SOTT about cults and some of our experiences with the pathology of the Internet (Inquirer editor, there's a topic for you!). I hope you'll scan over the categories and check some of them out. And then, consider something that was written in a comment to the Inquirer article very carefully:
Case in point
  1. The appearance of the paid trolls anywhere LKJ is mentioned on the internet is evidence of a planned and deliberate cyberwar. That they repeat the same twisted, filthy lies is further evidence of their coordination.
  2. That there IS a coordinated war waged on LKJ is evidence that she must be a really scary person in the eyes/mind of the PTB.
  3. What is the reason for that? That she does real research and publishes it for free? What are the topics that scare the PTB most? Obviously, that LKJ was among the first alternative writers to point out the problems of psychopathology in power AND published Political Ponerology. And now, LKJ has exposed the diet and health scam that the PTB have run on the whole world for years in an effort to aid the takeover by the NWO.
  4. IF there were a single shred of evidence of ANY of the claims of the trolls and defamers, LKJ would have been in jail long ago.
  5. If there was a single shred of evidence of wrongdoing NOW, the French police would have already charged her instead of spending the last six months trying to find one single thing to hold against her.
  6. That there is no evidence whatsoever to bring charges - and never has been - is, itself, evidence that the defamations and wild claims by trolls are false.
  7. That the trolls persist in their attacks and defamations, with NO evidence either coming from them OR available to law enforcement organizations, brings us back to point #1: that the trolls MUST be paid agents and staying on the alert for any positive news about LKJ and swooping in to search and destroy is their job. That is, anyone who attacks her without posting their real name, their real contact details, their REAL EVIDENCE, is just a paid troll. Which leads to the obvious:
  8. LKJ must be REALLY onto the Truth if there is such a concerted effort to destroy her as there has been for years.
Think about it.

posted by: Bonnee, 29 September 2011
Indeed, think about it. What is happening to SOTT is just a foretaste of what is to come to YOUR doorstep: Martial Law, created by psychopaths, aided and abetted by self-destructive Authoritarian Followers.