It is a few more days to go and people around the world will be seen celebrating the 17th of March in remembrance of St.Patrick. The strange fact is that on this day, even if you are not an Irish, you feel like becoming one or celebrating like one. It all started in 1631, when the Church decided to mark the day in honor of St. Patrick. However, the now famous Saint had actually died in the fifteenth century. However, how much of it was simply for respect and not for getting an extra fun-filled day off just before Easter? That’s a bit hard to tell considering the age old tradition and the emotional equations involved. However, let’s try to dig out a few facts and leave the rest to flow with the traditions. The timing According to sources from the Church, in the 1720s, Christian celebrants had to be remembered the actual origin of this day. It was simply not a festive season leading up to Easter but was celebrated for a different reason all together. The first parade in the United States actually took place as late as in 1762. We can now see the color green brightly flashing everywhere on 17th March but its association with botanic which was a mandate for all saints related to St. Patrick, is lesser known. On the contrary, till 1798, the color blue was associated with St. Patrick. Green Beer A late addition to all the fun associated with the day, was the green beer. Initially, Ireland followed a strict rule of keeping all pubs shut down on this day. It was only in the 20th century, that green beers started flowing all around. May associate this to be an infamous marketing strategy of one of the beer companies (present till day). No snakes in Ireland The core story that revolved around the glory of St. Patrick was that he was the person to eradicate the whole of Ireland from snakes. However, according to scientific facts, that requires a reality check given the fact that Ireland’s climatic conditions is not favorable to reptiles. Did St.Patrick really like Corn? You can’t really argue on the fact that if you are celebrating St. Patrick’s day, it’s incomplete without having Cabbage and corn grains and beef. However, history has it that the grain associate with St. Patrick was not in the form of ‘grain’ but was a type of salt that was used to treat meats and kept them from getting stale. However, let these facts not reduce your enthusiasm to celebrate the big day.
0 Comments
This website is to expand your mind to many possibilities of truth hidden in plain sight. Apparently, now YouTube is going to limit as to what can be uploaded to the website. Granted that when you create the account, you have to follow community guidelines. If you violate them, you are at risk of your channel being shut down immediately. With that being said, there are always ways to get around this. You have to be clever with the content you have but it is mainly the title of the video uploaded.
The issue now is that YouTube will be limiting what will be available to users on conspiracy theories. I'm not quite sure why because it is making it to where people don't have a voice. When the Las Vegas Shooting happened, many things changed. There are new laws being created for individuals who carry a gun to now YouTube holding back theories as to why the shooting happened in the first place. There were videos asking questions about the event that were never answered during the investigation. Like I said, it is all about the title of the video. You have to be clever but now they are looking into the videos closely. This all goes back to the government controlling what we should know and what we shouldn't. Conspiracy theories takes us on a ride of possible truths to events that have happened over time. No one can say that something didn't happen when they weren't there during that time. When these theories come out, we are exploring more into questions that should have been asked right away. The government controlling what we know has been a theory for a very long time, most people know this. When YouTube stated that they were going to limit content based on theories, the government instantly came to mind. There are so many conspiracy theory videos out there about the Las Vegas Shooting. Now, creators of those videos will be given strikes if their content breaches YouTube's policies. If you are given 3 strikes then your channel will be deleted. It is ridiculous to be punished for simply giving an opinion. We should all have the freedom to express what we are thinking but we live in a world where we are being restricted from what we say based on societies comfort of content exposed. What do you think of this? Should YouTube restrict our freedom like this? Christmas is almost here and we all have a need to watch Christmas themed movies, right? There are a lot of classics out there such as The Grinch, Elf, Miracle on 34th Street...what about Home Alone? This is one of my favorite Christmas movies just because a child is able to come up with so many ideas on how to prevent thieves from robbing his house. The traps that he creates are beyond incredible. Even though this is my favorite movie, I am open to hearing different theories on what this movie could mean. There is a theory that Kevin, the child, grows up to be Jigsaw from the Saw movies....what?! I was shocked to hear this as well. It could be possible though. It is thought of that Kevin enjoys the pain that he causes to the thieves and Jigsaw enjoys the pain that he causes to his victims. See the connection? According to seventeen.com, "both characters' enjoyment of watching others in pain---and their blonde hair, blue eyes---provide evidence to this theory." Now, I know that this theory is completely messed up...I get it. Why ruin a childhood classic, right? There are so many interpretations of films out there so why not go back to the good ole days? Kevin is a child who creates traps in his home so that no one can steal anything. His parents "forgot" about him when they went off to go to some trip for the holidays. How sad...but not for Kevin. He enjoyed the look of fear in Harry and Marv (the bandits) so maybe this theory isn't a surprise. We are not sure how Jigsaw's upbringing really has to do with the way he came to be. All we know is that he had a tumor that couldn't be treated. As he was dying, he wanted others to fight for the right to live because they weren't in a position where they were dying. They were doing drugs, cheating, etc. This was all because he tried committing suicide himself but lived. Jigsaw wanted others to appreciate life rather than abusing the privilege to live. Life is precious and everyone should be thankful that they are alive to experience everything that life offers. Of course, it is different for everyone. Each experience is different. We should never take advantage of what we have. So, Jigsaw is really trying to teach a lesson to individuals who have this mindset that life doesn't matter. "His methods include forcing his subject through deadly scenarios, which he referred to as "games" or "tests", in which they were forced to inflict pain upon themselves or others in order to escape. These tests were typically symbolic of what Jigsaw perceived as a flaw in each person's moral character or life" (Wikipedia.com). Does this sound familiar? Kevin somewhat does the same thing. He tries to teach the bandits a lesson by having them go through deadly obstacles. I mean, realistically you care not able to survive most of the obstacles that are in the film. It just isn't possible. Understandably, it is for entertainment purposes. We all get that. But what if Kevin did grow up to be Jigsaw? The only flaw in this theory is that Jigsaw's real name was John but he could have just gone with that name to cover up his past...maybe. Just think about it. Blonde hair and blue eyes with a thirst to teach others a lesson through traps or "games" that are deemed to be deadly. What do you think? Could they be related? Just think about it. Image found on Washington Times Image found on TVOvermind I do not own the rights to the images, however. Credit is stated under each photo
The prison system isn't what you think. Shocker, right? There is a conspiracy theory explaining how the privately owned prisons get filled. Want to know the theory? I will tell you. The theory is that rap music influences people to commit criminal acts that land them in the "slammer" (nymag.com). Interesting one, huh? Music seems to be the "go to" choice as to why people do what they do. It is another way to put the blame on something else rather than individuals taking blame for choosing to do what they did that go them put into prison. Agree? However, there was a study done over music exposure and criminal behavior: perceptions of juvenile offenders. "Most respondents believed in the reflection-rejection theory, in which music is perceived as a mirror of the adolescents' lives rather than a causative factor in their behavior. Two additional theoretical perspectives were espoused: drive reduction theory, which states that music serves as an expressive vehicle (thus reducing the likelihood of emotional and physical outburst); and excitation-transfer theory, wherein residual physiological arousal affects subsequent behavior. In the latter, music was perceived as harmful only when applied to preexisting states of negative arousal" (University of Dayton). In other words, the findings were that juveniles didn't feel as if the music influenced their behavior rather it did impact how they felt in the moment before the crime was committed. Music has a tendency to be relevant to what goes on in our daily lives. Music can be interpreted in many forms, most are experiences that many are or have gone through. Music artists create messages in an artistic way that takes you on a journey of their life's path from past to present experiences. Listeners who do take the time to digest the words appeared in the songs, are influenced in a way where they feel what the artist feels. However, this doesn't justify the crime committed in any form.
Crimes committed by anyone is a choice. It isn't influenced by anything or anyone. So how does this relate to the prison? Private prisons have silent partners who profit off of how many prisoners are held within the prison. Where does the money come from, you may ask? The government. There is funding from the government that is given to privately owned prisons. Therefore, the silent partners can buy shares. So if there aren't enough prisoners held in the prison, the partners don't receive as much. The theory is that rap music was released to help fill up the prisons so the silent partners don't lose money. Although this theory is a bit out there, it does make you think about how much these "silent partners" are actually making. Doesn't it? We are all very informed about the conspiracies of the Illuminati society. Members involved are individuals who have more power or greater influence above those who galvanize on their wealth, wisdom, and image. It is believed that the members fancy complete control over the outcome of certain events in society such as political campaigns. They would be in control as to who would actually win regardless of the votes accounted for. We all know that individuals who possess a large amount of money or power over others are bound to have some impact on society in some way shape or form. Now it isn't unusual for this to happen because those with money can change the world just as those who have more power.
With that being said, where did this Illuminati group come from? According to Entenmen, When the Order of the Illuminati, the organization's original secret society, was shut down in the late 1700s, conspiracy theories formed almost immediately about its continued efforts. Many believed the members of the Order carried on with their plans underground. Some even claim they wanted to get disbanded, and used the public abolishment to their advantage to deflect curious eyes from their efforts (complex.com). So they kept their group a secret. Where did this idea come from? The idea for the group, that is. The conspiracy I have developed is that the Illuminati developed by Adam Weishaupt, replicated teachings from the group started originally, the Freemasons. "The society evolved out of Scotland after stonemasons working on the country's public buildings in the 1500s banded together---in a similar way to modern trade unions---in a bid to protect the secrets and interests of their trade" (nypost.com). Does this sound familiar? This group of individuals took the society seriously. They had secret handshakes and gestures that symbolized your involvement in the society in order to go to work and such. It isn't clear, to my knowledge, if the Illuminati carries on this tradition but the name might be evident to representing this secret society. The difference between the two is that the Freemasons don't advertise their society in any way whereas the Illuminati is known worldwide. I mean, you can Google Freemasons to educate yourself about the history of the society but not many people know about them. I'm sure most, if not all, have definitely heard of the Illuminati society. I believe that they expose themselves to deter away attention from their original group name. In today's world, the Illuminati are those with influence from entertainment. They tend to laugh it off when being "called out" as part of the group; most likely to seem as if the group never existed in the first place. It is confusing yet clear that the foundation and principles of the Illuminati are derived from the Freemasons society. It is confusing because there isn't evidence of members, who are associated with either group expose any information pertaining to what happens within the society other than bits and pieces of ceremonial initiations that members endure. The Freemasons society as a whole is similar to any Greek Fraternity that colleges thrive on, in my opinion. It is also present knowledge, to me that is, that the Illuminati thrives on exposure rather than being a secret and it also thrives on the "fact" that the society gains the "upper-hand" in becoming successful. By this, I mean that if someone wanted a position in power bad enough, they will bend rules or find a loop-hole in order to gain that position; disregarding the idea of fair game between two components. The Freemasons society was thought of as a way to help the "brotherhood" gain more resources in order to be successful. The group never wanted exposure; it would defeat the whole purpose of the society being a "secret." This so called "Illuminati" aka copycat society, made the Freemasons intentions seem negative when in reality, they were "secretly" guiding individuals towards the right path in life. I am sure there is more to how the society functions, more or less what it entails, but that is left to the members of that association. Only they would know the answers, it is the concept to the overall function of the group. In conclusion, there are two societies known in this world who have an impact on our society. One is kept a secret while the other flourishes by exposing not only what the society is but who is also in it...supposedly. One is intended to be a positive influence whereas the other is made up to be made a mockery of. No one is quite sure as to why either was started, more or less why either were intended to be conserved from existence. We are made certain, or rather I am made certain, the imitation of creating the Illuminated resembled the society, the Freemasons. This is, however, only my theory. With the amount of school shootings that have been happening, it hasn't surprised to me know that we did this. The children that carry a gun are victims to societal acceptance for gun violence, theft, bodily injury, ignorant behaviors toward authority, sex, and destruction in video games. Examples of some graphic and influential video games are Manhunt, Fallout, GTA, Call of Duty, Bloodborne, and much more. Influential individuals who have an impact on the development of the child(ren). Why is this being said? "Sociocultural theory grew from the work of seminal psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who believed that parents, caregivers, peers, and the culture at large were responsible for developing higher order functions. According to Vygotsky, learning has its basis in interacting with other people. Once this has occurred, the information is then integrated on the individual level" (verywellmind.com). Although adults have a major part in the development, children also have the ability to think for themselves. Especially, for the decision in picking up a gun (knowing right from wrong) and using it to shoot others let alone bringing it to school grounds. With that being said, allowing children to take part in playing games of such influence also have an impact on their decision-making abilities. They may notice how characters treat others and get away with the "crime." So they, in turn, do the same. Even with knowing right from wrong, they are blinded by ignorant tactics in the games, therefore, they make the wrong choice rather than the right one. "We're 21 weeks into 2018, and there have already been 23 school shootingswhere someone was hurt or killed. That averages out to more than 1 shooting a week. The parameters CNN followed in this count are:
When are the shootings going to stop? How can we get these kids to understand the negative impact these shootings have? As adults, we can't expect to just have "trust" that our children won't be influenced by the media; that would be a form of ignorance. The blame here is definitely not all on the parents but rather the parenting from the parents. I'm sure that we all grew up hearing, "actions speak louder than words." We have to ask ourselves, "are we saying enough words to our children?" Are we taking the time to sit down with them to inform them of the "real world?" We can't expect them to learn for themselves at such a young age. These shootings are out of control. Maybe it isn't the parenting styles at all, maybe it is the idea of wanting to go "viral." The internet was a great way to communicate with others. We have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Whats wrong? Even though we gain more from using the internet, we still encounter many hardships. The use of the internet makes it more accessible for an individual to hide behind the screen to write angered words towards a target. This would be considered bullying. With that being said, the internet is also accessible to many children; who are not stupid by any means. There are apps that can hide information from parents, as well as sites and so on. Are we surrendering violent information to our children? There are ways to block websites, games, etc. Are we oblivious to doing this or ignorant to what is on the web? Children today are obsessed with this idea of becoming famous. aren't we all? We all want to make more money, have nice things, etc. This idea of becoming famous is doing whatever it takes to get noticed, right? Seeing other individuals bring a gun to school may have impacted what another child is going through. "Follow the leader" as they all say. With the internet being so immersed in easier communication between people, we are dealing with cyber bullying, ranting, memes and so on that may affect how a child feels or understands the world. This is turn could result in a child wanting to feel inclined to make light of how they feel in an exorbitant way such as bring a gun to school. This would be the way to shine light to their pain, if they had any to begin with. This, again, could be a way to get noticed, to become famous, regardless the outcome. You take Jeremy Meeks for example--he was a criminal who was discovered by a modeling agency due to his mugshot being so attractive looking. Maybe these children hope that they could be discovered the same way. Non-observantly, we bypass content that our children are subjected to. In conclusion, the theory is that when viewing violent content, we are exposing children to relentless wrong decision-makings that have severe consequences. For example, these school shootings are happening but no one is finding out why. Why are these kids thinking it is okay to do this? It doesn't even have to be children, adults act in the same way. The media takes the story and blames it on the child having a broken home, having mental problems, etc., but you know that it isn't true. It might be true that the child or adult have some mental issues but that isn't always the case. We have to be more observant to what we see on the internet because that can influence our way of thinking. Regardless of knowing right from wrong, we tend to do things that we learned from watching or reading somewhere. This notion of going viral may have some affect on how an individual perceives being famous consists of. For example, being a criminal may result in a contract with a modeling agency. Just be aware of the negatives in this world of ours.
Horror isn’t just about frightening individuals into being scared of what is shown or read; it is to heighten up what reality really consists of. "Collecting is a primal phenomenon of study: the student collects knowledge." (Benjamin, 210) To my understanding, this quote is saying that we learn from what we collect. I have chosen this particular quote from Benjamin because it really hits home to the idea of fear being produced to reveal what impacts horror has on society. We start collecting items and ideas at a young age that is the “primal phenomenon of study.” We are starting to understand the world and even if they are different perceptions, we are still collecting without knowing. To help my claim of horror influencing society, I have chosen two other theorists Susan Sontag and Pierre Bourdieu. Sontag agrees with Benjamin on collecting where Bourdieu has a different perspective on collecting. Horror is defined as “an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear.” (Dictionary.com) So does horror exploit fear in people to be aware of what might be? Does horror tend to be educational? Does horror present more reality than fiction? And can horror influence society? The three main subcategories that will be discussed will be Warning, Fiction/Truth, and Influencing. There are two examples that go along with each subcategory. Each example will go into depth in explaining how we tend to learn from fear, horror, as well as act upon what we learn.
The first example chosen for the Warning subcategory is the film The Collector. A brief description of the film is there is a man who sets traps within a home while a family is "on vacation." Come to realize that the family was held hostage within the home being tied up, chained, etc. There is another man who is known to be a thief and wants to retrieve expensive items within the home to pay off his ex-wife. He wants to be with his daughter. He doesn't know about the other guy setting traps in the home and finds himself trying to survive as well as save the family who is held hostage. In the end, he does escape, the family does not, and then he is trapped in a box. He had been collected. (IMBD) By having a family present in the film, you are automatically drawn to the idea that the film is going to be sweet and innocent except for the fact that there is a man who wants to rob the place. As an audience we are connecting with the family aspect because we all have families. Since we are drawn to that aspect, we are then horrified when discovering that the family never really left the home. The family was actually being held hostage and tortured by a man. He wears a mask so his identity remains unknown. It is unclear if the family is going to survive or be killed but once you see the husband being beaten senseless and cut open then you know that the man is killing them off one by one. The fear that the audience has is only temporary because we know that the film is not real but what makes you fear most is the fact that there are traps within the home that are not seen unless you really look for them. You can step on bear traps, scissors can cut a line that catapults an object throwing you into a wall, or you could walk into a clear line plotted on the floor and once triggered can released a saw from above to land on you. There are so many events that occur in the film that really do put the fear in you, therefore, you are in this horror state. The film ends and then you start thinking that any human being can invade your privacy and set traps within the home that kill just for pleasure. We learn from the film and so that is why we get homeland security systems and lock our doors and windows. No one wants to experience something like this but it can happen and that is why there is a warning sign that isn’t addressed in words and pictures but is addressed by that fear that you possess. “The genius of Surrealism was to generalize with ebullient candor the baroque cult of ruins; to perceive that the nihilistic energies of the modern era make everything a ruin or fragment—and therefore collectible.” (Sontag 121) I would say that The Collector does follow through with this quote because we all have items within our home that someone out in the world wants. We have people who seek to find some comfort in trying to fit in society by looking for some pleasure in collecting something; even if that means people. The man portrayed in the film in the mask is a mysterious character but we can somewhat relate to being in that dark place where we just want to be known for something. He obviously wanted to be known for setting traps and collecting humans in a wooden box. His collections were of people whereas our collection of the film is knowing what traps to create within our home to stop intruders. The second example to the Warning subcategory is the film Urban Legend. “There are many deaths that happen and there is only one student who fears that the deaths are connected to certain urban legends.” (IMBD) This movie relates to the quote because there are so many events that happen throughout the movie that we see and so those events tend to stick with us. We know what not to do in situations and we start to think of better ways to improve the outcome of the situations more positively. For example, in the film there is an urban legend where you have to check if someone is in the backseat of your car before getting in your car and if you don’t then you will die. The urban legend comes “alive” and kills one of the college students who didn’t check if anyone was in the backseat and died. We improve our safety by learning from incidents like this and create a lock on the car door or by creating a social norm to check the backseat before getting into a vehicle. This film also triggers a realistic approach. What this means is that the film really puts the audience in the film. By doing this, the audience becomes the characters displayed on the screen. Each member of the audience chooses whichever character they want by choice and then reacts to what the character does in the film. You become the characters and then start to think like them in a way. In reality, we don't know what to expect. When we watch films, we tend to believe that we would do something differently if we were in that situation but most of the time we just do exactly what the characters do. So relating this to Benjamin, the events occurred in the film affects how an individual could think or acts in society. They learned the results to each death and try to prevent that result to happen to them. The first example to the subcategory Fiction/Truth is the horrific story of H.H. Holmes. "Often credited as America's first serial killer, Holmes's body count is thought to be somewhere between 27 (the number he confessed to) and 200 victims. How is such a thing possible? The simple answer is that Holmes built a hotel in a bustling part of Chicago in the 1890s, and designed it to be a perfect killing floor for his sick desires. Later called "Murder Castle," it was designed to be a maze of windowless rooms, making escape virtually impossible for those Holmes chose to trap. No one aside from Holmes knew the full layout of the place as he repeatedly hired and fired new builders to construct this killing castle in portions. Some of the weirder attributes of this hotel were doors only able to be opened from the outside, doorways that open on brick walls, a safe big enough to put a person inside (to suffocate them), and a chute that allowed him to dump bodies from the upper floors straight to the basement, where two massive furnaces and large supplies of flesh-stripping acid were stored." (Cinemablend) Having this information presented, it reveals some relief that you didn’t live during this time but at the same time you fear for the victims. It is almost like they are still alive and that we want to save them but in reality we can’t. We live in this fantasy that prevents us from seeing the truth in the world. There are people who will kill you. There are people, like Holmes, who will go to the extent of constructing building with secret hidings so that no one will ever know that they are killing people. It is like a sickness in a way. These people thrive on the blood shed from the massive killings; therefore, they continue to do this act. How does this relate to Benjamin? Well, he said that “the student collects knowledge” and to me this relates to Holmes because this man was mentally ill. He killed once and then collected how to do it more discretely so he wouldn’t get caught and possibly killed as well. Holmes knew how to manipulate the people he lived around to think that he was this spectacular man but really he had a dark and deep secret within him. It is frightening to think that this was a real situation. I am still trying to wrap my mind around how he didn’t get caught at all. He would send the bones from the victims to science so there was no trace of them being in the hotel and there was no smell of rotting flesh floating in the air. You would think that people would be suspicious as to where he was getting all of these bones from but no one ever suspected this rich man to commit such a crime. “Consumption is, in this case, a stage in a process of communication, that is, an act of deciphering, decoding, which presupposes practical or explicit mastery of a cipher or code.” (Bourdieu 250) Even though we aren’t exactly sure why Holmes did what he did, we can see that there is a pattern of perfecting his crime to not being noticeable at all. He lured his victims with such ease and seduction. Holmes knew exactly what to do and when to do it because he mastered his killings. I know that from researching this man, I have consumed more information about insane individuals than ever. I don’t know where to begin to think of why people do what they do. “The upperclass propriety which treats taste as one of the surest signs of true nobility and cannot conceive of referring taste to anything other than itself.” (Bourdieu 252) H.H. Holmes was a wealthy man and so he most likely knew that no one would catch on to his act because of that. Being wealthy can buy you out of some crimes such as selling marijuana or smuggling cocaine but murdering people wasn’t a concern because no one thought that people would do such a thing. It does matter what class you are in when it comes down to it. The second example to the subcategory Fiction/Truth is the hit television show “American Horror Story” Murder House. This television show wasn’t exactly the show that I would be interested in considering everything is made up and the acting isn’t necessarily the best. To me, I really didn’t want to watch it up until the second season Freak Show was showing on the screen one day at work. I was intrigued by this “scary” clown. I wanted to know more about him more than anything but there were things discussed in the show that were about the first season events. I knew that I had to watch the first season. Ever since then, I have been hooked to the show. I am not sure why but it has this quality of pulling you into each situation with two points of view. "The Harmons face many conflicts going on in their new home; the primary one stemming from Ben Harmon's adultery, and the subsequent fallout with his wife Vivien and daughter Violet. Other conflicts include the intrusive behavior of the neighbors, Constance and Adelaide, as well as intrusions from one of Dr. Harmon's patients, Tate. A parade of mysterious visitors to their haunted home, including the scarred Larry Harvey make the first year of the Harmons in Los Angeles very dangerous. The house seems to have a vivid history, ranging from brutal murders to demonic manifestations, and it seems to have its own agenda." (Wikia) With the situation of cheating on someone, most individuals can relate to just because that is a common predicament that most people experience in their life. As an audience, we know what to expect in most of the events that occur. When we don’t predict what happens then we are collecting new information that we can use for future use. We are “collecting knowledge.” The first example to the subcategory Influencing is Burning Baby Daughter in Microwave. "Joshua Mauldin is accused of putting his infant daughter in a hotel room microwave for 10 to 20 seconds. The child suffered third-degree burns to the left side of her face and left hand." (Foxnews) Where did Joshua get this idea from? In the movie Urban Legend, there was a dog that was put in a microwave. Could that have influenced Joshua's curiosity? Even though it wasn't a dog that was being cooked to death, the curiosity leads to an infant baby. I believe that the movie did influence Joshua in a way. This incident only happened 9 years after the movie was released. I believe that Joshua took the knowledge that was displayed in the movie and presented in in an actual event that lead to prison term of five to 99 years. To make sense of what he did, his attorney claimed that he had mental issues. He had "voices talking to him." The funny thing is that Joshua was planning on becoming a preacher. He had no reason to harm his child but in reality, he did. Mauldin was only 19 and living in Texas when this happened. “Under Texas law, a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if a jury finds the defendant did not know that his or her actions were wrong." (Foxnews) All parental rights were taken away from not just Joshua but also his wife. What kind of person would do this? This story refers more to what Sontag was saying about how we perceive that everything is collectible. We start to know what we can collect and apply it to our lives. Decoding messages from the past is a collection of knowledge if we continue to bring what was said to the present. The film Urban Legend was made in the past, it wasn’t meant to create any crimes in the future. The film was made for entertainment, to give you a thrill or chill down your spine. Obviously, Joshua had some issues but even if he did he can’t blame those issues on that decision made. It is just convenient that a movie portrayed a dog being put in the microwave and then Joshua put his daughter in the microwave. There is definite connection there. The second example to the subcategory Influencing is Mom, Boyfriend Beat Boy, 3, to Death Inside Chester County Home: Prosecutors. This a true story that happened in November of 2014. I personally, could not believe this story to be true because who would beat a boy to death? The Chester County District Attorney, Thomas Hogan, described this event to be an American horror story. That said, where did he get that idea from? The show could have had some influence? In the show there are many horrific events that occur and this story definitely fits the description of a horror story. “He was punched in the face and in the stomach, he was scourged with a homemade whip, he was lashed with a metal rod, he was tied to a chair and beaten, he was tied upside down by his feet and beaten, his head was smashed through a wall and at the end of that he had bruises on top of bruises all over his body.”( Nbcphiladelphia) This happened over a three day period. How could anyone do this? In the show, there are characters that get away with the crime committed and so maybe the mom and boyfriend thought they could too. That is the only explanation for doing this. Maybe they didn’t intend to kill the boy but they loved had pleasure in causing pain to someone. This story definitely coincides with Bourdieu when he talks about how class affects how our collection ends up being. We tend to think that people of higher class are smarter than anyone below them but the fact is that everyone is no one can be smart based on class. Individuals of the upperclass can get better tutors but that doesn’t mean that people in the middle or lowerclass can’t comprehend what is being taught or discussed. This family in the story discussed wasn’t part of the upperclass but just because they aren’t rich doesn’t mean that everyone who is in middle or lower class commits this act of murder. We are all taught right from wrong at a young age and so I don’t agree with Bourdieu all the way but I do agree with the fact that people with money do have a better collection than anyone below them. The resources are more available to people in the upperclass than in the middle or lowerclass. In conclusion, my main theorist discussed was Walter Benjamin. Benjamin states that "Collecting is a primal phenomenon of study: the student collects knowledge." We start collecting when we are born. That is how we learn how to read and write. In turn, we also collect from films and stories. I chose The Collector, Urban Legend, and American Horror Story to be the films. I chose H.H. Holmes, Burning Baby Daughter in Microwave, and Mom, Boyfriend Beat Boy, 3, to Death Inside Chester County Home: Prosecutors to be my stories. The films consist of real life events as well as exaggerations of situations that occur in everyday life. We don’t expect to have these events happen to us in real life but we are in fear they could happen at any moment. I do agree with Benjamin’s statement because we collect knowledge through any source given to us. That is how we learn how to live life. We don’t just live life knowing all we need to know without reading a book or looking up the news for current events. I chose Sontag and Bourdieu as the other two theorists because one agrees with Benjamin and the other doesn’t. I prefer Sontag rather than Bourdieu because I don’t agree with class being an issue as to how much we collect. Everyone has their own collections and money can’t amount to the value that we put on the items and ideas. There is some relevance to what occurs present time and what happened in the past. Even if we don’t understand why this happens, we need to know that there is a problem that we facing in our society. Horror isn’t just about scaring people or making people feel afraid for a little amount of time. Horror is all around us. We don’t see it necessarily but it is the fear that we possess that is triggered when we don’t know what could possibly happen. Does this make sense? If not, I will elaborate. When we watch the same episodes of Full House, we know what to expect right? We know that there is this happy family in the beginning and then there is a situation that is eventually solved in the 30 minutes air time. We can’t possibly think that this is what life is like. There are things out in the world that we can’t explain or have solutions to. We just assume that we do so that we don’t have to be afraid of anything. We need that fear to keep us alive. Without it, we have nothing to think about because we know everything. Horror does influence our society. How can we explain the event with Joshua Mauldin putting his baby in a microwave? Where did he get that idea? I believe it was from the film Urban Legend. Why did a mom and boyfriend beat a 3 year old boy to death? I have come to the conclusion that they thought they could get away with the act just like H.H. Holmes did with killing his victims. There is this cycle of constant fear that surrounds us. It keeps us on our toes. Marshall McLuhan gives insight to the messages that we receive through the media. War disrupts the media in such a way that citizens tend to believe every word that flows throughout many media outlets. “In other words, cubism, by giving the inside and outside, the top, bottom, back, and front and the rest, in two dimensions, drops the illusion of perspective in favor of instant sensory awareness of the whole” (McLuhan 103). War is not something that is wanted but expected when there is a potential threat among us. We are to have a group of men and women ready to fight whenever we need them to so that our country is protected. It is so that our freedom is never messed with. So the piece of work chosen to help analyze what McLuhan is trying to get across is a song by Gun N’ Roses called Civil War. The video presented while the song is playing are various scenes from the movie Saving Private Ryan. Combining both the song and the video emphasizes what the medium really is. The medium between the two expresses different points of views and they also express feelings of sympathy, guilt, anger.
The music video for the song featured scenes from the movie Saving Private Ryan. The scenes created a feeling of sympathy. In the video at 0:35-0:51 you see an old man crying when approaching a tombstone. It is obvious that it is someone that he cared deeply for. Everyone has experience losing someone very close to them so this scene was relatable and very sad. There was sadness for the soldiers who were shot and for those who witness the bodies lying on the ground. The scenes of the shootings and bombing really stood out. The feeling of sympathy was what was thought of instantly. Who wouldn’t feel terrible when seeing that a young man or an older man get killed right in front of you? Seeing what a soldier goes through really puts you in their shoes. The fear rides over you and knowing that you aren’t really there makes you want to cry because people have died in battle. The movie may have been a bit exaggerated but you never know, someone may have been blown to pieces or shot while swimming to shore. This point of view puts a great perspective on war by using scenes from the movie that went to the extent in showing bodies being blown to pieces. The truth wasn’t hidden. You almost feel frozen when seeing men get shot or body parts being blown off. The song chosen has such an impact towards what we thought war was to what war really is. The music starts off slow and quiet with just a guitar playing and whistling that mimics what soldiers do when they march in the background while a man speaks about “The Man” getting what he wants. The music by itself creates this feeling of anguish and sorrow. As the singer, Axl Rose, reaches to the point of singing the chorus, the music gets loud. Axl’s voice is croaky, grating, high-pitched, and hoarse but his voice is unique which makes the words that he is singing to more intriguing. You want to know what he has to say and when you realize what he is saying, you can’t help but feel sympathetic to how we made the world to be. Having someone describe war is another great perspective on how war impacts people who don’t go into battle. It shows how people just want peace not violence and murder. In the video at 4:32, a man is looking for his arm that was blown off. He is a man who is most likely in shock as to what happened and has this need to put his arm “back together.” As you see him picking up his arm, you can’t help but feel the need to cry. Watching that scene makes you feel lucky to not have been there but at the same time, you want to save the man from losing that arm. The song really hits home because of the descriptive words. The song describes how “the wars go on with brainwashed pride” and how war “feeds the rich while it buries the poor.” Those words are very powerful. Soldiers take orders thinking that they are defending their country from a possible threat but really we are just killing off the human race. Winning the war only empowers the rich to have more control over our country but the poor is left to actually defend it. The poor people die because the rich wants to be known as not being defeated by anyone. McLuhan says “the effect of the medium is made strong and intense just because it is given another medium as “content.” One of the mediums here is the feeling of guilt. How can we send men out to fight for our country if we don’t know what we are fighting for? Do we even need a war? Why are we taking orders from someone who wants to obliterate the people who are “threatening” us? Why do we believe what we are told? The blood represented the “loss of confidence in the right to assign guilt” (McLuhan 105). The shock of seeing men of whom being friends with for so long lies on the ground covered in his blood as well as drips of others is terrifying. We have lost the need to feel guilt because we have to finish what we started. There is no time to feel guilty in killing someone. We have to win the battle because that is “what we do” or at least that is what we are told to do. We should feel guilty for what is happening. The song was to protest against war and it really points out how people are power hungry; especially the rich. We should be ashamed for taking innocent men/women onto the battlefield to die. What have we really accomplished by doing it? We are the reason for families not having their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or friends in their lives anymore. We also have to think about the husbands, wives, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or friends that we are fighting against. The “enemy” is also losing that someone in their lives just like we are. From not having any personal experience with shooting anyone, the thought that people have had the experience in doing so would have to be heartbreaking. The decision to pull the trigger would have to be traumatizing. “By bloody hands of the hypnotized Who carry the cross of homicide And history bears the scars of our civil wars” (Guns N’ Roses) The “hypnotized” are the soldiers who wear the blood of other men. They have to follow orders and so if that means going through living hell to continue to fight then that is what they are going to do. Soldiers go into battle ready to kill intentionally. Homicide means killing someone deliberately and so when doing so it is known by everyone around the world. History is written when a gun is fired. No one likes violence but it doesn’t stop us from creating a violent environment. Society is changed from doing this and we should feel guilty for continuing to do act on it. Everyone expresses guilt in their lives but choosing to end someone’s life is the biggest one of them all. Anger is what is brought out when watching the video. At the time 1:55 in the video, you see bullets coming from every direction killing a group of men who looked to be nervous at first but then were shot before approaching land. It wasn’t fair. The men weren’t given a chance to even do what they were sent to do. At the time 2:56 in the video, there are two men who are trying to protect themselves from the bullets being shot while they were in the water. At that point, the song mentions “Peace could last forever.” While the words are being said, one of them gets shot while trying to talk to man beside him. The reaction was shocking and frustrating because there wasn’t anything that could have protected the men. The scene made you want to attack whoever shot at him but that would only create more violence. “Look at the blood we’re spilling Look at the world we’re killing” (Guns N’ Roses) To think about the world being corrupted by power hungry individuals is sickening. The video shows a soldier frightened by the bullets fired at 3:14. He doesn’t want to be killed, he wants to live. Don’t we all want to live? Who wants to die? The soldier crying brings us back to asking, why do we fight in the first place? What are we really afraid of? There doesn’t have to be any war to declare power. All countries should be at peace with one another. There are differences and similarities between the song Civil War by Guns N’ Roses and the video that featured scenes from the movie Saving Private Ryan. The theorist chosen to help support this case was Marshall McLuhan. Civil War isn’t so civil when the message is misunderstood or unknown. The term civil is just a way to mask the terror of what war causes. In the video, you can see just how intimidating going into battle can be. It is one thing to watch an exaggeration of what we think goes on compared to what people actually had to go through. We are told what war is like from individuals who have survived. Some individuals don’t come out of the battle as the same person that they once were. So, it is hard to understand what they went through. There is no escaping the underlining medium that stands in between life and death. “Nothing follows from following, except change” (McLuhan 102). If violence isn’t the answer then we shouldn’t take orders to create violence. We should be against it. Change is only going to happen if we make it happen. The past is in the past but the future is in our hands. What we do from now on is up to us. The song was a protest against war and change is what the message implied but it wasn’t said in the song. The truth of what war consists of needed to be addressed in a way that appeals to the listeners for them to really understand the message. The video presented while the song played in the background really emphasized the vicious and murderous actions that occur during battle. The scenes were overwhelming but the message is that violence is never the answer. Both examples express the feelings of sympathy, guilt, and anger. They express sympathy with showing of killing people and elaborating on what war is. They express guilt with the idea of killing off the human race. They also express anger by presenting to us what the world has come to. Overall, the two examples show that the main message is peace. We all want world peace so we should make more of an effort into making that happen. No more blood needs to be shed. No more civil wars. Resources Guns N’ Roses. Released May 3, 1993. Civil War. Use Your Illusion II. Geffen. June 1990. McLuhan, Marshall. "The Medium Is the Message." Media And Cultural Studies Keyworks. Second ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001. 101-107. Print. Ever find yourself watching a commercial with children in dire need of food, water, and shelter? They are usually playing sad music to make you feel some type of way about the way you live compared to how they live. Celebrities chime in to "help the cause." Have you ever asked yourself, what are they contributing to? Many claim that they will help out any member of their "Free Country" because they believe that everyone should be cared for. What about countries that aren't so "free?" What about countries that don't have a lot to offer to their communities? I know that I live a very fortunate life in comparison to a child in Africa whom struggles to find water let alone a place to sleep at night. The only time that I ever really think about my fortunate lifestyle is when commercials, like UNICEF, airs on television as I am watching The Walking Dead or another show that I enjoy. Any other time, children who are starving or searching for an education never comes to mind. Why is that? We all struggle with something in our lives but why can't I seem to think about those in other countries? I guess it is that I assume that these organizations raise enough money to support children or members in the community that are struggling to provide what they need. I assume that the celebrities, who by the way make money by appearing on the commercial, endorse x amount of money to the cause. I assume that the US has enough money to donate to the cause as well as other countries. We are, of course, supposed to help one another, correct? Our government assures all Americans that Foreign Aid is given to those less fortunate than us. After all, we are a wealthy country. "The United States gives more cash to developing countries than any other nation. Of the $69 billion in development assistance given by the worlds 22 donors in 2003, the U.S. government contributed $16.3 billion, or just under 25 percent" (foreignpolicy.com). Isn't that nice of our government? Doing a good deed should be rewarded in some way right? Perhaps, the reward could be just knowing that our government helped a struggling community out. Our government would never allow people to die. When U.S foreign aid is measured on other scales, however, a different picture emerges. For example, the United States provided about $51 per citizen in official development assistance in 200203. That ranks it in 16th place among other major donors, behind Norway ($381 per citizen), the Netherlands ($203 per citizen), France ($96 per citizen), and the United Kingdom ($89 per citizen), among others (foreignpolicy.com). Why doesn't a wealthy country not contribute more than other countries? Why do we need an abundant amount of extra money in the U.S if we don't need it? It is funny that whenever there is a crisis, that is when we all notice money needs to collected in order to help others. Other than that, we are oblivious to other countries situations. There are children who need immediate care due to infections, diseases, etc. For example, there is a disease called Yaws, similar to syphilis, that affects children. Yaws is caused by the bacterium - is a Treponema pallidumm subspecies pertenue and transmitted by skin contact. Yaws mainly affects the skin, but can also involve the bone and cartilage. The organism that causes yaws is closely related to the one that causes syphilis. Early detection and treatment can avoid gross disfigurement and disability which occur in about 10% of cases (who.int). So our government tries to showcase donation money distributed to indigenous households out of "good faith" yet doesn't give enough to actually help. Why? Other countries seem to care more for the less fortunate than we supposedly do. I guess the U.S just has to be "top dog" among other countries no matter what the cost...even if the cost to help other countries out is a small amount compared to what the government is spending on our military. So the theory that I am creating is: Most donation money given to the government to help communities in other countries is being used to upgrade military weapons to show dominant position in power. Think about it. Where else would the money go towards if not to the community it is intended for? According to thebalance.com, estimated U.S. military spending is $886 billion.
This budget isn't enough. The U.S government needs more money to make sure all its citizens are "safe." I have to ask, safe from what? We have the best of everything and it still isn't enough. The Department of Veterans Affairs deserves more that just $83.1 billion. There are homeless Veterans out in our streets needing a place to live. We have people who actually fought for our country but don't stand a chance in surviving out in this so called "real-world" once they are no longer in battle.
This leaves me thinking that the communities that we want to help aren't getting any help at all. If they are, it is the minimum amount. I want our country to be safe, don't get me wrong but if we can provide extra amount of resources for those in need then why not do that? As a child, there were many cartoon shows that I was very interested in. One of them happened to be, Winnie the Pooh. Maybe it was because of how nice the show portrayed each of the characters. Maybe it was the lessons taught in the show. In other words, the show was one of my favorites. Anyways, as I was looking for another theory to dissect and analyze, I came across one that mentioned Winnie the Pooh representing different mental disorders. Intrigued by this statement, I noticed that this one had to be investigated a little further. The show, as a child, never came across as something "messed up" or "crazy." I don't believe that any child would assume that the shows they watch were. Most children don't even listen to all of the words that are being said let alone know what each character is supposed to represent. Upon my investigation, the characters from this show represented mental disorders. According to Rodriguez, Winnie the Pooh (Eating Disorder: always "stress" eating honey), Piglet (Anxiety Disorder: super nervous all the time), Tigger (ADHD: can't stand still), Kanga (Social Anxiety Disorder: anxiety when she can't protect her son), Roo (Autism Spectrum Disorder: lacks awareness), Owl (Short Term Memory Loss-seems to forget what he says often), Rabbit (OCD: obsessed with order etc.), Eeyore (Depression: sad outlook on life), and Christopher Robin (Schizophrenia: sees a bunch of animals talking to him) (Odyssey). At first, I thought that this theory was a bit too far-fetched in my point of view. Anyone can take old cartoons and try to make something mean another thing. I don't think that anyone who designed this show meant to display mental disorders. As I read into this, I do agree that the characters have some form of the disorder that is assigned to them. It is very interesting for sure. It is also my assumption that someone grew boresome of repetitive conspiracy theories that they produced one entirely on their own that is crazy yet logical. I have heard of Christopher Robin imagining the characters in his head, which justifies the schizophrenia disorder that is assigned to him. The others, however, are a bit out of the norm but like I said, they are logical. Each character acted strangely in the show. One would be all over the place whereas another character would be obsessive. All in all, this is a new theory that I have never heard of. It was interesting by far and now I will try to pay attention to minor details, like this theorist did, in other cartoons.
Having an "out of body experience" seems like a great way to experience life in a different way, don't you think? Personally, I haven't experienced this but I know a few individuals who have. They say that it is something they had no control over. "It may be a profound experience, but the fundamental problem is that there's really no way to scientifically measure whether or not a person's spirit "leaves" or "enters" the body" (livescience.com). It may be told that an individual is just fantasizing or dreaming this experience. I believe that anything is possible. Who is to say that this isn't real? Scientists refuse to believe because there isn't evidence to back it up. "Some claim it's because mainstream scientists are closed-minded and refuse to even look at evidence that doesn't fit their narrow worldview" (livescience.com). Even though science disproves this as "real," it doesn't make sense as to why this isn't considered "real." There are so many unanswered questions as to what happens in our dreams that make them so livid and surreal. I know that I have experienced waking up in a panic or a jolt for no reason at all. I wasn't sure why until I heard about astral projection. "This happens because you've been doing astral projection while you sleep, and were roaming around in the astral plane" (tanahoy.com). Personally, I'm not big on trying to remember my dreams because half of the time, I can't. I do, however, remember being able to fly...at least feel as if I am flying. "You may not always remember the experience, because your subconscious mind takes over, but with practice, you can become fully aware while traveling in the astral world, remembering your adventures while astral projecting" (tanahoy.com). So why do I have dreams that I remember, you may ask? Those dreams are lucid ones. Trust me, you can make yourself have lucid dreams...I know someone who literally practices it! You are aware of what is happening and are able to control what happens in your dreams. Remember, your subconscious mind is in control but is taking what your conscious mind has gathered in your life; memories, emotions that you have held back from others, etc. The crazy thing about all of this is that you can astral project yourself while asleep and while awake. There are questions that you can ask yourself that can determine whether or not you have experienced this unbelievable sensation. • Do you remember floating up? Sometimes, when you astral project, you find yourself face-to-face with the ceiling, or even going through the roof. • If you happened to look around, did you see your physical body sleeping below? • As far as you can remember, were the objects around you functioning as they should For example, was the clock telling real time, or was the cat talking in a human language? In ordinary dreams, people, animals, and objects, show some form of behavior or actions that aren’t reality based. • In your remembering, if you happened to walk into a room where your pet (if you have one) or someone you know was staying, did they react to your presence? • Do you vividly remember flying? Sometimes, the sensation of flying is the only recollection you have of a nighttime experience, but this is one of the signs that you've astrally projected. (Tanahoy.com) With all of this being said, could astral projection be a negative factor in dissociative disorders? "Dissociative disorders are psychological disorders that involve a dissociation or interruption in aspects of consciousness, including identity and memory" (verywellmind.com). With these disorders, you are obviously not yourself. Could it be that your physical body is present but subconsciously, you have astral projected yourself to another place and time? Could that be the reason as to why dissociative amnesia, identity, and depersonalization/derealization disorders exist? To really connect all of this, you will have to understand what each of the disorders consist of. Then you will see the relativity of each disorder associated with astral projection.
Astral projection could cause the conscious and subconscious mind to forget what had happened. Your experience outside of your body could interfere with having memory of how it happened or why it happened or if it happened at all. This disorder derives from memory loss which could have happened through a tragic event. The emotions kept away from others could have something to do with this. Dissociative amnesia disorder is memory of thoughts, dreams, etc coming and going but recalling if it is true or if it happened at all is the tricky part. Astral projecting isn't something that everyone remembers but the feeling as if it happened is what is remembered. Subconsciously, if someone has this disorder, could they actually be traveling to another time and place but just not know it? Is this disorder another form of astral projection? So in other words, we could all experience having this disorder if we really thought about it. Dissociative identity disorder is when you have multiple personalities. I have mentioned before that you can astral project yourself when you are awake. So, my question is, could someone with this disorder develop a number of personalities because their subconscious mind delegated their "main" personality in another place and/or time leaving their conscious mind to develop another personality for their physical body to contain? Your body has to be in a state of being calm and collected for astral projection to take place. "You can actually avoid snapping back into your physical body by staying calm and keeping your presence of mind as you travel outside of your body" (tanahoy.com). According to nami.org, dissociative disorders are characterized by an involuntary escape from reality. With identity disorder, you are able to alternate between multiple personalities. Could the personalities that come and go be going to a place and time in the astral world when not present in the real world? Astral projection is detaching yourself from reality to go to the astral world. Depersonalization/derealization disorder is exactly this. You are not longer able to feel as if you fit into the real world because you don't have any connection to feelings, thoughts, etc developed in the real world. What if they were developed in the astral world? Could someone who has this disorder be astral projecting themselves so much that they no longer have memory of the real world? "Symptoms can last just a matter of moments or return at times over the years" (nami.org). Could someone's life actually be experienced in a world we have no memory of or even have control in?
Throughout my life, I have experienced waking up from sleep only to discover bruises that were not noticed before going to sleep. Ever experience this? Why would this be? I have a theory on this, it is unlike anything that you have ever heard before. I believe there is a family of gods (Thanatos, Hypnos, The Keres, Phobetor, etc.) who try to send a message to you through your dreams but evil gods wants to prevent that message from getting across by doing harm. Crazy theory, right? Let's find out! Who are these gods? What were they known for? Let's talk about Hypnos first! He was the god of sleep. "He dwelt in Erebos, the land of eternal darkness beyond the gates of the rising sun, and rose into the sky each night in the train of his mother Nyx (Night)" (theoi.com). He only came during the night. Hypnos is the reason for us being able to sleep in the first place. This is also where the term "hypnosis" is derived from. That is why people are usually placed under a sleep state while still be conscious of what is going on. The thing is that Hypnos has a brother, named Thanatos, who is the god of non-violent death. Are you ever curious as to how the elderly or the sick pass away in their sleep? This is the cause. Unlike his sister, Keres, he was gentle when taking a life away. He carries the spirit away to the lower world, where he is from. The way that he does this is that he senses death is approaching. Thanatos has a sword which is used to cut the cord that links the spirit to the "dead" body. If you ever see the film or play, "Black Swan", you will notice the similarities of the wings. They are the wings of death. The Keres, were sisiters of violent and cruel deaths. Unlike Thanatos, they enjoyed entertaining themselves by causing harm to people through events such as accidents, battles, etc. "They were agents of the Moirai (Fates), birth-goddesses who measured out the length of a man's life when he first entered the world, and Moros (Doom) the Daimon who drove a man towards his inevitable destruction" (theoi.com). They are the reason for catastrophic events such as wars, plane crashes, the shooting of people, etc, where people actually die. This can be done outside of the dream realm. I only mention the sisters to make a distinction there two different types of death you can experience...peaceful versus a calamitous casualty. On top of what would occur in our dreams, there were dark-winged spirits that would arrive surprisingly. They were called the Oneiroi. "They come like a flock of bats from their cavernous home in Erebos--the land of eternal darkness beyond the rising sun" (theoi.com). They travel through two gates in order to enter our dreams. One gate is where the message that the gods want us to know and the other is where dreams of false meaning prevail. This is where nightmares are kept. "The term for nightmare was melas oneiros (black dream)" (theoi.com). These aren't gods, correct? Why would I mention them? Well, they were lead by a god, named Morpheus, "who appeared in the dreams of kings in the guise of a man bearing messages from the gods" (theoi.com). So they have a purpose in being apart of this theory. Interesting fact, Morpheus was the son of Hypnos. So this god was able to actually shape or present how dreams appeared to man. This is interesting to me because he could be the reason for why we could potentially have nightmares. He could lead us down the wrong path if he was able to be controlled by his brothers, Phobetor and Phantasus. The brothers are the reason as to why we have a fear of animals and objects. For instance, if someone were to say that they feared spiders because of an encounter of a spider biting them as a kid then Phobetor would make sure the dream would put more emphasis on that fear and make it more than just a fear. The person wouldn't want to go near a spider again, not even just to kill one. The fear would be taking over their strength to bear an idea of being near a spider. If you break down the name, you can see that phobe would be derived from the word phobia. We all know that phobias are what we are afraid of, make sense? Phantasus is a god who bring inanimate things into a dream. Not really sure on an example of this god but I can make an assumption that children who have imaginary friends would be due to Phantasus bringing someone in their dream that they make up to be a real person outside of their dream. That is another theory that can be discussed in due time. So how does this all tie into the theory? I have conjured up that the reason for our dreams to be more violent is because we are trying desperately to fight off the "bad guys." In the case, the bad guys are Phobetor, The Keres, and Phantasus. Potentially it could have been Morpheus but to me, he is just middle man of the whole operation of dreams. We don't want to die nor be afraid of things; including animals. So while we are fighting them off, we are also having to endure some pain; which results to bruising on our body. We are not aware of them because we are dreaming! How crazy is that? I would assume that these so called bad guys are trying to prevent important messages that the good gods want to give to us...this would lead me to believe that deja vu would be messages sent to prevent certain events from happening. Again, that might be another theory that would be discussed later on. The important message I am sending is that our dreams are created from these gods and we tend to have dreams that frighten us. Unfortunately, we are not able to control our dreams.
Never in a million years would I have thought that the government would hide information as important as this one...the cure for HIV. It stands for human immunodeficiency virus. A cure would mean "no more deaths due to flu, measles, and other viruses" (projectknow.com). Society has been wanting a cure for a great while. In reference to cdc.gov, there were an estimated 37,600 new HIV infection in 2014. Although there has been a decline in the most recent years, HIV is still an issue. "Young people are most likely to be unaware of their infection. Among people aged 13-24 who were living with HIV, an estimated 44% didn't know" (cdc.gov). Shouldn't there be a screening at a certain age for this infection? Food for thought. There has to be something done in order for this to stop spreading but there is nothing preventing such thing. So why hide a cure? If someone were to find a cure, the profit from that would benefit society greatly...causing less visits to the doctor as well as research for cures. We are told inaccurate information. "There are many logistical limitations and cost challenges that come with providing life-long care to those living with HIV. So continuation research to find a cure that controls the virus in the absence of antiretroviral treatment (ART) remains an important step to ending the epidemic" (avert.org). We are basically told to find a way to reduce the number of people infected by finding more efficient ways in addressing the issue. A solution is to scare our kids into knowing that sex could destroy our lives if we were ever to have unprotected sex. You see how this can deter you away from knowing the truth about the cure? It is a great tactic but still there are people out there, like me, who question why people have to be infected or die from HIV? Why is the government so selfish? My only logical reason is so they can depopulate for control. "Research costs money--money to pay for salaries and equipment. It pays for time for scientists to try different paths until they find the right one. It pays for researchers in government laboratories and in academic labs that also nurture and train the next generation of scientists" (patientpower.info). So if the cure would to get out to the public, the research for "the cure" would dissipate. There wouldn't be any jobs left for researchers if cures would to actually be found...and work. It's sad because most of the young individuals who want to become a researcher have no clue as to the truth. They are working for nothing. "Sadly, the current U.S. executive branch wants to cut back on government-funded research" (patientpower.info). Why? Is the government afraid that someone is going to find another cure and share it with the world? Who knows. Maybe they are trying to limit who is able to work on the research to prevent the truth from being exposed. All of this is crazy! People actually die from this infection. Imagine losing a loved one to this and then finding out that there was a cure to save their life? I wander what would happen to someone who actually had the cure. Would they die? Would the government do everything in their power to kill them for it? I'm not sure where we stand on the humanity side of things when it comes to this issue but I do know that morals come into play. The government could care less of what is wrong to do versus what the right thing to do is. Not everything has to be about money but unfortunately, money is a life source. "Progress towards creating a 'functional cure' focuses not on the elimination of HIV from the body, but rather on reducing the vrus to a level that is undetectable; where the person no longer needs to take HIV-related medication, nor bears any risk of progressing to AIDSor transmitting the virus" (avert.org).
Whenever I hear the word "summon", I think of opening an unknown world to bring a spiritual creature to our world. There is a theory that claims "The Large Hadron Collider summons The God of Death" (Cracked.com). What is the Large Hadron Collider? According to CERN, it is the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator (home.cern.com). This seems all and well but what is an accelerator? "Accelerators were invented to speed up and increase the energy of a beam of particles by generating electric fields that accelerate the particle, and magnetic fields that steer and focus them" (home.cern.com). So there are two beams traveling fast enough in opposing directions to create a fierce vacuum of energy. So it is a chaotic spiral of light. When I think of this, I imagine it like in films when someone "travels back in time." The ability to travel back in time or into the future would be prodigious. Imagine having the capability to change the past to create a better future? The term Stargate is a word to describe this unbelievable fascination of opening a portal through time and space. "While space seems to be the most likely location for these doorways to other universes, many places on Earth have also been attributed with special tranportive capabilities, as well as noticabel shifts in energy, different frequencies, and unexplained lights or sounds" (Staff). As reported by angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch, CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research. The name is an acronym for the French Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire, which is a fundamental physics research organization in Europe (angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch). The theory mentions The God of Death. Who is it? If you study mythology, you will know that there are 10 different versions of who The God of Death is. According to Williams, the mythologies are Celtic, Norse, Egyptian, Japanese, Greek, Persian, Native American, Sumerian, Mayan, and Canaanite. They all have something in common, they all believe that the God balances life. "In order for the good to be considered 'good, we need the binary opposite. This demand for balance is woven all throughout life, with 'death' being what gives life 'life'" (Williams). Personally, I am not able to state who The God of Death is; it depends on what you believe. This didn't stop a man, William Henry, from believing that the LHC was used to summon God Osiris or Shiva. As stated by williamhenry.net, William Henry is a Nashiville-based author, investigative mythologist, and TV presenter. "He has a unique ability to incorporate historical, religious, spiritual, scientific, archaeological and other forms of such knowledge into factually-based theories and conclusions that provide the layperson with a more in-depth understanding of the profound shift we are actually experiencing in our lifetime" (williamhenry.net). Henry believed that The God Osiris was summoned. "Osiris was the god of the dead, and ruler of the underworld" (ancientegypt.co.uk). Could this be The God of Death? Unfortunately, I believe that this particular god was the type to just oversee the afterlife. This god wasn't always seen as evil. "Osiris was a god of resurrection and fertility. Egyptians believed that Osiris gave them the gift of barley, one of their most important crops" (ancientegypt.co.uk). Although he believed the The God Osiris was summoned, he also though Shiva was another choice if it wasn't Osiris. In Hinduism, there are three gods that Hindus believed in. "The three gods were responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world" (bbc.co.uk). The names of the gods were Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu. Each of the gods had a role; Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the preserver and Shiva is the destroyer. Hindus perception of Shiva was that the god is a source of good and evil. "Hindus believe his powers of destruction and recreation are used even now to destroy the illusion and imperfections of this world, paving the way for beneficial change. According to Hindu belief, this destruction is not arbitrary, but constructive" (bbc.co.uk). So when we think that good things are to come our way after experiencing bad luck, would Shiva be the reason for that? Could the god be destroying what is known to us as bad luck, to him evil, and recreating a new start for us all? Something to ponder. What does this god look like? In his representations as a man, Shiva always has a blue face and throat. Strictly speaking his body is white, but images often show him with a blue body too. Shiva is represented with the following features: A third eye
In conclusion, this theory is well thought of. Do I believe in time travel? I'm still debating. It is admirable to think of it existing. The idea that there is God going through time travel to recreate what our world is today is a bit eccentric but alluring. If I were to choose which god was summoned by the Collider, it would definitely be Shiva. I'm inclined to choose him only for the reason that he is both good and evil. Although Osiris was also perceived both good and evil, Shiva's purpose in life is to make things better even though he purposes havoc through outlandish behavior along the way.
I am all for artists to express themselves through their music. Most music today doesn't make any sense. Personally, the quality of the music is below par. The songs comprise of chaotic sentences that bear no meaning. When I think of a song, I think of ones that have a story or a message to address. To me, that is a good song. Today's music is trash. Anyways, a singer, by the name of Katy Perry, had a song called 'Bon Appetit.' The song is recognized as "dirty" or "inappropriate" but is never thought of as odd until you watch the music video. "Katy appears as the main "meal" in the video, going through the various stages of cooking" (Thurtle). This all seems normal at first, sort of. There are television shows that display an individual cooking a meal for viewers to learn and create themselves. In this case, the video starts off with Katy wrapped up like a piece of meat and "man-handled" by a group of men preparing her to be "served." The video only becomes more queer. Once she is "prepared" and ready to be served on the table, there are a group of individuals (including men and women) licking their lips for they are hungry. "Katy sits down at the table, knife and fork in hand, about to start eating a pie with human limb stuffing" (Thurtle). Once, she is about to eat it, the men and women get tied down to their seats. The chefs are then taking off their clothes and putting apples in their mouths. So it is safe to assume that the tables have now turned...the guests are now dinner. When I heard this song for the first time, I was thinking that the video was bound to be more of a man chasing a girl that "he can't have." I was honestly stunned that the lyrics were exactly what the video demonstrated. "It is said that this song--along with an alleged French interview given by Katy in 2017--means that the singer is a cannibal" (Thurtle). When I saw this statement, I immediately had to find the interview. According to French radio station, Katy claims that cannibalism is more popular than we all think and that human meat is the best meat in the world. So does Katy eat human meat? Is she a cannibal? At first, my reaction to her responses was in disgust so I had to investigate further to see if it was true. Come to find out, the quotes from the interview were constructed to make Katy seem as if she was a cannibal. It was all to advertise the music video. Goes to show, don't always believe what you read online, in papers, etc. The movie Peter Pan was a great film when watching it as a kid, wasn't it? Did you ever think that there was more to the idea of Neverland? It is just a fantasy, correct? I thought so when I watched it growing up. What I never thought was Peter being someone evil but appearing to be an angel sent from heaven. According to Mullins, Peter Pan is actually an angel that holds hands with kids as they pass on to the next life, aka Neverland. Do you recognize that the kids never return to their home once in this fantasy place, intended for kids only? No one likes seeing a sick child suffering from an illness, disease, etc.; anything at all really. It breaks my heart thinking that children endure detrimental levels of health uncertainties followed by causalities. In this particular theory, children are about to die so Peter takes them away so they can continue being children forever; excluding the sickness altogether. The crazy part about it all is that if the children just happen to grow a bit older in Neverland, Peter kills them. So he seeks to find more children who are no longer "needed" in the real world. Once he finds sick children, he makes Neverland seem like pure whimsical bliss. Still don't believe it? According to Bonilla, in the book Peter and Wendy by J. M. Barrie, the first chapter stated how Mrs. Darling remembered Peter Pan went away with the children that died so they wouldn't be frightened. So the book even states that Mrs. Darling, whom had been to Neverland as a kid, had an eerie feeling of Pan even existing. So is he real? Is there a so called angel sent from heaven selecting sick children to escape to an unknown location? Who knows...
Trust me when I say that the title alone leaves so many questions. This theory was found by looking up various unique theories. The myth doesn't necessarily say that you can turn into a camera. "Over the years, a myth has arisen that if you eat large amounts of silver, you will be able to take photographic images on your own skin" (specialtymetals.com). Although silver is used to make jewelry, house-ware, etc., it is also marketed as dietary supplements. "Manufacturers of colloidal silver products often claim that they are cure-alls, boosting your immune system, fighting bacteria and viruses, and treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, shingles, herpes, eye ailment and prostatitis" (Bauer). I never thought of a metal being beneficial to your body, but anything is possible. According to mayoclinic.org, there is now enough substantial evidence to prove that silver benefiting your health is feasible (Bauer). This conspiracy theory seems to be way out there! I completely understand if you don't believe it. I am finding it hard to believe it myself. "There is actually a little science behind this urban legend, because if you eat a lot of silver, your skin could turn a blue/gray color. (It's a condition called argyria.)" (specialtymetals.com). Why would anyone want to eat silver in the first place? Well sometimes, people end up having the condition just from exposure. What is it? According to Pientrangelo, argyria is a condition that causes your complexion to turn blue or gray. This happens when your body has been overexposed to silver. The condition can occur after a large-dose exposure or prolonged exposure to small amounts of silver (Pientrangelo). We can all be exposed to silver in small increments. "Traces of silver can be found in food, water, and even in the air" (Pentrangelo). We might be exposed but it would take months or even years to show any signs of potential danger to our health; depending on how hazardous the area you are living in is. I find this to be a sign of caution to everything that we do; regardless of what the cause is, we should always be cautious. Have doubts that this condition is a real thing? A woman, by the name of Rosemary Jacobs, obtained this condition by using nose drops. "Jacobs lived with irreversible skin condition argyria for 6 years and it has blighted her life. The retired primary school teacher's skin started to turn silver when she began nasal drops containing colloidal silver (CS) at the age of 11" (Innes). Can you imagine inhaling a substance that is supposed to be useful causing your skin to turn a completely different color? I couldn't.
In society, we tend to look down upon adult entertainment only for the reason that people are exposing their bodies for money. To me, it isn't hurting anyone. Watching two (or more) having intercourse improves the sexual tension that builds up in relationship when there lacks creativity and such. Would you agree? Anyways, most individuals who are against this entertainment industry are collectively women. Why? Aren't they the ones that expose themselves the most? Although this is true, I am talking about women in society who are against watching porn and going to strip clubs in fear that it could damage relationships. Why would it damage a relationship, you ask? There is fear that men/women who do see porn or go to strip clubs go to see it because they aren't as interested in their partner. I am not going to say all but most people like to fill a void of loneliness. It isn't that they aren't attracted to their partner but they want to feel inspired to perform better with their partner. In some cases, however, if your partner attends strip clubs or is watching porn ignoring your needs then they might not be wanting a relationship to begin with. Men's view on adult entertainment are going to be an obvious positive thumbs up because it is a natural thing. Women may feel like they aren't good enough in bed or something but in reality, it is just an escape for men/women who do watch it. If your partner isn't obsessed, watching people hurt one another, compelled to watch it 24 hours a day then there is nothing to worry about. According to Michael Bush, sex is very important in a relationship. "It enhances intimacy, boosts confidence, good for your overall body health and frequent sex leads to desire for more sex." With societal views being negative, the performers are being put down. They will either try to push through the hate that they receive or they direct their attention towards a substance that will help them deal with it. It saddens me to think about it because no one should put others down but I know that it does happen. When I was younger, I had no interest or desire to go to a strip club or watch porn. I will admit that as a woman, I did judge the other women who performed for money. I believe that you shouldn't sell yourself to make a buck, you should feel more confident in yourself to make something of yourself rather than being noticed as a sex object. To the performers, they don't see themselves as a sex object. They see themselves as working individuals; like everyone else. In a sense, they are right. Although they do expose themselves for money, they are considered employees working to earn a living. With this being said, when you part take in an industry like this, you have to accept the consequences. Jarone Ashkenazi wrote an article about why women go into porn. His article included an interview with Vicky Vette in which she was asked a series of questions pertaining to her career choice. Why did you go into porn? I just wanted to be wild and crazy. I was living in a small town with small minds. I felt confined, restrained, constrained, restricted and repressed! I felt like I needed to break out. I was already criticized and penalized for the way I looked even when I dressed and acted conservatively.I was already a swinger, so it wasn't a stretch. I was done with the hypocrisy. How did you weigh the benefits/disadvantages? The people who know me and the ones that are close to me are the ones that matter and love me. My happiness and the happiness of my immediate family is all that really matters. I am an adult, and I don't need anyone else's approval. Now that you're working in porn, which outweighs the other? I do have one casualty. I have a brother who has not spoken to me since 2003. He found out I was shooting porn when he rented Chloe's Pool Party by Vivid to watch with his girlfriend. How hypocritical is that? Every girl in that movie is someone's sister or daughter or mother. We all want to watch porn; we just don't want anyone we know to be making it. I have tried several times to reconnect with him — he refused to come to my wedding, and I have never met his wife and three children. Does the 'real world' treat you differently? Yes. I was living in a community where my neighbors loved me, but when someone found out what I did, I was ostracized. It got so bad to the point that I started receiving hate mail from the women, saying, "You make me sick," or "No one wants to live next to a whore." It was ironic because I lived a very quiet, respectful life, threw no parties and my house and property were spotless — you’d think that would be a recipe for the best neighbor ever. I have since moved to another state, but my renters are inevitably faced with "Oh, you're in the porn house?" (askmen.com) Today, adult entertainment is more acceptable than it was years ago. "In times past pornographic actors were shady characters who kept their real identities secretly under guard. Now, with the growing acceptance of pornography into the mainstream, they are going on the talk show circuits, appearing on network news, publishing best seller biographies and working their way into the idol status that once only traditional actors and sports players held" (danielrjennings.org). Individuals, who do decide to perform, are just able to now reveal who they are without disgust. People in society are more accepting their career as being a stable job rather than just a demoralizing path towards relentless antagonism. With this being said, this doesn't prevent performers from committing suicide. Temptation of taking drugs in this industry is huge. Compared to the year 1990, the rate of suicides have skyrocketed. Drugs being an influence, in some cases, have made suicide greater than AIDS. Although not all performers die from a suicide attempt or AIDS, the statistics of those trumps natural causes. (danielrjennings.org) The question is why? Why are entertainers wanting to just end their lives? Today, social media has a huge influence as to why most performers don't want o show their faces. It is also the drugs but social media has made it easier to bully people. People who bully online are afraid to confront the individual they are bullying so they hide behind a screen. Even though this happens, it doesn't prevent hateful words about someone from being spread; whether they are true or not. The negative remarks posted for everyone to see potentially causes someone to feel insecure about themselves. In December of last year, a porn star by the name of August Ames committed suicide because she was bullied for not wanting to have sex with someone who did gay porn. I know what you are thinking.....wow. It goes to show that everyone deals with bullying in some shape or form. According to Fox News, close friends suspect her social media presence and recent harassment may have contributed to her death. In January of this year, there was another porn star suicide. A woman, named Olivia Lua, was only 24 years old. "She thrived in her new career, and was nominated last year for Best New Actress at the Adult Video News Awards. It was when the cameras were off that she fell apart. "Unlovable," she wrote on Twitter Jan. 13, three months after LA Direct Models canceled her contract. They later said she had been showing up to work high" (Massarella). So the questions that we must ask are, is the industry the cause for this? Are they not protecting their employees like they should? What could they do better? Knowing they have a growing rate of suicides, they should just ban drugs to be used at all while being employed...right? According to Buster Smith, some actresses take cocaine anally, just to ease pain, or orally just to get through rough scenes. This is a job, they have to complete the task at hand. Does this mean that they are forced to do what they don't want to do? Why would they submit themselves to pain? The truth is, money is driving these women and men to perform in such a way that they can't show the true pain. If they did, they wouldn't get paid...simple as that. With a job like this, being forced, they feel like they don't have another path in life. They feel like the money is too good to lose but at the same time they understand that they will never get more for what they do. "The money hasn't increased, partly because studios say they're making less profit now, since content is often pirated by streaming sites that show it for free" (Massarella). So when will see less suicide attempts? I don't believe we will ever see them stop. Performers know what they are getting into. Drugs will always be an influence just like social media. The choice they make is to end their lives, what can we do? I feel like all we can do is nothing. Don't bully others is what I can say but that won't put a halt to negative feedback. Everyone has their own opinions...all I can say is that don't let words get to you. They are just words.
Do you remember the film Willy Wonka? If not, it is a film about a magical world of candy inside a factory and the only way in was to have a golden ticket. The ticket was kept hidden in chocolate bars. Anyways, the film was perfect for children. A man by the name of Willy Wonka owned this factory and he wanted children to enjoy it. Sounds a little weird now that I look back on it. What were his true intentions? Anyways, I loved the film growing up. It was the type of film that I would watch over and over. As I am searching for another theory, I find out that there is a theory of Willy Wonka being a serial killer. My love for horror sparked interest in this theory right away. As I read about it, I can connect the dots as to why the theory even existed. A man lures children in a secluded building where they get sucked in tubes, eating unfamiliar candies that causes an unknown allergic reaction, etc. According to movies.stackexchange.com, each character had a purpose. They represented the seven deadly sins. It is an interesting take on the film but at the same time it makes absolute sense. Each character acted a certain way in the film that demonstrated each of the "sins." "Gluttony-Augustus, Greed-Veruca, Pride-Violet, Sloth-Mike, Envy-Grandpa Joe, Lust-Charlie, Wrath-Willy Wonka" (movies.stackexchange.com) So if Wonka is Wrath then you have to question as to why he would want to hurt children in the most psychotic way? Each scene consisted of a child doing what they aren't supposed to be doing and so the consequence was to eliminate them from the next scene. They were to never return, why? What happened to them? The whole concept of children disappearing never occurred to me when I was a child watching the film. It is because children aren't alert to potential danger on screen. Their minds are focused on watching the film all the way through, not encrypting hidden messages.
It is haunting to me to reflect back on the film because I recognize many obvious signs of torture. I also note attempts to get rid of parents, "witnesses", made by Willy Wonka. He would give an order to his workers, "minions", to escort the parents out of the room to take them to their child whom we have no idea is still alive or not. According to htallen, there were distinct signs as to an object being planted so that the character would be trapped and killed. "The bubble room of blood splatter had Charlie and Grandpa drinking something that lifted them in the air towards a giant death fan. What Oompa Loompa was there to save them? If you have both a room and a huge ventilation fan that could potentially decapitate someone and an unmarked bottle of liquid to make someone float uncontrollably there is literally only one reason to keep them both in the same room. You INTEND to kill someone" (reddit.com). The film presented this scene to be full of laughter because the characters were laughing while belching. It was intended to distract the viewers from the idea of death occurring or about to happen. So the ending was bound to happen. Eventually, you come to the conclusion that Charlie would be the last surviving child and would get the "reward." This reward was taking over the whole business and you would assume that would be a good thing. Knowing what you know now, you will have to conclude that the business is killing children. Wonka knew that candy attracted children because what child doesn't like candy? Knowing this, he developed a plan that would be "bullet proof." Now Charlie is going to be trained to kill in secret. The only issue that I have with the "plan" is that in the film, the children were on the news. It was a big thing because there were only a certain number of tickets distributed but they were sent all over the world. So if the children disappeared, wouldn't the people all over the world hear about it? They would know that they never came out. Just something to think about. Maybe the plan was to say that the children wanted to move in the factory? Who knows. All I know is that if the film continued, there would an issue as to where all the children went. Maybe that was the point. Maybe it was to leave an idea that there was a "good" guy wanting to make children happy and that is it. Maybe it was to leave a hidden message for children stating that it is okay to go into a strange place with a stranger because "nothing bad" can happen to you. Manipulation is played very well here. It is told to me that the government has a weather machine. This machine can control what we see outside but the thing is that it was "stolen." So they say... A man by the name Nikola Tesla, whom created HAARP, invented what is known as the weather machine but was killed for it...supposedly...who knows. As I discuss information in the blog, I am personally finding out more information about this topic. So we are all on the same page about things! We all know that the government hides information from all of us...that is a given. What we don't know is that the government could potentially cause harm to us all without us knowing. By this, I mean that the government intentionally caused Hurricane Irma in Florida and Hurricane Harvey in Texas. It seemed somewhat "fishy" when both happened around the same time. I was skeptical about it all but I know that those areas are surrounded by water so hurricanes can happen at any given moment. The are many videos that explain how the hurricanes were engineered. They also explain the location of where the machine was placed, which was obviously close to the hurricane, but wasn't spotted until after the hurricane began. The signals from the machine came about in random spurts. It was said to have curated a cone shape form in the sky that transformed into a massive windstorm, or other known as a hurricane. It all just seems so out of the norm because we are suppose to believe that our government will keep us all safe. Why would they harm anyone? I am sure there are many of you that can come up with a few good reasons but in this case, why would the government cause a massive whirlwind of chaos? It will be explained later. So let me tell you a little about Tesla. He was a determined engineer that was sure to invent an electrical device..... Tesla's inspiration was from the one and only Thomas Edison. He actually worked under him, helping him make improvements on his inventions. This is very impressive! This only made Nikola want to venture out on his own to start his Tesla Electric Light Company. Tesla was completely consumed in wireless transmission of energy that he began to implement the idea of "sharing information and providing free electricity throughout the world" (biography.com). It was almost as if he was more obsessed with having his name distributed onto something. Once he did build an electrical tower, Guglielmo Marconi wanted Tesla's idea for advancing radio technology. Marconi did this for his own personal gain, which destroyed any chance for Tesla to become more successful. By having financial support from Andrew Carnegie and Thomas Edison, Marconi was able to accomplish annihilating Tesla's success. To me, this is ridiculous! Edison should have supported Tesla more but he went behind his back to better himself. Anyways, Nikola was an amazing inventor. He generated a number of influential inventions but most were sadly copyrighted by other inventors. I am not sure why but they no longer belonged to Nikola Tesla. According to biography.com, Nikola Tesla died on January 7, 1943, a the age of 86. He was suffering a nervous breakdown following the closure of his free energy project. As time went on, he became psychologically incompetent. He even drew the attention of the FBI with his talk of building a powerful"death beam," which had received some interest from the Soviet Union during World War II. (biography.com) So why would the government care about Tesla? Well, I have briefly talked about how Tesla was obsessed with wireless transmission of energy. So with this being said, Tesla created HAARP; also known as High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. "HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes" (globalreasearch.ca). In other words, this is the weather machine. It "directs energy beams in order to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere. Some scientists state that purposefully disturbing this sensitive layer could have major and disastrous consequences" (globalreasearch.ca). So again, why would the government care about Tesla? He was the master mind behind an invention that impacted weather patterns which in turn controlled how the environment is displayed. So did the government kill Tesla? I believe they did. If you noticed how Nikola's biography stated that he was becoming deranged. Was he really? The site even mentioned how he was going crazy by discussing how Tesla was going to build a "death beam." Sounds familiar right? HAARP directs energy beams (death beams?) to change the weather. I believe the government swindled the HAARP idea from Tesla and then made him out to be this psychotic old man. I believe this undoubtedly simplified the strategy to eliminate Tesla so the government can have further control as to what happens in our future. So why would the government want a weather machine? If you do some research, you will find that the purpose of the machine was to prevent any natural disasters from occurring. Isn't that funny. Why would we assume the government is telling us the truth? They want to create these so called "natural disasters" so they can depopulate states that have a lot of guns. Killing people is a simple thing to do but to take away guns, they have to go to extreme measures. This is so we can still say we are better than other countries.....and so forth. The US has to be number one, always. If you don't believe what I say, there is a video below that will further support what I am saying. There is a homeless man that was on a quest to find "shelters" in his local area once the Hurricane Harvey destroyed all homes in its path. He goes to a shelter in hopes to be safe but witnesses people being killed. The shelters were set up by FEMA-Federal Emergency Management Agency. This so called agency was supposed a good thing. It was an attempt to help those who are going through a nationwide disaster. It is GOVERNMENT funded!! Hint, hint... Anyways, this agency had shelters in "safe area" for survivors of the hurricane to come to. They stated they had beds, blankets, food, water, etc. This homeless man walked in and walked right back out. He told the news reporter that he won't go to any shelters due to them killing people. If you notice, the reporter doesn't have a reaction other than to change the topic quickly. Why would he do that? Do you think that reporters have a better understanding of FEMA's true intentions? If you have heard of FEMA then you would have also heard of FEMA camps. This is because the agency was killing people. They would set up a "shelter" in a local Walmart center, or another building, and take away lives. This is concentration camps happening all over again.....Walmart was supposedly apart of it but you won't find information on that other than videos that have been set up to make Walmart a guilty party. Keep in mind, the information given about the government is what I have gathered and/or believe to be true. The videos and/or sites below will give you a better idea as to what is being discussed. What do you believe to be true? Comment below. For further information, visit this website:
https://melmagazine.com/the-insane-logic-of-weather-truthers-who-think-hurricanes-are-created-by-the-government-271d609180ef |
|