Pennsylvania Craigslist killer says she slayed dozens more across U.S. as part of satanic cult: (79 replies)

Pennsylvania Craigslist killer says she slayed dozens more across U.S. as part of satanic cult: (79 replies)
http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-89EKCgBk8MZdE.gif

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:23 PM

reply to post by muzzleflash

I am having a hard time believing what she’s saying at this point as well. If true, it would make her the most prodigious female serial killer in American history at the tender age of 19. There have been others, mainly in the 19th century who are rumored to have killed more but in the modern era she would take the cake.

Without further information its hard to not think there is a large element of some kind of screwed up attention seeking behavior after her and her husband were caught “thrill killing” the poor guy lured from craigslist.

On the other hand, maybe she’s just a special kind of psychopath. Time will tell.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Kgdetroit because: (no reason given)

AboveTopSecret.com Hot Topics

Read more about Pennsylvania Craigslist killer says she slayed dozens more across U.S. as part of satanic cult: (79 replies) and other interesting subjects concerning Hot Topics at TheDailyNewsReport.com

new age cult - "Desteni" on death

The Christmas Tree & the Mushroom Cult

 

December 24, 2013

In Northern Europe, there’s an alternate history about the origin of Saint Nicholas.  

Hold Nickar and friends ate psychedelic mushrooms that flourished under Pine trees 

to enter the Christ Consciousness. That’s how he became Saint Nickar, 

or Saint Nicholas as we now know him !

by Glenn Bullock

(from Dec 21, 2009) 
(henrymakow.com)

The traditional aspects of the Christmas tree of today come mainly from Germanic and Scandinavian origins. Christmas as we’ve come to know it is like other Christian festivals, a mixture of traditions brought together from a variety of backgrounds to satisfy all under Rome !

Those various traditions each had their own enlightenment rituals which became symbolized. Over time we’ve forgotten the meaning of the symbols, but like most other hidden knowledge it is right under our noses.

In Finland, the Shamans, and one in particular called Hold Nickar, are known to have worn red suits with white spots to pick the sacred Amanita Muscaria or Fly Agaric mushrooms, which are themselves red with white spots. On returning home from picking, on reindeer sleighs, they had their mushrooms in a sack, and re entered their lodges through the smoke hole in the roof ! Hold Nickar and friends ate those mushrooms to enter the Christ Consciousness, that’s how he became Saint Nickar, or Saint Nicholas as we now know him !

The reindeer also ate the mushrooms, which is why they are characterized as flying, although this ties in with other older legends of gods flying the skies at night once a year giving gifts to the worthy.

In German and Norse traditions, it was normal to hang the dried Amanitas on the Christmas tree for decoration; but there is another relationship between the Amanita and the Christmas tree in that the Amanita’s mycelium (roots) can only grow in the root zone of certain trees; just about anything you could call a Christmas tree is suitable although Birch are also good. That is why we have a decorated Pine or some such tree at Christmas. One of the earliest natural decorations used were dried Amanitas !

One other thing about Pines is the pine cone which represents the Pineal gland which is situated centrally in the brain, and looks just like a little pine cone. It is the activation by the Amanita of the pineal gland, that opens the internal inter-dimensional stargate that allows us to travel as consciousness to other very real dimensions, resulting in what could be considered the enlightenment of the Shaman !

You can often see the Pope dressed in white with a red cape to represent the Amanita Muscaria, or sometimes in all white with a little white cap, to represent the Psilocybin or Liberty Cap magic mushroom. A lot of traditions use entheogens ( teacher drugs) to enter an enlightened state, Christianity is based on entheogen use amongst other enlightenment practices. There is an enormous pine cone on a plinth at the Vatican to represent the pineal gland; Roman  Catholicism is in part a mushroom cult that hasn’t bothered to tell its members !

When in times gone by a man with flying reindeer, and dressed in red suit with white spots (buttons) entered your lodge, through the smoke hole in the roof, to bring a present from his sack, he was bringing the gift of enlightenment by activation of the pineal gland, which is represented by adding pine cones to the tree’s decorations to symbolize that gland, which then hang on the tree alongside the dried mushroom that activates it. The Star on top of the tree represents enlightenment itself !
————————–

Glenn Bullock, is a 48-year-old Derby, England welder, married, and father of three sons. He has been researching ancient and modern NWO related symbolism full time for the last four years, and is hoping to publish a book some day !

See also

---

Comments for “The Christmas Tree & the Mushroom Cult”

---

---

---

henrymakow.com

The Christmas Tree & the Mushroom Cult

Illuminati: The Cult That Hijacked The World [1of4]

The little known Female Illuminati:

The Rise of Establishment Reporting - How a crisis in journalism led to the cult of balance

Journalism awards are named after I.F. Stone today, but major newspapers shunned him in his prime

A crisis in journalism lasted from the 1890s until the 1920s. Party-driven journalism had disintegrated, the increasingly lucrative and powerful newspaper magnates ruled their independent empires and exercised considerable political power, and the pursuit of profit sometimes led to an incredible, even appalling, journalism. Mounting public anger and dissatisfaction with the journalism of this era produced what became the first great existential crisis for journalism.

The problem at its core was that a relatively small number of very powerful newspaper owners dominated their communities and states, and a handful of them had national empires. Market economics was pushing toward more concentration and ever less competition. As even the publisher of the Scripps-owned Detroit News argued, in private, in 1913, the corrosive influence of commercial ownership and the pursuit of profit were such that the rational democratic solution would be to have municipal ownership of newspapers.

In view of the explicitly political nature of newspapers in American history, this was not as absurd a notion as it may appear today. Scripps, always the most working-class-oriented of the major chains, even launched an ad-less daily newspaper in the 1910s, because it saw how commercialism undermined the integrity of the news.

By 1912, three of the four candidates for president—Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene Debs, all but President William Howard Taft—made the irresponsibility and corruption of the daily press a theme of their campaigns. The world of newspapers had turned upside down in three decades.

The major newspaper owners were able to repel any serious threat to their survival, and to do so, they promoted a new sense of journalism, one that saw the press as independent of politics, neutral in stance, and there to provide the facts necessary for citizens to understand the world and participate effectively as citizens. Put crudely, publishers gave up their direct personal control over news content that had been the hallmark of American journalism to create a product that would have legitimacy and allow the increasingly monopolistic commercial system, already generating lovely profits, to remain in place.

The more visionary owners, like Joseph Pulitzer, argued that journalists needed to be educated at universities, and that there needed to be a “Chinese Wall” between the newsroom and the business offices. In this way, readers could trust that they were getting straight news that was not playing favorites for owners, advertisers, politicians, or the editors and reporters themselves.

Joseph Pulitzer with copies of his newspapers

There were no schools of journalism in 1900; by the 1920s, nearly all of the major schools had been established across the nation. In 1922, the American Society of Newspaper Editors was established and formally adopted its professional code of ethics for reporters forthwith.

For press owners, professionalism was the solution to their problem. As Edward Scripps (Richard Kaplan, Politics and the American Press) explained it, once readers “did not care what the editor’s views were…when it came to news, one paper was as good as a dozen.” If trained journalists were striving to present an objective report, monopoly would no longer be a pressing concern. Moreover, all attention to understanding news coverage would focus on editors and reporters as the decisive players; publishers and advertisers would drift into the background.

This was a striking shift in American journalism. For the first century of the republic, the vast majority of papers were owned and edited by the same person and the newspaper reflected the owner’s partisan viewpoint. Knowing the owner meant knowing the paper. Americans today often regard independent, nonpartisan, factually accurate reporting conducted by commercial enterprises as the ideal form of democratic journalism, for understandable reasons. But accomplishing such a system without having significant problems proved to be impossible.

Scarce resources needed to be deployed, and some topics would therefore receive coverage and others would not. There was no neutral value-free code or algorithm that could make that decision; it would, in the end, be determined by values. And the process of generating professional journalism was done under commercial auspices, where the commitment to professional standards was tempered by commercial considerations. This is not to say that some forms of news cannot be more neutral than others, only that all news has a set of values and assumptions that drive it and determine the broad contours of what is covered, how it is covered, and what is not covered.

The values that would drive professional journalism were determined and occasionally fought over by publishers, editors and journalists for the first half of the 20th century. There was a strong reform impulse, attached to the Progressive Era and muckraking, which believed journalism should “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” This was nonpartisan journalism, and it held politicians of all parties to the same standard, but it was hardly value free.

This type of journalism was embraced by the Newspaper Guild (the union for reporters) when it was founded in the 1930s. To protect the integrity of the news, leading elements of the guild wanted to effectively prohibit owners and advertisers from having any influence over the newsroom.

Some publishers embraced the spirit of the reform approach—if not their formal banishment from controlling their newsrooms—but the vast majority found the notion of a truly independent journalism far too controversial and adversarial toward the power structure, of which they were most indubitably a part. The professional journalism that emerged in the 1920s and crystallized by midcentury moved decisively in an establishment direction, where it remains to this day.

To take the controversy away from story selection, and to maintain neutrality, political coverage was based primarily on what people in power—official sources—said and did. When they debated an issue, or when they had no particular interest in an issue, it was fair game for journalism. When they agreed on an issue, it was considered inappropriate and “ideological” for a journalist to raise questions challenging the elite consensus, except on the rarest of occasions—as, for instance, when a handful of southern editors such as Hazel Brannon Smith questioned the segregationist consensus in states such as Mississippi.

We remember dissenting and dissident editors such as Smith not only because of their courage, but also because of their rarity. For the most part, however, a premium was placed on achieving factual accuracy and on not tilting the coverage toward challenging the powerful and questioning the basic infrastructure of an often corrupt and dysfunctional status quo.

So it was that one of the greatest journalists of the age, I.F. Stone, had to create his own small publications to raise big questions about the health risks posed by cigarettes, the military-industrial complex, and McCarthyism. In 2008, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University announced plans to award an annual “I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence,” but in the 1950s and 1960s, when he was in his prime, Stone could not get his writing published in major American newspapers and was given no forum on broadcast television.

That’s because the journalists who got the jobs, and the journalism that was rewarded, bent over backward to avoid taking a side not just in the political debate between the two parties but also in the great debates of the era. This approach fostered the illusion of professional impartiality. But it also had the important business benefit of making journalism less expensive: just plant reporters near people in power and have them report.

There were major problems with this style of professional journalism, problems that surround us to this day, especially when it comes to the coverage of politics. It tended to make off-limits and unquestioned those areas that people in power agreed upon, and that not coincidentally tended to be near and dear to press owners.

Specifically, when it comes to covering politics, professional journalism has a strong inclination to simply publicize the positions of the leadership of the two parties and regard them invariably as the two legitimate poles of debate—with the rational center between them, the place journalists tend to see themselves and the best people inhabiting.

To maintain neutrality, journalists are loath to call out one side for lying. They also do not want to antagonize their sources, upon whom they are dependent. Instead, journalists prefer to report that one side is calling the other side liars and leave it at that. We report; you decide. The problem is that the liars can dismiss the criticism as being driven by their opponents and ignore it, so this becomes a liar’s paradise.

This obsession of professional journalism to play it strictly down the middle between the two legitimate parties, to avoid at all costs the charge of favoritism—the “cult of balance” as Paul Krugman (New York Times, 7/29/11) termed it—compromises the rigor and integrity of where political analysis would go if it simply followed the evidence “without fear or favor.” Krugman defined the cult of balance as “the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts.” “If one party declared that the earth was flat,” Krugman stated jokingly, “the headlines would read ‘Views Differ on Shape of Planet.’”

Krugman on the “cult of balance”: “If one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read ‘Views Differ on Shape of Planet.’”

Ari Melber (PBS.org, 9/5/12) wrote, “For years, Americans’ political press has been stuck in a fact-free model of neutrality, often covering even the most obvious lies as ‘one side’ of a dispute.”

The grave damage of the cult of balance is that it allows dubious players to pollute the political culture and get away with it. After all, if the news media attack them, the media are accused of being partisan and unprofessional. And when the political culture moves sharply in one direction, journalism comfortably and uncritically goes along with it, sticking resolutely to the “center.” The center, more than anything in the United States, is determined by where Big Money is located.

This article is adapted from John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney’s Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America (Nation Books). Nichols is D.C. correspondent for The Nation magazine; McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

The Rise of Establishment Reporting - How a crisis in journalism led to the cult of balance

Alien Cult Takes Over British TV Station

No, it’s not an episode of V, it was a 1970s real-life hijacking of Southern Television in England by the “alien” Vrillon, as reported by The Kernel:

26 November 1977 was a deeply cold night in England. The regional station Southern Television was just beginning its evening news bulletin and families across South-East England gathered together in their living rooms to watch the news. Children waited impatiently for Looney Tunes, which they knew would be shown directly after the news programme.

As Andrew Gardner read out news of the conflict in Rhodesia, a hissing, shuffling sound drowned out his voice. Suddenly, a booming voice addressed the startled viewers, as the screen still showed the oblivious newsreader reading through the day’s headlines.

This is the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you.

It was now ten past five in the evening. With the news report still continuing on the screen, the deep, oscillating voice continued with his message.

For many years you have seen us as lights in the skies.

None of the evening staff at Southern Television were aware of the intrusion to their signal. International Broadcasting Authority engineers in Croydon, Surrey did not hear the rogue signal, nor was it detected at the main transmitter site in Southampton.

The message from “Vrillon” continued for nearly six minutes as stunned families across South-East England tried to comprehend what they were hearing. Some panicked, believing that aliens really were communicating through the television…

[continues at The Kernel]

Full text of Vrillon’s message from Wikipedia:

• This is the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you. For many years you have seen us as lights in the skies. We speak to you now in peace and wisdom as we have done to your brothers and sisters all over this, your planet Earth.


• We come to warn you of the destiny of your race and your world so that you may communicate to your fellow beings the course you must take to avoid the disaster which threatens your world, and the beings on our worlds around you. This is in order that you may share in the great awakening, as the planet passes into a New Age of Aquarius. The New Age can be a time of great peace and evolution for your race, but only if your rulers are made aware of the evil forces that can overshadow their judgments.


• Be still now and listen, for your chance may not come again.


• All your weapons of evil must be removed. The time for conflict is now past and the race of which you are a part may proceed to the higher stages of its evolution if you show yourselves worthy to do this. You have but a short time to learn to live together in peace and goodwill.


• Small groups all over the planet are learning this, and exist to pass on the light of the dawning New Age to you all. You are free to accept or reject their teachings, but only those who learn to live in peace will pass to the higher realms of spiritual evolution.


• Hear now the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you. Be aware also that there are many false prophets and guides operating in your world. They will suck your energy from you – the energy you call money and will put it to evil ends and give you worthless dross in return.


• Your inner divine self will protect you from this. You must learn to be sensitive to the voice within that can tell you what is truth, and what is confusion, chaos and untruth. Learn to listen to the voice of truth which is within you and you will lead yourselves onto the path of evolution.


• This is our message to our dear friends. We have watched you growing for many years as you too have watched our lights in your skies. You know now that we are here, and that there are more beings on and around your Earth than your scientists admit.


• We are deeply concerned about you and your path towards the light and will do all we can to help you. Have no fear, seek only to know yourselves, and live in harmony with the ways of your planet Earth. We of the Ashtar Galactic Command thank you for your attention. We are now leaving the plane of your existence. May you be blessed by the supreme love and truth of the cosmos.

The post Alien Cult Takes Over British TV Station appeared first on disinformation.

disinformation

Alien Cult Takes Over British TV Station

Inside the Military Rape Cult

Special Note:AlterNet is celebrating One Billion Rising on February 14 at its West Coast office! Join us for refreshments and fun starting at 6pm. For more information, visit our events page. You can also sign up to start your own event for One Billion Rising, or find out where you can attend.

In many ways, what happened to Petty Officer Second Class Rebecca Blumer after she was roofied and raped by three Army officers she met in a bar not far from base was far worse than the attack itself. Her superiors became more intent on prosecuting her for D.U.I. than on finding out what really happened to this promising young intelligence analyst. What’s worse is that her brutal story, recounted in riveting detail by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely in this month’s Rolling Stone magazine, is far from uncommon. The military, as films like The Invisible Warand Erdely’s article show, has a rape problem of epidemic proportions. It is estimated that one in three military women are raped by fellow troops, twice the number of their civilian counterparts. One survivor of multiple rapes quoted in Erdely’s article calls the military a “giant rape cult.” In 2010, the DoD found that 19,000 service members were sexually assaulted. Of those a paltry 3,100, or 13.5 percent, were reported, and of those only 17 percent were prosecuted. All too often, attackers receive a slap on the wrist while their victims lose their careers and their futures, sometimes falling into homelessness, despair and suicidal thoughts.

I recently spoke with Erdely about her article, and was surprised to find that despite the horrific experiences of Blumer and other military rape victims, there might just be a glimmer of hope at the end of a long dark road spanning Tailhook, Lackland Air Force, Aberdeen and probably many sexual assault scandals that have never come to light.

Janet Allon: What drew you to the topic of sexual assault in the military?

Sabrina Rubin Erdely: I’ve written a lot on the subject of sexual assault in general, and have long been interested in the way these cases are handled and the way they are perceived by society. In both military sexual assault and civilian sexual assault, there are these rape myths that get in the way of survivors reporting these crimes.

Rape myths are at the heart of sexual assault and how it is handled, but these problems are magnified in the military. The military’s rape epidemic is magnified by military culture.

JA: Describe that culture and how it magnifies the problem.

SRE: For starters, the military is very macho. There is great emphasis placed on strength, for obvious reasons. Weakness is deplored, strength is prized, and femininity equates with weakness. If you can’t do enough pullups, you’re a pussy. Everything is gendered.

What is ingrained in troops is a degradation of women and the ethos is saturated with the harassment of women. It’s a culture of harassment within a closed structure. That message is absorbed and communicated throughout people’s military careers. And this degradation of women paves the way for sexual assault.

This is a problem in general, not just for women. You can’t admit to having any kind of weakness. Soldiers can’t admit to PTSD. Any sort of weakness means you can’t perform your mission. Saying you were a victim of a crime is further evidence that you are not fit for military.

JA: What else in military culture makes it difficult to report having been raped?

SRE: It’s a totally closed and regimented system. People in the military are told what time to do everything. Everything is dictated. This regimentation cannot be overstated: You are told how to walk, how to stand, what time to get up, whether you can walk across the room. It is a very hierarchical system. If the people above you give you orders, like not to report that you were raped, it would be very difficult to go against that. The survivors I spoke to were discouraged from reporting their rapes by their superiors.

The military is also a very closed society. Once a rape victim has reported an attack, or wants to see a doctor, everyone knows. There is a total lack of privacy, because everyone is on such a tight, regimented schedule, your absence would immediately be noticed.

In the civilian world, if you were raped, you could go to the hospital, see a doctor, report the crime, and theoretically you might just go back to your office, and your coworkers would be none the wiser. The military is a very gossipy place. Everyone knows your business, and they might start to shun or ostracize you, which is what happened to Petty Officer Rebecca Blumer, the subject of my piece. It became dangerous to be seen as her friend.  In civilian life, if you felt ostracized, you might quit your job, leave the city. But in the military, if you leave you would be AWOL, and subject to court martial. So you are totally trapped.

JA: It seemed that the deeper tragedy of what happened to Rebecca Blumer was her total betrayal by the military.

SRE: Rebecca had a lot of faith in the military – she truly believed they had her best interests at heart. She was completely devoted to the Navy.

The military is not just your job, it is your world. It’s your friends, your family and your structure. In joining, you have agreed to lay your life on the line, so you have to have that level of trust in the organization. That is the level of trust Rebecca had in it. It gave her stability; she was totally invested in it. She was a 23-year-old Navy intelligence analyst, and she thought she had a bright future ahead of her. She was really good at what she did.

JA: So, it seems all the more strange that her superiors just did not believe her when she said she had been roofied and raped. She had a perfect unblemished record of service. But when she came to after the rape, in a sort of semi-conscious state, she tried to drive somewhere, either back to base or to get help, and was arrested for D.U.I. They did not get her treatment for her injuries, which were considerable. They even asked if she might have inflicted them on herself.

SRE: It is unclear how much investigation was done. She had an anal fissure. Her abdomen hurt. There was physical evidence. There was the fact that she blacked out. Her superiors were skeptical though, and more intent on punishing her for D.U.I. And once that decision was made, it was risky to stand up for her. Nobody wants to be a pariah.

JA: They did not get her any medical help for a long time, and when they did, they did not ask for a rape kit, just for her blood to be tested for the presence of a date-rape drug.

SRE: In Rebecca’s case, it was 18 hours after she had taken the shot of Jagermeister sent to her by these Army guys in the bar which she realizes must have been what drugged her. Within a few minutes she reacted. Her head, legs, arms felt heavy — and she felt dizzy, but not drunk exactly. The noises in the bar rose up around her in a cacophony.

That was the last thing she remembered before waking up in a jail cell, naked, wet from being hosed down because she was apparently screaming for a doctor, and in a lot of pain, including severe rug burns on her buttocks and lower back. By the time they tested her urine 18 hours later, there was no trace of the drug. Date-rape drugs can be metabolized very quickly. All she’d had to drink that night was two beers and that fateful shot.

JA: How did you find Rebecca?

SRE: I found her through an explosive series of federal lawsuits – on behalf of about 59 victims of military sexual assault. I went through all of them, and Rebecca’s experience really stood out. She was an example of someone whose career was really cut short. The twists and turns in her case illustrated how dysfunctional the military is and how it treats these victims.

JA: How did she feel about having her story told?

SRE: She was very open about it, but it was difficult for her. She felt it was important to get her story out there to raise awareness. I am so grateful to all the service women who were willing to be identified and go public. It really communicates that there is nothing to be ashamed of.

JA: This is such a sad sory and with the shocking statistics of one in three women in the military being raped, and most of their attackers not being brought to justice—one victim in your story calls the military “a big rape cult.” On the eve of women joining men in full combat, is there any reason to be hopeful that the military will evolve?

SRE: I think there is a lot of hope. The challenges are huge, but not insurmountable. Now that the military has finally acknowledged that sexual assault is a problem, and responding to it appropriately is a priority, that’s huge. That’s a result of survivors coming forward, advocacy groups and Congress putting pressure.

Ironically, I think in some ways the military could be better equipped to get a handle on rape because it is such a closed society. This could become an asset. It is an organization that regulates behavior, so maybe they can regulate this. If sexual assault is a priority, they could turn that around. And if they do get their house in order, civil society might learn from them how better to deal with rape.

Military is overhauling their training programs for sexual assault investigators and prosecutors. They are learning state-of-the-art stuff. I am told by experts that it is far superior to what civilian police departments learn. It becomes like a little lab, a Petri dish where you can measure things. You can take stock.

It takes enlightened leadership. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has taken a strong stance on making sexual assault a priority, and named a new director, Major General Gary Patton, as head of the Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault and Prevention Office. He seems like the right person for the job—he implemented Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went very smoothly, against dire predictions. It’s been a cultural shift.

So that’s encouraging. But it’s not to say the military can fix things themselves. It’s important that there be outside oversight, by both Congress and advocacy groups.

The fact that things are still this bad after more than 20 years of just atrocious sex scandals is pretty deplorable.

Wed, 02/13/2013 – 19:05  
AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed

Inside the Military Rape Cult