Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Was Cho's "demon possession" a smoking gun clue of mind control?

The recent revelation that the mother of the VaTech shooter, Cho Hyang-in, requested assistance from the One Mind Church to remove from her son what the church’s head pastor called a “demonic power”, is stunning. Serious researchers of MKULTRA and it’s associated projects such as Project MONARCH, and those familiar with victims of mind control projects sooner or later come to the subject of demonic possession in their research. To the members of an evangelist church the signs of mind control that Cho may have displayed could have easily been misinterpreted as demonic possession. It is also known that aspects of the MKULTRA program included the use of Voodoo, mainstream religion and the occult in conjunction with mind-altering drugs. Is this revelation a “smoking gun” of Cho being a mind control victim and that the VaTach massacre was indeed a BlackOp?

In their book, The Illuminati Formula to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Control Slave, Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler wrote, “If we understand programming from the Programmers point of view, they believe in both MPD and demonic possession.” If we look at the known comments made by Cho’s roommates and few acquaintances at Virginia Tech it is easy to see aspects of their memories of him, which hint at the possibility of Multiple Personality Disorder as well. MPD was also a subject of great interest to the Intelligence Community during MKULTRA and techniques were developed which utilized information gleamed from the psychiatric research community.

One event that has been reported quite a bit involved Cho identifying himself in class with a question mark. The symbolic connotations of a person who identifies their name as “?” is chilling when the subjects of MPD and demonic possession are brought up. Can a person with MPD really identify who they really are? Would a person who believes, or has been told, that they are possessed by demons have self-awareness associated with their given name, or would they not be able to name what they believe is their true identity?

Other comments by Cho’s roommates and classmates about his behavior are equally ominous. His roommates say they did not know what classes he took. They claim that he was rarely in his room. It’s been reported that he was a video gamer, but no one in the VaTech gaming community was familiar with him. Cho seems on the surface as a persona non grata. It is as though he was invisible, yet we know that his presence was well known in the faculty of the English department of the University. How can a person operate in their environment as both an unseen being and a notorious person?

It is known that mind control techniques are understood in which the subject is told or programmed to “edit out” certain subjects, objects or memories. Yet those closest to Cho seem to show signs of this very same control. While I believe it may be possible that those people have also been programmed, I believe it is not likely in this case. My belief is that some technique unknown to the public was used on Cho in which his personality was altered in a way to lessen the impact and memory he had on other people. In effect he was an “invisible man”.

One way to look at this idea of being programmed as an invisible man is to think of the basis of religion for an analogy. Worshipers believe in an unseen being(s) for which they shape their beliefs, actions and life to please this unseen being(s). Is it possible that an individual can be trained/brainwashed to display their body language, speak words and have an overall presence which triggers the sub-conscious mind of those around them to “ignore” their presence rather than accept their presence based on faith that they “exist”? Can a person passively or covertly hypnotize others into not seeing them?

If this were possible it would explain many of the inconsistencies and contradictions about Cho’s life and academic work at Virginia Tech. It would also lead to the questions of who did this to him? Why was this done? What was the reason for the massacre? I posted a comment soon after the attacks where I stated that a BlackOp of this nature would be green lighted for one or more of the following 4 reasons:

1) A real world test of some mind control technique.

2) To create a ruse which takes attention away from something else.

3) To act as a part of a larger operation or to change the public view via a moral panic episode.

4) To provide cover for the targeting of an individual (whether they were a part of the massacre or not).

Let’s look at some possible answers to those 4 questions in the context of this posting:

1) If this was a test of a new technique, what are the components of this system of mind control? It’s possible that the invisible man hypothesis I presented is an aspect of this technique, but it’s also possible that the testing was more centered on a scripted plan to see how first responders reacted within a controlled environment with multiple points of concern. Another facet of what could be learned after the fact of this event is how information spreads from a central event within a controlled environment. We know that the students who were killed had virtually no knowledge of what had happened across campus less than 2 hours earlier.

2) The ruse theory looked very promising at the time of the shootings. Attorney General Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate was delayed because of this event, but there was little lost attention on this event. By time Gonzales sat before the Senate Judicial Committee the urgency of the shootings had waned, and in fact NBC News had already begun apologizing for airing the footage sent to them by Cho on the morning of the shootings.

3) The moral panic fallout from VaTech is minimal to say the least. It is almost too minimal when you begin to really think about it in hindsight. For weeks after the Columbine shootings the debate over gun control, school bullying and the effect of entertainment and mass media were raging. Those same subjects have been all but ignored in this case. Only a minor movement gained ground over gun laws and there has been a minor discussion about mental illness treatment. If this was a part of a larger operation, it is now apparent that this was simply the opening event in such an operation. The recent disclosure that Presidential candidate Barack Obama now has the protection of the Secret Service is troubling in this light. The threat of a return to the political assassinations of the 60’s and early 70’s is a frightening prospect.

4) There has been no disclosure of persons from the shooting having connections to projects, agencies or organizations that should be looked into and there have been no reports of strange deaths of foreign nationals that can be questioned because of the timing. So I think this point is now moot.

What is obvious about this event is that Cho wasn’t a “lone nut” whose actions can’t be explained. The peripheral facts that are still emerging slowly all point to a much more nefarious source. Continued research is needed but very slowly and under the radar of most Americans, the facts are emerging.

No comments: