BARACK OBAMA ...

... THE NAKED EMPEROR
Hello all ...
I
have watched with dismay this past three weeks as vast numbers of people
across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped
by the mind-game called Operation Obama.
Even
people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well,
at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new
spirit of hope'.
No,
he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use
of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope'
at all?
Obama's
wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory,
said that 'everything begins and ends with hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is
a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by
definition, never in the NOW. Hope is like riding a carousel horse;
no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea,
however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment,
in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system
is designed to prevent it.


That's the way 'hope' is employed by the dastardly and devious - take the crap we are giving you now
in the 'hope' that things will get better (but we know they won't). Barack
Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept
what they are given now in the hope that good times will come.
Just do what we demand, oops, sorry, Barack demands, and in return he'll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn't, but, by the time you realise that, it's too late.
What
terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future,
sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom
now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to, not to actually have. Thus, their man, Obama, sells 'hope' as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling.
We
have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at
least we have 'hope'. Phew, thank goodness for that.
'I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?'
'I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today, only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow.'
'So will I eat tomorrow, mum?'
'We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it's the next day.'
On and on it goes. That's how 'hope' works. Or rather doesn't.
Obama's
predominant mantra is 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking
campaign has been based on that one word - change. This is a technique
used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because,
at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the
way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' can be a potent
message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means.
It
has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never
specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word,
'believe', were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general
will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what?
To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.

I
studied the military/government mind-control programmes and techniques in
great detail for many years during the late-1990s and across 2000, and the
Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could
wish to see.
At
its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope
for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him
not to specify and detail what is meant by his 'hope, 'change' and 'believe'.
However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world.
Specifics
would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you
don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'. They don't want
him to be seen only as 'the Messiah'; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln,
JFK, or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank
page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself
leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is.
If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.)
Watch the video How Obama Got Elected at the end of this article to see how easy it is to manipulate the masses. It's child's play.



'I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.'
There
is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they
want to hear and to keep shtum about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing
salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target
likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold.
The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned
they want to be told.
Obama
comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole
network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds,
opinions and actions.
Obama's
written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The
'heart' bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability
to 'mean it when he says it', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting.
Tony Blair was trained in the same way.
But
if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can
clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant
fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and
looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but,
from where I have been looking this past year, not much.
You
can see his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and
right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart
orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and
saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the
line is delivered.
I
worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while
a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since
the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know,
therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language
and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from
the autocue, not the heart.

Obama's
speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic Programming,
or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions
into the mind of the viewer. See the study later in this newsletter headed
An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches.
As
I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control
and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in
a permanent state of trance. All of which brings me to the parallels with
Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history.
Obama
may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just
the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in
the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted
on the country by the Rothschild/Illuminati-controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919.
From
amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that
so many see Obama today. His name was Adolf Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric,
again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques,
made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama.
Hitler
promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences
of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers
and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler's vision of a new tomorrow.
As the writer
Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a police
state imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it
is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no
understanding of what the 'change', hope' and 'believe' they are being offered
really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama,
they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their
horror, what they have signed up for.

Obama's America ...

... Hitler's Germany.
There may seem to be a world of difference, but the techniques are just the same.
Obama
is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are
in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same
scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed
massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never
be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some
vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those
words are supposed to mean.
But Obama clearly can, because he has.
One
of 'his' (his controllers') prime targets are the young, just as they were
with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel
is far-fetched then have a look at this video to see how extreme Obama worship
has already become for some young people. Hitler Youth was just the same.
Click here to watch ...
In line with this same theme, the WorldNetDaily website reported this month:
'The
official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally
announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students
to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs
protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's
wording was softened.
Originally,
under the tab "America Serves", Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will
expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will
create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as
well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama
will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan
to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school
and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.'
For the full story click here ...

Obama
said in a speech in July in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian
national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the
Marines, Navy and Air Force. Click here for the speech, the relevant segment starts at around 16 minutes.
As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote:
'If
we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful
and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a
big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much
on the military.
How
is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive
but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army,
Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating
some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?
If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?'
Obama
meant, amid the flowery words, that he's not in favour of either peace or
freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy
Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Reagan, Carter, ad infinitum; but the difference
is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be
allowed to get away with far more than they were, at least until reality
dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that
could take some time.


When
I was a journalist a long time ago, I came across a technique that some tabloid
newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would
work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed
family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was
from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression
and contempt to make them even more upset.
He
would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the
real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that
he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but
'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other
man, nor anyone like him, will bother you again'. They usually agreed and
the scam was complete.
Much
the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative
'Republican' wing of the Illuminati has controlled Bush for the last eight
years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem);
now the 'Democratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought
forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope'
and 'change' (good guy/solution).
Hence even some more aware people say: 'At least he's not Bush'.
Apart
from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what
Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image'
of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do
fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his
windbag words.
There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not.
He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does
about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European
troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is
prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear
weapons.
Obama
isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will
engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their
deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark
suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.