More on the Orlando Massacre: A Second Perpetrator on Scene?

As with so many of these mass shootings, early eyewitness reports often indicate that either a second or third perpetrator is on scene helping the "lone nut" pull off the crime.  If you go back and listen to my 6-5-16 interview on Adam Sayne's Conspiranormal podcast (fast forward to approximately 1:54:00 to hear my precise comments), I very clearly predict that similar eyewitness reports will emerge during the "next" mass shooting.  Judging by the following report regarding the Orlando massacre, my prediction was spot-on.  An eyewitness has been recorded describing the presence of a second perpetrator on scene who tried to prevent the victims from fleeing the Pulse nightclub while the shooting was underway.  Here are the eyewitness's exact words:  "There was a guy there that was trying to hold the door closed so that we didn't exit."  It's clear from the context of the call that this "guy" holding the door closed was not the shooter himself.  Click HERE to listen to the complete eyewitness report.    

Also, I highly recommend checking out Jon Rappoport's latest post about the tragedy in Orlando.  Read Rappoport's  "Orlando Shooter:  Deeper Hidden Ties to the FBI?" by clicking right HERE.

The Orlando Massacre, Gangstalking, and Mass (Non-)Surveillance

Here are the first five paragraphs of Meghan Keneally's 6-12-16 ABCNews.com article entitled "Orlando Shooter Legally Bought Guns Despite Previous Flags by FBI":

"Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen legally purchased the guns he had on him today within the past week, even though he had been known to law enforcement for years, federal officials confirmed.

"Law enforcement sources told ABC News that he had a .223 caliber AR-type rifle and a Glock handgun on him at the time of the shooting early this morning, which the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says he bought legally. 

"News of the legal purchases comes as officials confirmed that Mateen had been interviewed three times by the FBI in the years leading up to the shooting because his name came up in connection to two different cases. Such information would not show up in a background check because both cases were closed. 

"Law enforcement sources confirmed that Mateen was on the FBI's radar but not necessarily on a watch list. But even appearing on the list wouldn't have necessarily prevented him from obtaining weapons. 

"'Being on the watch list is not in itself disqualifying, under law. The disqualifying elements of the investigation may be classified,' ABC News consultant and former acting Homeland Security undersecretary John Cohen said."

To read Keneally's entire article, click HERE.

What follows is a choice excerpt from my five-part article about gangstalking and twenty-first century mass surveillance entitled "A World of Stalking Fools" (originally posted on 1-24-16), a follow-up to my most recent book, Chameleo:  A Strange but True Story of Invisible Spies, Heroin Addiction, and Homeland Security (OR Books, 2015):


Not many people are aware that Gloria Naylor, the respected American author of such acclaimed novels as The Women of Brewster Place and Mama Day, has been a victim of gangstalking for almost twenty years.  In fact, she wrote an entire novel about her experiences entitled 1996 (the year her horrific experiences began).  Naylor’s nightmare very much reflects the outlandish torture undergone by my friend Dion in San Diego; however, the trigger for Naylor’s harassment is even more absurd that what Dion underwent.  She became a targeted individual over a trivial dispute with her next door neighbor, who just so happened to have a brother in the National Security Agency.  When the neighbor’s cat ended up poisoned, the neighbor blamed Naylor.  That’s when her experiences with gangstalking began.  To those of you who think this type of psychological warfare will never be waged against you, think again.  If you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you happen to pique some asshole’s wrath on the wrong day, kiss the illusory freedom you’ve always depended on farewell.  

And for those of you who think, “Gee whiz, maybe it’s a good thing that these spooks are watching all these scumbags 24/7.  That’s exactly what this country needs—good old-fashioned brute justice, not more red tape.”  Perhaps that attitude would be correct… except for the fact that the “scumbags” (i.e., terrorists, rapists, pedophiles, conmen, and criminals of all sorts) aren’t the ones being scrutinized.  For the most part, in fact, the ones in charge are the very same “scumbags” listed above.  As I said before, many of the perps involved in gangstalking are being blackmailed into performing these acts.  Those most open to blackmail are those who are already engaging in criminal behavior.  So now we have a situation in which criminals are being funded by the United States black budget to monitor innocent civilians being accused of terrorism by far rightwing spooks with over two thousands years of Christian righteousness fueling the religious war of purification waging quietly and covertly in their disordered brains. 

The alphabet soup of intelligence agencies whose budgets soared after 9/11 will look us straight in the face and claim that their efforts have made this country a better place.  Stop a moment and ask yourself a variation on a crucial question that President Ronald Reagan once asked the American people.  During the 1984 Presidential race, Reagan asked his constituents, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”  At the time the question was a resounding, “Yes!”  Ever since then, savvy politicians have used variations on the same question to win votes from the American people.  But the one question that no politician will ever ask the American people is as follows:  “Do you feel more free than you did four years ago?”

The reason this question will never be asked is because the answer would be the same for every single American across the political, sociological and racial spectrum.  The resounding answer would be “NO!”  Even the gangstalkers feel less free than they did in the past.  Many of these perps are speaking out about the positions in which they find themselves.  They’re monitored more closely than the people being stalked.  My friend Dion saw this firsthand when one of the gangstalkers actually broke character just long enough to try to pass along a piece of advice in a random public restroom in Minnesota before the perp’s handler barged into the bathroom and practically dragged the man out by the collar. 

If the purpose of this nationwide gangstalking program really was to curb mass violence and domestic terrorism, why have so many outrageous, violent scenarios increased since 9/11?  Consider this:  These operatives had enough money, time, and manpower to monitor my friend Dion—who was doing absolutely nothing to anybody that warranted such insane violations of the United States Constitution—but they were not at all aware of the suspicious activities—both online and off—of a blatantly disturbed teenager like Adam Lanza who enjoyed spending his downtime at the local firing range with his gun-loving mother?  They were not at all aware of the murderous schemes of Syed Rizwan Farook who posted her ghastly intentions on Facebook years before she picked up an arsenal of semi-automatic firearms and gunned down fourteen of her husband’s co-workers in a San Bernardino banquet room?  They were not aware of the catastrophic plans of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombers, despite the fact that the two terrorists ostensibly made no secret of their intentions among their network of college friends in Boston?  They were not aware of the reprehensible activities—both online and in the classroom—of organized pedophiles operating blatantly out of elementary schools and Catholic churches in Southern California in recent years?  And yet somehow these super sleuths had the wherewithal to monitor my friend’s phone calls to such a degree that they once went out of their way to cut off phone communication between us in order to prevent me sending him money via Western Union.  How can both these realities be true at the same time?  If they have enough time to monitor the most mundane activities of Dion Fuller or Gloria Naylor or the thousands of other targeted individuals in the United States, then they must have enough time to monitor the real threats as well—the Adam Lanzas, the Boston Marathon bombers, all the domestic terrorists who have plagued our headlines during the past few years.  But they don’t.  Instead they waste literally thousands of dollars gaslighting a male Caucasian heroin addict in San Diego and a female African-American novelist in South Carolina?  Why?  

Because they’re not interested in stopping crime. 

Because the true terrorists are the ones in charge of the gangstalking program.

 

The purpose of juxtaposing Meghan Keneally's ABCNews.com article with the above excerpt from my article "A World of Stalking Fools" should be obvious to anyone with eyes open enough to see.  As Hunter S. Thompson often liked to say, "Res Ipsa Loquitur."  

 

The point is self-evident.  It appears as if a definite pattern is forming here.  When it comes to managing mass shootings and domestic terrorism, Homeland Security seems to favor a systematic program of willful "Mass (Non-)Surveillance."  

 

To read the entirety of "A World of Stalking Fools," I suggest beginning with Part One (which you can find right HERE).

 

For more information on the Orlando shooting, I suggest reading Loren Coleman's Twilight Language blog, particularly his 6-12-16 post entitled "Media Shouts, 'America's Deadliest Mass Shooting' (Pulse Shooting:  12 June 2016)."

ReFocus: The Films of Budd Boetticher

Edinburgh University Press has recently launched a fascinating new series of books entitled ReFocus.  The purpose of this series, according to editors Gary D. Rhodes and Robert Singer, is "to produce new critical volumes from an interdisciplinary perspective which bring influential, yet neglected, American directors to the attention of a new audience of scholars and students in both Film Studies and American Studies."  

The next volume will shine a spotlight on Budd Boetticher, a trailblazing director best known for a series of innovative and subversive westerns produced at breakneck speed during the late 1950s and early 1960s.  The anthology will include my essay, "The Box in the Desert:  Budd Boetticher, Breaking Bad, and the 21^st Century Western" (6,000 words), which covers such films as Seven Men from Now (1956), Decision at Sundown (1957), Ride Lonesome (1959), and Comanche Station (1960).  

ReFocus:  The Films of Budd Boetticher is scheduled to be released in the Autumn of 2016.

"Destroy All Monsters" in The Mailer Review

I just learned that my short story "Destroy All Monsters" (5,900 words) will be appearing in the Fall issue of The Mailer Review.  This will be the second time one of my stories has appeared in that august journal.  The first was "The Walk" in the Fall 2013 issue.  No doubt, Norman Mailer is turning over in his grave.  But I'm sure he'll get over it... at least I keep telling myself that.  The last thing I need to deal with right now is a pissed off Norman Mailer haunting me in my sleep. 

CONSPIRINORMAL

This past Sunday, on the 5th of June, talk show host Adam Sayne interviewed me for almost two hours on his podcast, CONSPIRINORMAL.  If you wish to listen to the entire interview, click HERE.  I enter the show at approximately 32:00.  

Noam Chomsky Confirms Gangstalking

In the following excerpt from his 1977 book Language and Responsibility, linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky confirms the existence of gangstalking as far back as the 1950s (Chameleo readers will no doubt notice the important role San Diego plays in Chomsky's testimony here):


"...in San Diego the FBI apparently financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former Minute Men, transforming it into something called the Secret Army Organization specializing in terrorist acts of various kinds. I heard of this first from one of my former students, who was the target of an assassination attempt by the organization. In fact, he is the student who had organized the debate on economics that I told you about a little while ago, when he was still a student at MIT. Now he was teaching at San Diego State College and was engaged in political activities — which incidentally were completely nonviolent, not that this is relevant.

"The head of the Secret Army Organization — a provocateur in the pay of the FBI — drove past his house, and his companion fired shots into it, seriously wounding a young woman. The young man who was their target was not at home at the time. The weapon had been stolen by this FBI provocateur. According to the local branch of the ACLU, the gun was handed over the next day to the San Diego FBI Bureau, who hid it; and for six months the FBI lied to the San Diego police about the incident. This affair did not become publicly known until later.

"This terrorist group, directed and financed by the FBI, was finally broken up by the San Diego police, after they had tried to fire-bomb a theater in the presence of police. The FBI agent in question, who had hidden the weapon, was transferred outside the state of California so that he could not be prosecuted. The FBI provocateur also escaped prosecution, though several members of the secret terrorist organization were prosecuted. The FBI was engaged in efforts to incite gang warfare among black groups in San Diego, as in Chicago, at about the same time. In secret documents, the FBI took credit for inciting shootings, beatings, and unrest in the ghetto, a fact that has elicited very little comment in the press or journals of opinion.

"This same young man, incidentally, was harassed in other ways. It appears that the FBI continued to subject him to various kinds of intimidation and threats, by means of provocateurs. Furthermore, according to his ACLU attorneys, the FBI supplied information to the college where he was teaching that was the basis for misconduct charges filed against him. He faced three successive inquiries at the college, and each time was absolved of the charges brought against him. At that point the chancellor of the California state college system, Glenn Dumke, stated that he would not accept the findings of the independent hearing committees and simply dismissed him from his position. Notice that such incidents, of which there have been a fair number, are not regarded as 'totalitarianism' in the university.

"The basic facts were submitted to the Church Committee by the ACLU in June 1975 and also offered to the press. As far as I know, the committee did not conduct any investigation into the matter. The national press said virtually nothing about these incidents at the time, and very little since. There have been similar reports concerning other government programs of repression. For example, Army Intelligence has been reported to have engaged in illegal actions in Chicago. In Seattle, fairly extensive efforts were undertaken to disrupt and discredit local left-wing groups. The FBI ordered one of its agents to induce a group of young radicals to blow up a bridge; this was to be done in such a manner that the person who was to plant the bomb would also be blown up with it. The agent refused to carry out these instructions. Instead, he talked to the press and finally testified in court. That is how the matter became known. In Seattle, FBI infiltrators were inciting arson, terrorism, and bombing, and in one case entrapped a young black man in a robbery attempt, which they initiated and in the course of which he was killed. This was reported by Frank Donner in the Nation, one of the few American journals to have attempted some serious coverage of such matters.

"There is a good deal more of this. But all these isolated cases only take on their full meaning if you put them into the context of the policies of the FBI since its origins during the post-World War I Red scare, which I will not try to review here. The Cointelpro operations began in the 1950s, with a program to disrupt and destroy the Communist Party. Although this was not officially proclaimed, everybody knew something of the sort was going on, and there were very few protests; it was considered quite legitimate. People even joked about it."

You can read the entire article by clicking HERE.

The Pentagon's Killer Robot Army

The Pentagon Is Building a ‘Self-aware’ Killer Robot Army Fueled by Social Media.

 

This sounds like an Onion headline.  

 

It isn't.

 

It's the headline of Nafeez Ahmed's 5-12-16 Insurgence Intelligence article entitled "The Pentagon Is Building a 'Self-aware' Killer Robot Army Fueled by Social Media."  Here are the first few paragraphs:

 

"An unclassified 2016 Department of Defense (DoD) document, the Human Systems Roadmap Review, reveals that the US military plans to create artificially intelligent (AI) autonomous weapon systems, which will use predictive social media analytics to make decisions on lethal force with minimal human involvement.

"Despite official insistence that humans will retain a 'meaningful' degree of control over autonomous weapon systems, this and other Pentagon documents dated from 2015 to 2016 confirm that US military planners are already developing technologies designed to enable swarms of 'self-aware' interconnected robots to design and execute kill operations against robot-selected targets.

"More alarmingly, the documents show that the DoD believes that within just fifteen years, it will be feasible for mission planning, target selection and the deployment of lethal force to be delegated entirely to autonomous weapon systems in air, land and sea. The Pentagon expects AI threat assessments for these autonomous operations to be derived from massive data sets including blogs, websites, and multimedia posts on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

"The raft of Pentagon documentation flatly contradicts Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work’s denial that the DoD is planning to develop killer robots."

 

To read the entire article, click HERE.