Karl Pierson Found His Fame

Bba3e7YCEAAPm71Get ready for a blizzard of disinfo on Karl Pierson, our latest instant media celebrity, who just attempted to murder his high school debate coach for the crime of kicking him off the debate team, and then shot himself in his high school, and thereby terrorized us all with his voyage to the depths of the dark side. People like David Icke and Alex Jones will immediately try to connect him to some mind control project, but that will likely be a rabbit hole diversion to nowhere because I’ve never found any evidence of CIA or FBI involvement in any school shootings, although tracks of those agencies are all over the JFK assassination, 9/11, and the Boston Bombings.

Which is not to say mind control isn’t involved, but the real op has been the rising level of graphic gore and violence worship inflicted on our youth. And because the school shootings are covered in such graphic detail, the media coverage is now a big part of the problem since it inflicts post traumatic stress on just about everyone who watches the news, but especially on kids now in school. It takes a lot to heal yourself from exposure to those vibrations, and cannabis is the best medicine for reducing psychic stress.

But the real gorilla in this picture is the mass drugging of echo boomers with synthetics like Ritalin and Prozac. You can trace the rise of psychosis as it follows the rise in prescriptions. Of course, the drug companies will fight to keep Karl’s medications secret, like they always do, because their drugs have been a factor in every school shooting.

I’m weary of this battering and encourage everyone to avoid the news for a while. We need to put pressure on the media to stop over-exposing these tragedies and if they can’t find a more responsible and much lower key path, then we should consider a class action suit because they are traumatizing people.

Ask yourself why are echo boomers so drugged, so drenched in violence and so heavily saturated with psychic stress?

I just hope a new movement can soon emerge, one that rejects violence and synthetic drugs.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Chakra-Candles/dp/B00BVMZ8U8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415013461&sr=8-1&keywords=candles+Steven+hager

Advertisements

Author: Steven Hager

I'm a writer, journalist, filmmaker and event producer.

16 thoughts on “Karl Pierson Found His Fame”

  1. “I’ve never found any evidence of CIA or FBI involvement in any school shootings”

    Why would it have to be either? Are They considerate enough to name every new bureau or team and provide us with the relevant info in a press release? How do we know the CIA or FBI were in charge at Boston? “CIA” is now a generic term like “cancer”.

    Look at all the “grieving parent” interviews for (eg) Sandy Hook. What are the odds against dozens of people sharing a nearly pathological inability to shed visible tears just hours after the murders of their children? Why all the smiles? Why all the optimism? Why so many bizarre performances (eg: Wayne Carver, ME, or Gene Rosen)? Why so many conflicting reports about who was killed by which gunman? Why so much strange (and apparently preparatory) activity in that town in 2009? Why no scenes of bodies on stretchers in any tabloids? Why no bloody crime-scenes? Why the scripted, interlocking memes like “Resilience”? Why the obvious, taunting jokes like “HSEEP”?

    We may not know How or Who but we have a pretty good idea about Why… and we can absolutely trust our own eyes and experience on What. What = utter BS. SH was yet another in an endless stream of staged events put on by the People in Charge in order to further manipulate the Cattle in Chains. The “rabbit-hole” here is Ritalin/Prozac.Such drugs are definitely a problem but they aren’t a problem for fictitious shooters in staged events.

    BTW: I *hate* guns, so it’s not about that for me. It’s just that the Truth is the Truth.

    Your JFK posts were marvelous!

    1. Because without evidence, it’s not something you can take seriously. I guess you don’t realize that these school shootings are being mined by people like David Icke and Alex Jones to create disinfo rabbit holes?

      1. Well, with total respect: just as Jones and Icke very flamboyantly taint alternative investigations of 9/11 and the JFK event, they taint alternative investigations of the school shootings you mention…. that’s their function, no? The characters attaching themselves to any given theory (whatever their motivations) are irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

        I’m curious as to the distinction between the “lack of evidence” on Sandy Hook and the “lack of evidence” on the (eg) Boston event and the “lack of evidence” that the sitting President was somehow involved in 9/11. I understand that being able to “draw the line” somewhere is helpful to the overall cause, but what are the criteria for drawing the line? Circumstantial evidence has played a role in many a just conviction.

        The statistically-improbable number of red flags festooning Sandy Hook don’t even intrigue you? I must admit I’m puzzled by your position.

        1. I’d have to see what you mean by “statistical red flags” because most of what I’ve seen involving Sandy Hook is blatant disinfo. If you read my JFK posts, you know how much evidence has been assembled that the CIA was involved. It is overwhelming. As for Boston, the fact a prime witness was killed while being questioned by the FBI is suspicious, as was the behavior of the suspects themselves. Like Oswald, they had no escape plan but a very complex plan to kill? That makes no sense. However, I do not buy into Dave McGowan’s theory that the Boston bombing victims were actually actors. I find that assertion pretty ridiculous. To support this, he shows photos from the scene? McGowan went so far as to say the kid who lost both legs was an amputee who was placed at the scene so they could milk his injuries for sympathy? When I see some forensic evidence of anything suspicious involving a school shooting, I’ll let you know, but the most important thing is not to get dragged into any rabbit holes. Connecting dots that don’t connect is the easiest thing on the world, and when you see people jumping to conspiracy theories involving every single tragic event that takes place, you should immediately suspect their motives.

    2. Since I know people who live in Sandy Hook, who know people who lost children, I can’t accept the fiction that Sandy Hook was a staged operation. Looking at pictures of shootings is a lot like looking a pictures of contrails in the sky and saying, “see, this proves my point.” Pictures don’t prove anything and I believe these tragedies are being milked to connect dots that don’t connect. When I see some evidence of an MKULTRA-style project, I will let you know. Meanwhile, don’t believe everything you see on the internet.

      1. What I’ve noticed, in the last five years, is the “movement” breaking up into too many little “Mine is the Only True Religion” offshoots, with various bloggers promulgating their pet Alt Theories while dismissing others as “too far out”. And they use the same rhetorical techniques to attack other Alt Theorists that Coincidence Theorists use to pseudo-debunk all the Alts. It’s worrisome.

        I never mentioned “MK Ultra” (which I believe was probably a Cold War turkey of a project)… why do you bring it up? To make my reasonable questions/observations seem ridiculous?

        I asked about you thoughts on the video-interviews o the “grieving parents”. No ad-hominem-free thoughts?

        “Since I know people who live in Sandy Hook, who know people who lost children, I can’t accept the fiction that Sandy Hook was a staged operation.”

        Yes, I recognize that meme.

        1. MKULTRA is just a word for state-sponsored brainwashing: the manufacture of robots under hypnotic command, something well documented as real. The suspects who best fit this model are Oswald, Sirhan, Chapman and Hinckley. When people present theories with no evidence, I don’t accept their ideas, why should I? I did not watch video interviews with grieving parents but I did talk extensively to someone in the town who became involved with the effort to deal with the trauma that affected the entire town, and he knew parents who lost kids before the shooting and met all the parents who lost kids after the shootings. Had this been a suspicious or staged incident, he would have had a front row seat. He’s someone I’ve known intimately for over 12 years and I am 100 percent confident he is telling me the truth. To say these parents never lost their children and the entire event was staged is insulting beyond belief. Why you’d consider this info a “meme” and completely unreliable, and instead trust some youtube manipulation is quite revealing. My advice if you believe Sandy Hook never happened is to go to that town and meet the parents yourself. Their grief is quite real.

    3. Yes, there were tons of inconsistencies with the reporting on Sandy Hook, which is just to be expected. To draw conclusions based on confusion at the scene is just ridiculous. You have to look at the real forensic facts of the case and these suspicions of fakery are not supported by any facts. Take this case to court with these “facts” you present and you would be tarred and feathered. Just as every contrail become a chemtrail, every school shooting becomes a staged event. It all manufactures fear, which is the name of this game. And eventually, when you believe enough rabbit holes, they will put you in an institution if they so choose. Too many kids today think Madonna and Beyonce are part of the Illuminati. That should give you an idea of how deep these rabbit holes are penetrating and how effective they really are. If you want to navigate the wilderness of mirrors you are going to have to look through the reflections and not be fooled by them.

      1. Mr Hager, I “respectfully” ask that you *try* to refrain from insinuating silly theories into my comments… you keep referring to things (a la “chemtrails” and “the illuminati”) I have not mentioned and in which I do NOT believe, while swerving very conveniently around my observation that the evidence supporting *your* favorite Deep History Theories is every bit as *circumstantial* as the evidence supporting the just-as-plausible Alt Theories on Sandy Hook. Or have you somehow managed to get fingerprints from the guns used at Dealey Plaza? Or is that a 50-year-old sheaf of signed confessions you’re sitting on? No, sir, you have neither. Like the rest of us who don’t accept the utter bullshit blared at us all these years through the propaganda box, you are forced to construct plausible narratives from circumstantial evidence in order to approximate a rough, semi-stable, picture of The Real World. When you write…

        “MKULTRA is just a word for state-sponsored brainwashing: the manufacture of robots under hypnotic command, something well documented as real. The suspects who best fit this model are Oswald, Sirhan, Chapman and Hinckley. When people present theories with no evidence, I don’t accept their ideas, why should I?”

        …it astonishes me that you are *apparently* (key word) incapable of realizing that you don’t have a *bit* of *hard evidence* connecting any of the mentioned characters with the cited program(s). Because if you had a shred of *hard evidence* (again: fingerprints, video footage, signed confessions, verified and detailed records from the program, et al) you’d be in a position to blow the lid off of *four major conspiracies of the 20th century*. Which would be quite something, eh? Quite a coup. As it is, you merely present persuasive guess-work, like so many others, but then you write, with no trace of irony, “When people present theories with no evidence, I don’t accept their ideas, why should I?”

        Here’s some of Steve Hager’s really really really solid evidence of… something:

        “The shooter at Sandy Hook had been bullied at the school. He went back later in life to seek revenge, perhaps because his mother felt he needed to be put in an institution as she had “lost control of him.”

        Because, of course, Steve can actually *read minds*… of the *dead* (or, as I’d put it: the nonexistent) no less! Impressed with that legwork you did there, Steve. Puts the conjectures of mere mortals to shame. Hey, maybe your “friend” of “12 years” who knows somebody that knew some people who met somebody who was “really there” at Sandy Hook has a crystal ball… or some really good weed… you can tap into for more “info”.

        “To draw conclusions based on confusion at the scene is just ridiculous.”

        It really would be if I had, now wouldn’t it? But what I, in fact, did with my initial comment (posted before I realized what I’m dealing with here) is asked you to evaluate the probability that so many “grieving parents” attached to one event should be constitutionally unable to shed a visible tear within hours of being told that their children had been murdered. No tears, Steve. That’s not “confusion at the scene”… that’s Bizarro World stuff. No tears but lots of smiles and jokes and laughter. What are the odds against that very striking quirk being uniformly distributed among all the “parents” and other “family members”, Steve? I watched more than a dozen interviews of more than two dozen “mourners” and not one performance rang true. Though certain key words popped up, again and again, in every single “interview”. Imagine that. Well, I (and the handful of other people with functioning brains out there) don’t buy it. And, strangely enough, I don’t even believe in “aliens”! Does that blow your mind?

        “Too many kids today think Madonna and Beyonce are part of the Illuminati.”

        Well, that’s certainly interesting, now isn’t it, Steve, being that I’m 58 years old, with two grandchildren, quite a bit of university under my belt and some real-world responsibilities to keep me grounded? Maybe I’ll pass that “Beyonce” (whoever she is) non sequitur on to one of the grandkids. Meanwhile, why not address the actual points in my demonstrably cogent argument?

        But you won’t, not now or ever… and you and I both know why. Because, surely, no one can be as stupid as your performance suggests you are.

        1. Man, you really want to spend a lot of time and effort over here on my humble blog. Obviously, you think I am important in some way? As for the inconsistencies and confusion at the scene of any shooting, that is always to be expected. To mine that confusion for some sort of dark conspiracy is absurd, yet this is the only “evidence” you have. Parents did not cry? Therefore? The children did not die? Yet the entire town knew many of those kids, those parents. If it had all been made up, this would have unraveled quickly after the event. You bring zero to this table, just personal attacks on me that contribute nothing to this discussion. As for the evidence Oswald was hypnotized, he was in the Civil Air Patrol with David Ferrie. Ferrie hypnotized all his cadets. And Ferrie was certainly involved with the National Security State as he was a pilot for the CIA and the mob. As for Sirhan, the evidence he was hypnotized is out on the web for anyone who cares to look. Like Oswald, he wasn’t even the killer, but the distraction. Chapman and Hinckley have much less evidence, but follow the patterns of a brainwashed robot. I said these four cases are very suspicious and worthy of investigation. Unlike Sandy Hook, a rabbit hole you seem absolutely captivated by, unless, of course you are here to ridicule me….for what purpose? I can see you are determined to have the last word, but since this is my blog, I doubt that will happen. So keep posting away. But if you continue to go in circles, I won’t be adding anymore of your silly comments.

          1. Just send this comment straight to Siberia, Steve! It’s only meant for you anyway. Anyone with half a brain can see you’re not the “winner” of this little exchange. Maybe you should delete the whole thing and pretend it never happened? Because some of your “responses” are so illogical that they’re bound to make some readers wonder about the true nature of your game here.

            “As for the inconsistencies and confusion at the scene of any shooting, that is always to be expected.”

            Good one! Stick to the script! Repeat that as often as possible! Make a game of it: every time you type that sentence out in lieu of a rebuttal that addresses my actual argument, take another hit off your bong! Because the bong is improving your IQ. Bonus points: the pot-advocacy (with a side-order of comic book metaphysics) definitely adds to your credibility, too!

            “As for the evidence Oswald was hypnotized, he was in the Civil Air Patrol with David Ferrie. Ferrie hypnotized all his cadets.”

            Uh huh. That’s really great “evidence”, Steve. You’ve still got those grainy photos of Ferrie wearing a turban, right?

            “As for Sirhan, the evidence he was hypnotized is out on the web for anyone who cares to look.”

            Well there you have it! That’s a slam-dunk in *every* court of law, Steve. “It’s out on the Internet, your Honor! The prosecution rests!”

            “Like Oswald, he wasn’t even the killer, but the distraction.”

            Breaking new theoretical ground! Whoa! No blogger has ever said that before!

            Why would I give a fck whether you add my “silly” (rather more well-reasoned than yours, and many of your posts) comments? By all means exercise the powers of censorship so popular with so many hypocritical “truth-telling” blogs these days.

            Now, as to how many of you are actually being cut checks from Sunstein.Org I have no way of telling… but you certainly aren’t doing much to dispel any suspicions, are you?

  2. i think you are right, in general , that no gov’t agency has been caught brainwashing any of the school shooters but all were on ssri’s. it’s true that a couple of the shooter’s parents work at a military base that has studied brainwashing but i know of no proof the kids were in any program. it’s true that, as crime rates go down, our news covers violent acts exponentially more every year. but, japanese kids watch just as many violent videos as american kids and have a much lower level of violent crime, though they do commit more suicide. there is plenty of proof that sirhan sirhan could not possibly have shot rfk and more comes out each year.

    1. The whole point of my message is to to be careful not to get dragged into a rabbit hole, which is exactly what intel is doing with these school shootings. Yes, Sirhan was likely hypnotized and used as a patsy, which was my point. We need to investigate those incidents that provide a window on the use of robots by the National Security State. But just as important is to be able to detect and avoid the rabbit holes, which are the fake conspiracy stories intel seeks to lead us into. However, whenever I try to point out the differences between real and fake conspiracies, I am hit by these anonymous dudes who want to spend hours telling me the silliest shit, like “the parents at Sandy Hook didn’t cry.” I know people that live in that town for godsake. There were plenty of tears shed for those kids and anyone who says different is a liar and a fool. So I just wish Willie would stop coming here to push his rabbit hole, because I ain’t falling into it. And hopefully you won’t either.

  3. **Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ****Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “And please don’t bring up a Batman movie as your evidence, because that theory is beyond absurd and just more evidence of false dot connecting.”

    Erm… I didn’t?***

    plus

    ****Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “As for Boston, the fact a prime witness was killed while being questioned by the FBI is suspicious, as was the behavior of the suspects themselves. Like Oswald, they had no escape plan but a very complex plan to kill? That makes no sense.”

    Which is compelling circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy… but not another, higher category of evidence from the circumstantial evidence that indicates Sandy Hook was staged. I’m sure you’re smart enough to see that.

    So, how to explain your poor reasoning here…?****
    _________

    Ha ha! What would you do without the extra protection of retroactive “comment moderation”, O captain of the Special Debating team? You’ve actually made my day with your little editing job. Thanks for the chuckle, Steve! Love it. You might want to edit some of your dumber entries in our “debate”, though, since you’re in the business of retroactive artificial IQ enhancement. Do you need someone to point out your dumber sentences for you…?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s