Ex-Olympic-gold-medalist-turned-Reality-TV-star Bruce Jenner has been all over the news lately because of rumors that he's undergoing a sex change. This comes as extremely strange news to most of America because Bruce is an America hero and has always been seen as the embodiment of great American Olympian athleticism.
Even more recently, Jenner made headlines because of his involvement with a multi-car crash on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, CA. A black Prius stopped short in the middle of the highway, causing another white Lexus to stop just as abruptly behind it. Jenner's SUV then rear-ended the Lexus, sending it into the opposite lane and oncoming traffic. A Hummer then crashed into the white Lexus, killing the driver.
Jenner passed a field sobriety test and also allowed his blood to be screened for other drug substances. Initially, there was speculation that paparazzi were to blame because about five cars of photographers were supposedly following Jenner before the car wreck occurred. However, Malibu police quickly exonerated paparazzi from any blame, determining that they were not a factor in the accident.
Although it doesn't appear that he's guilty of any wrongdoing, Bruce Jenner will still have to live with the fact that he's (at least indirectly) responsible for a woman's death. Add this stress on top of the stress he must feel from constant media/paparazzi attention due to his (alleged) sex change, and it looks like Jenner's current "meltdown" will only get worse before it gets better.
The question is why in the world is Bruce Jenner "melting down"?
I have to admit that I have seen several episodes of Keeping up with the Kardashians over the years (it was for research, I swear). Although the high-pitched sound of the Kardashian sisters' voices - along with their incessant use of the word 'like' - put my soul in a constant state of misery, Jenner always seemed to come off as more 'normal'. In fact, Bruce didn't really seem to belong in neither the Kardashian family nor their Reality TV show. He always appeared much more low-key than the others, the typical alpha-male that liked simple guy things - cars, golf, sports, things like that. And this All-American masculinity never really appeared to be a front. He always seemed like a pretty genuine guy.
However, as more and more years passed and more seasons of the Kardashians came and went, Bruce started acting and, of course, looking more and more bizarre. He underwent several plastic surgeries that were supposed to make him look younger and more hip. Although one could argue he did look a bit "hip" at first, the more time that went by, the more Bruce started looking like, well, a drag-queen or something.
So what's happening with Bruce? Why the sudden change in personality? How did he go from so normal to so bizarre?
Let's consider the possibility of MKultra and government mind control. Wait, what?! Back up the truck. Record scratch. You must be joking! That's ridiculous! No, I'm totally serious here, but keep in mind I'm not making any definitive claims - I'm merely speaking theoretically.
Mind control certainly seems like a fictitious conspiracy theory (I still have a tough enough time believing it myself) but it's actually real when you look into it. The CIA has officially acknowledged that it has researched and experimented with mind control methods as part of the aformentioned program MKUltra (also known as Project Monarch), though it also officially claims that the program was terminated in the late 1970s after being deemed unethical. However, many conspiracy theorists believe that the public announcement of MKultra's official termination was all a front so that the CIA could continue developing mind control methods in secrecy without the public crying about how immoral it was.
In late 2012, I wrote an article about how I thought Charlie Sheen may have been a victim of a government mind-control operation. Previous to his very-public meltdown, Sheen had been very outspoken about 9/11 truth, publicly rallying for a more thorough investigation of the terrorist events. In my article, I proposed the possibility that Sheen's public meltdown was essentially engineered by the government via mind control practices, all for the purpose of discrediting him and his views regarding 9/11. Read more details about Sheen and MKUltra HERE.
So let's consider the possibility (however unlikely it might be) that Bruce Jenner has fallen victim to a similar type of CIA mind control program as Charlie Sheen may have. Where the motive behind Sheen's engineered meltdown was to simply discredit him and his quest for 9/11 truth, the motive behind Bruce Jenner's public meltdown may be something quite different. Jenner, after all, doesn't have any incendiary views regarding 9/11 or anything else controversial. He would not be considered a threat to the government or some secret society or what-have-you.
Then why would our government want to engineer a Bruce Jenner meltdown via mind control?
I would suggest that it's simply for psychological warfare against the American people. Bruce Jenner is an American Icon. He is a symbol and the epitome of an American dream come true. If you make a mockery out of a guy like Bruce Jenner, you make a mockery out of - or, in a sense, even discredit - the American dream, and this has a profound effect on the American psyche. We basically become disillusioned and we enter a state of despair while we witness the bizarre meltdown of one of our most iconic American dreamers. A failing government desperate for control (e.g. our current government) likes people in this state of hopelessness and despair because it breeds complacency. With complacency, people are much easier to control. We basically remain submissive cogs in the corporate machine that the government wants to preserve and perpetuate. We don't strive for anything better than this 'cog'-status because - if Jenner is any indication - it's just not worth it. This is psychological warfare 101.
Jenner, however, is only one component of a larger family that has been engaging psychological warfare on the American psyche for years now, ever since the start of Keeping up with the Kardashians. I would boldly argue that the overall purpose of the entire Kardashian family has been to destroy our souls, little by little. They are the family more people hate than like, yet we all keep watching them because we're conditioned by the media into thinking that they're relevant. Their fame was basically born out of a sex tape that Kim Kardashian made with the rapper Ray J. This sex tape was the seed from which an entire Kardashian brand grew. The whole family became outrageously successful without having any real skill or talent. They basically coined the term "famous for being famous".
When we see an annoying, untalented Kim Kardashian become the new icon of the American Dream (what Jenner used to be back in the 70s), our hearts and souls get filled with loathing and despair and we basically give up on the 'The Dream'. 'The Dream' is dead to us, or at least redefined into something ugly and hollow. The new American Dream is to become famous and successful at all costs, via a sex tape or whatever it takes. In fact, Kim Kardashian is the exact antithesis of what Bruce Jenner was back in the 1970s: a person who reached American icon status for nothing...well, maybe not nothing, but for something pretty base (i.e. the sex tape). Therefore, when we witness Bruce Jenner's humiliating public meltdown, the overall message we absorb - either consciously or subconsciously - is that the American dream Bruce Jenner once embodied (one earned by hard work, skill, talent) is dead but the American dream that Kim Kardashian now embodies (fame for fame's sake) has risen from the ashes of the dead dream like a phoenix. Follow this new ugly and hollow dream, or have no dream to follow at all.
Where he once embodied the American dream, Bruce Jenner is now, essentially, a walking American nightmare. Whether he's actually a victim of government mind control is up for debate, but, either way, the irony of the situation - going from the personification of the American dream to American nightmare - is rather poetic, indeed.
A measles epidemic has started spreading its way through much of the U.S. after a small outbreak in Disneyland. The recent outbreak has sparked a nation-wide debate (especially in the political word) about whether measles vaccines should be mandatory for children or something that is "up to the parents to decide".
Both Kentucky senator Rand Paul and New Jersey governor Chris Christie have made controversial public statements regarding their views on the vaccine. They have both said that there needs to be a careful respect for an individual's liberty and that a person - not the government - should have the right to choose what they want put into their body. Paul, in particular, referenced several (alleged) tragic cases where children have wound up with "profound mental disorders" (i.e. autism) after being vaccinated.
Several media personalities have slammed Paul and Christie for being dangerously 'libertarian' with their views regarding the vaccine and have even said that the foolish views indicate that the two potential 2016 presidential candidates are not fit to run for president. Some of the more extreme media personalities have suggested that parents who don't vaccinate their children should be put in jail or don't even deserve to have children to begin with.
In previous articles, I have talked about how there seems to be a gradual ongoing attack on the U.S. Constitution by our government, especially ever since 9/11 with the Patriot Act (see my "Sony Hack" article for more on this). The measles debate may potentially be another extension of this broader attack on the Constitution and our personal freedoms. A mandatory measles vaccine has the power to set an entirely new precedent where the government - not the individual - will have the power to decide what goes into a person's body.
Supporters of the measles vaccine point out that there is no scientifically-proven link between vaccines and the mental disorders (like autism) Rand Paul has been referencing. Though these supporters are respectful of personal freedoms, they believe that government should override this freedom when the health of other people is at stake. Measles is supposedly a highly contagious disease that has the power to infect 90% of the people exposed to an infected individual. If a person (or the parents of a child) decide not to vaccinate, it could potentially put a whole lot of people in danger.
Assuming that the measles virus is as threatening as pro-vaccine people are saying it is (though I would argue there has been fear-mongering and exaggeration), maybe it is a good idea to make vaccines mandatory. Maybe there are definite cases where government should override personal freedom and this is, indeed, one of those cases. Valid or not, there is certainly logic in this pro-vaccine perspective. Then again, there is also much logic in the anti-vaccine perspective...
Which brings me to my next point:
The measles debate may just be another media-contrived debate where no one side (pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine) wins. In other words, the agenda here may be something bigger than having the pro-vaccine people be victorious over the anti-vaccine people. The more general goal may simply be to debate and divide the American population. I've written several articles discussing how our own government (via the media) is trying to polarize the people and the measles debate may be yet another extension of this. Are you pro-measles vaccine or anti-measles vaccine? Pick a side and fight with each other about it!
Distract and divide. That is the overall goal of a government trying to preserve its power and hide the fact that it has become dysfunctional, inept and borderline-corrupt (when I say 'borderline corrupt' I'm likely making an understatement).
So, yes, the measles debate could be indicative of another way our government is trying to take away our personal freedoms. It could also be indicative of our government's attempt (via the media) to distract and divide us with an un-winnable - though successfully-polarizing - debate. But maybe there's one other possible agenda at play here and it may be the most important agenda above all else. The measles debate may simply be another media-manufactured BIG NEWS event that...well...makes them a whole lot of money.
We live in a strange time now with the Internet being the predominant means of people getting their news. The news industry has become a money-making business that shows reverence to nothing but blog hits ('blog' being a general term including any kind of online news article, both professional and amateur). The more hits a story gets, the more ad revenue that comes in because the ad revenue is all determined by the number of blog hits.
And what gets the media the blog hits?
Big news events...like ebola and Ferguson race riots and Bill Cosby rape allegations and Sony hacks and AirAsia plane crashes and sensational Isis be-headings and NFL scandals like 'deflate-gate' and - now that the deflate-gate story has...um...deflated a bit - a measles outbreak. The ebola threat proved to be a profitable big news story for several weeks. Why not make a sequel to the ebola story by blowing a rather small and not-too-threatening measles outbreak way out of proportion? It's a perfect big news event to serve the media's interests. New blog hits. New ad revenue. Big money!
And so the media monster feeds on its newest big meal. The measles vaccine debate will distract us and polarize us this week - maybe it will even rape our personal freedom a little bit. More importantly, it will surely make a ton of money for the news outlets thriving off blog hits and ad revenue. Maybe the story will live on into the next week like what happened with the ebola scare. But, then, after a couple weeks or so, the story will inevitably fizzle out like the other big news stories and then another big news event will come out of the woodwork. This has been the pattern for the past several months now - Isis, ebola, Ferguson, Bill Cosby, Sony hack, CIA torture report, AirAsia crash, Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, Deflate-gate, measles...what will be next? The machine will keep cranking the big news stories out as long as the stories keep proving themselves to be extremely profitable.
The question is how long will we be suckers and feed into all of this? When will we wake up and realize we're eating right out of the media's hands when we keep shifting our attention from one big news story to the other? When will we realize that there are more important things to focus our attention on? When will we come to the understanding that buying into these big news stories is buying into a complete unreality?
That's right: our reality has essentially become one that is manufactured by an ad-revenue-hungry media. This reality is a construction of big news events that have been carefully chosen and then built up (if not outright manufactured) by media outlets wanting to maximize blog hits. Yes, this is what our reality has become: polarizing debates with no clear victor, distractions that keep our focus off of an inept and borderline-corrupt government, and the media recklessly perpetuates the cycle of distractions because the only god they answer to is a god named ad revenue. Little do they care that they are polarizing, distracting and immersing all of us in an unreality of irrelevant and unimportant "big" news.
True reality does not consist of big news stories. True reality consists of small, unexaggerated (and certainly non-manufactured) news stories that don't accumulate many blog hits or ad revenue. However, as long as ad revenue is god, exaggerated and even outright contrived big news will replace small (i.e. real) news. And when this big news reigns, so doesn't unreality.
