My newest item: Trump Praying for America
This oil painting depicts Donald Trump sitting at a desk with his hands clasped in prayer. He is surrounded by elements of an office setting, including an open bible and the American flag. This image conveys a sense of solemnity, patriotism, and leadership.
Link: Redbubble
Imagine if you could be hypnotized or drugged into doing something against your will, even something that goes against your basic instincts of survival. Imagine if someone could manipulate your mind and make you forget what you did or why you did it. Imagine if you could become a weapon in the hands of a secret agency without your knowledge or consent.
This may sound like a plot from a science fiction movie, but it was actually the goal of a real project conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the early 1950s. The project was called Artichoke, and it was one of the most controversial and secretive experiments in the history of the CIA.
Project Artichoke was a mind control program that aimed to research methods of interrogation and influence. It was initially known as Project Bluebird, and it officially began on August 20, 1951. It was operated by the CIA’s Office of Scientific Intelligence in collaboration with the intelligence divisions of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and FBI.
The primary question that Project Artichoke tried to answer was: “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?” To find out, the project used various techniques, such as hypnosis, drugs, isolation, electroshock, and psychological harassment, to induce states of vulnerability, amnesia, and compliance in human subjects.
One of the most notorious objectives of Project Artichoke was to determine whether a person could be involuntarily made to perform an act of attempted assassination. A CIA document states that if hypnosis succeeded, assassins could be created to kill “a prominent [redacted] politician or, if necessary, [an] American official.”
Project Artichoke also studied the effects of different substances, such as cocaine, heroin, peyote, mescaline, and LSD, on the human mind and body. LSD was especially seen as a promising drug, as it could induce hallucinations, paranoia, and confusion. One record states that an agent was kept on LSD for 77 days.
Project Artichoke also researched the potential of biological weapons such as dengue fever and other diseases. A declassified memo read: “Not all viruses have to be lethal. The objective includes those that act as short-term and long-term incapacitating agents.”
Project Artichoke was carried out both in-house and overseas, in locations such as Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia, and the Philippines. The project involved teams of agents, doctors, scientists, and psychologists, who were instructed to “conduct at the overseas bases operational experiments utilizing aliens as subjects.” The term “aliens” referred to foreign nationals, such as defectors, refugees, prisoners of war, and others, who were considered expendable and easy to manipulate.
The project also used American citizens as subjects, often without their consent or awareness. Some subjects were CIA agents themselves, who were given LSD or other drugs to test their reactions and loyalty. Some subjects were mental patients, prisoners, or military personnel, who were subjected to harsh and unethical treatments. Some subjects were unwitting civilians, who were dosed with drugs or hypnotized in public places, such as bars, restaurants, or hotels.
The project was highly secretive and compartmentalized, and the records were regularly destroyed or falsified. The project was overseen by a CIA officer named Paul F. Gaynor, who was a former U.S. Army brigadier general. Gaynor reported directly to the CIA director, and he had the authority to approve or reject any proposal or operation related to Project Artichoke.
Project Artichoke lasted until 1953, when it was replaced by a more extensive and ambitious mind control program, called Project MKUltra. Project MKUltra continued to explore the same themes and methods as Project Artichoke, but on a larger scale and with more funding and resources. MKUltra was exposed to the public in 1975, by a congressional committee led by Senator Frank Church.
The legacy of Project Artichoke is still shrouded in mystery and controversy. The exact number and identity of the subjects, the results, and outcomes of the experiments, and the ethical and legal implications of the project are still unknown or disputed. Some subjects may have suffered permanent physical or psychological damage, or even died, as a result of the project. Some techniques or technologies developed by the project may have been used or abused by the CIA or other agencies in later years. Some of the secrets or scandals related to the project may have never been revealed or resolved.
Project Artichoke was another dark and disturbing chapter in the history of the CIA and the United States. It showed how far some people were willing to go to achieve their goals, regardless of the moral or human cost. It also raised important questions about the nature and limits of human freedom, dignity, and responsibility. It makes us wonder: How much control do we have over our own minds and actions? And how much control do others have over us?
In the whirlwind of the 2020 presidential election, one number that echoes louder than most is 81 million votes cast for Joe Biden. However, a closer examination of the data raises eyebrows and invites us to question the legitimacy of this impressive figure. Let’s delve into the improbability of Biden’s purported 81 million votes by dissecting the bellwether data, scrutinizing Biden’s primary performance, and comparing it to historical precedents set by other presidents like Trump and Obama.
In the realm of election dynamics, the concept of bellwether counties plays a pivotal role. These counties, historically renowned for mirroring the national sentiment, have served as reliable indicators of presidential outcomes since 1980. However, the 2020 election introduced a surprising twist, particularly when we scrutinize the voting trends in 19 key bellwether counties.
Traditionally, these 19 counties have been a reliable compass for predicting the overall election outcome. In 2016, for instance, Donald Trump secured victory in 16 out of the 19 bellwether counties, foreshadowing his triumph in the general election. Fast-forward to 2020, and the script takes an unexpected turn.
In the latest election, Trump managed to win 18 out of the 19 bellwether counties, solidifying his hold on these historically significant areas. This raises a compelling question: If these bellwether counties have consistently reflected the national mood in the past, how did Biden manage to secure a victory despite faltering in the very counties that have traditionally foreshadowed success?
Comparing this to historical data, Barack Obama’s performance in 2012 is noteworthy. He won 17 out of the 19 bellwether counties, aligning with the predictive nature of these areas. The stark contrast between Obama’s success in bellwether counties and Biden’s less convincing performance in the same territories further fuels the skepticism surrounding the 2020 election results.
The intricate dance of numbers in these bellwether counties offers a compelling narrative. Trump’s dominance in these areas in both 2016 and 2020, coupled with Obama’s previous success, challenges the conventional wisdom that these counties accurately reflect the national sentiment. The improbable outcome of Biden’s victory despite faltering in the bellwether counties prompts us to delve deeper into the intricacies of voting trends and question the reliability of these historical indicators.
Digging deeper into Biden’s journey to the presidency, his lackluster performance in the Democratic primary raises eyebrows. Historically, candidates who struggle in the primary elections face an uphill battle in the general election. Biden’s unimpressive showings in early contests, particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire, should have been a red flag.
The improbable leap from a tepid primary performance to a record-breaking 81 million votes demands scrutiny. Were these votes truly a testament to widespread enthusiasm for Biden, or does the data suggest a more nuanced narrative? Examining the primary results as a precursor to the general election sheds light on the improbability of the final vote count.
In the same arena, it’s crucial to acknowledge the unprecedented 76 million votes garnered by Donald Trump. Trump’s numbers represent the highest vote count for a sitting president in history. The juxtaposition of Trump’s record-breaking achievement with Biden’s 81 million poses a conundrum.
One must question the likelihood of Biden surpassing Trump’s impressive turnout, especially given the historical context. Trump’s ability to rally his base and secure such a significant number of votes creates a challenging benchmark for Biden’s numbers to match. The improbable gap between the two figures demands a closer examination of the factors at play.
In the intricate landscape of the 2020 election, the figure 81 million stands out as a puzzle that beckons scrutiny. A closer examination of bellwether data, primary performance, and the staggering contrast with Trump’s record-breaking turnout reveals a complex narrative that challenges the mainstream narrative.
As we navigate the labyrinth of numbers and trends, skepticism emerges not just in the statistics but in the broader arena of media discourse. The mainstream media’s uncritical acceptance of the 81 million vote count without thorough investigation raises eyebrows. The apparent lack of scrutiny and the uniform parroting of “The Big Lie” narrative whenever Trump questions the validity of the results create an atmosphere of suspicion.
The media’s role in shaping public perception is profound, yet the apparent reluctance to delve into the nuances of the 81 million votes raises questions about the thoroughness of the election coverage. In a healthy democracy, skepticism is a crucial tool for ensuring transparency and accountability. The hesitancy to apply this skepticism uniformly, especially when confronted with challenges to the narrative, underscores the need for a more nuanced exploration of the events surrounding the 2020 election.
In unraveling the improbable nature of 81 million votes cast for Joe Biden, it becomes evident that the narrative extends beyond statistical analysis. It encompasses a critical evaluation of media responsibility and the importance of fostering a climate where questions are met with rigorous investigation rather than dismissal. As we grapple with the complexities of this historic election, the call for a comprehensive, unbiased examination echoes louder than ever.
