#63710
Profile photo of
Anonymous
Survivalist

For me, it’s just too much (more) of the daily routine we see on every one of the broadcast networks (particularly cable) – lots of speculation, and heavy use of questions to substitute for statements. That’s an old trick, and actually quite powerful at times. Often, the brain simply changes the order of the first two words (for example) to turn the question into a statement: “Is it time for Trump to be impeached?” becomes, “It is time for Trump to be impeached.” In this article’s case, it’s “Will America’s Civil War Begin In California?” (which becomes a stated “fact” within the reader’s brain, at least in some corners of one’s thought process: “America’s civil war WILL begin in California).

An absolutely brilliant psychiatrist (now dead for about 4 decades, sadly) developed his own unique type of hypnotherapy. He used language in very unique ways, getting much deeper into people’s minds than is possible in “normal” communication. Questions such as the above are an example. If people even bother reading the article, they probably already had at least some beliefs similar to the author (Dave Hodges). If they didn’t, and they read the headline question above, their internal mental answer would likely be something like “No,” or “I doubt it.” But someone who’s more likely to read his article will also be likely to answer the question inside their own brains with, “Yes,” or “Probably.” And everything in the article following the reader’s internal answer to the headline question will then tend to be automatically accepted as verification of the reader’s “conclusion” that the civil war will indeed start in California.

I could go on for probably pages, but won’t for obvious reasons. But I will also point out such absurdities as, “Even more telling in article, Reynolds states that Trump will likely have to send the 101st Airborne to California to quell the open rebellion.” Uh, what about Posse Comitatus (not to mention the absurdity of a sky full of parachutes descending on an American state?

For me, the article is simply a non-starter. There’s far too much speculation, suggestion, rhetorical questions (which, as shown above are designed to produce internal answers in the reader), and shadowy unnamed “powerful” people with expertise, whose names we never learn. It reminds me of the financial trash generated from the many companies controlled by a guy named Porter Stansberry (Agora Financial, now Casey Research since his buyout, etc.), and one of their big “experts” always with “inside” information: Jim Rickards – always an imminent crisis. And really, the bottom line is: even if the civil war starts in California, we’ll simply have to deal with our own local consequences anyway – no matter how difficult.

Just way too much speculation, hype, and suggestion to be meaningful for me. But your mileage may vary.