Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: Military Indoctrination Endangers Veterans and Public for Wars Based on Lies

Brandon Olsen

John Robert Neumann

Bryan Cage

Michael Wayne Pettigrew

Richard Rojas

Bryan Moles

If politicians want veterans to fight wars based on lies, they need to have them trained to obey orders without question!

This is done through their boot camp training process which as I have pointed out in numerous articles including Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize This indoctrination process uses Boot Camp hazing and intimidation to teach recruits to blindly obey orders without question, which is the opposite of what Stanley Milgram said his research was intended to accomplish. However his application for funds from the National Science Foundation was supported by the military and the Office of Naval Research, which is more concerned about obtaining obedience than teaching cadets to debate orders or whether or not the current war is based on lies or not.

It also teaches some of them, often the least stable, to deal with problems through violence, at least when they're ordered to, although they don't always limit their use of violence to when they're ordered to. Some of the most common victims of violence from veterans when they do overreact are often other veterans or their family members. There have been far more shootings from veterans that are dealing with PTSD or other problems than the vast majority of the public realize and the past few weeks have been no exception with several high profile incidents being reported, at least for a little while. There have also been a few more lower profile shootings, which seems to be happening at any given time, if anyone takes the time to look them up.

Intimidation tactics to pressure cadets to blindly obey orders and go along with what ever lies politicians come up with create the traumatic stress that leads to PTSD whether they go into combat or not! This is why so many of the shooters that have claimed to have PTSD never saw combat; they often followed arguments with other veterans or commanders that were pressuring them for one reason or another.

However the media rarely reports on how common they are and when they do they often only do it for a limited time and allow the most vocal deniers of the problem get the vast majority of air time. This is what they did following a couple reports from the New York Times and Colorado Gazette about eight to ten years ago. The high number of veteran shootings hasn't ended, although thorough reporting on it seems to have ended.

Fortunately some of the people that know more about it are most concerned about doing something about it also seem to be veterans. One of the most obvious solutions should be to allow more reasonable scrutiny when demanding that veterans follow orders without question, often even illegal orders. Veterans are often put in a position where if they obey illegal orders and it backfires, like at Abu Ghraib, the veterans at the bottom of the chain of command are the ones that take the blame, or if they refuse to obey illegal orders they also have to take the blame; and in some cases they're even ordered to be used as a human research subject without consent and intimidated and harassed if they refuse to obey.

I doubt if they tell many recruits when they enlist that they may be forced into medical research projects that increase profits for drug companies without respect for the wishes of the recruits, even though this has nothing to do with defense from an invasion from a hostile invasion.

Jeanette Jing uses a relatively brief video, Stop complaining that Hillary Clinton never admits her mistakes. She did admit one "mistake" 06/01/2017, that quickly summarizes the problem assuming some people are familiar with the details behind her one little "mistake." Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei both accurately reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq and just a couple months after it Joseph C. Wilson confirmed that this invasion was based on falsified evidence to justify this war. If Hillary Clinton or George Bush wanted to know that the war was based on lies they could have and should have yet they were never held accountable and both of them were given the media coverage they needed to get the nomination for a presidential run.

Thousands of veterans died for these lies, not to defend our freedom!

Yet if many of these veterans speak out against the war they're subjected to criminal arrest in many cases while the people that gave illegal orders based on lies continue getting positive treatment from the press that enable many of them to remain in office, while one military action after another based on lies continues.

Clearly all the rhetoric about how the military leadership and political establishment respect and honor the troops isn't nearly as accurate as they claim!

If they actually acted on a lot of their best rhetoric most of the wars based on lies wouldn't have happened and many of the veterans that have PTSD that causes problems at home of might contribute to the motives behind many mass shootings and suicides would be able to get treatment for it, or better yet they never would have had it in the first place if they didn't go thorough oppressive training that wouldn't be necessary if we weren't fighting wars based on lies.

Dwight Eisenhower seemed to understand this, at least to some degree when he wrote the following, although he didn't necessarily always act on it:

Crusade in Europe By Dwight David Eisenhower 1944

The capacity of Soldiers for absorbing punishment and enduring privations is almost inexhaustible so long as they believe they are getting a square deal, that their commanders are looking out for them, and that their own accomplishments are understood and appreciated. Any intimation that they are the victims of unfair treatment understandably arouses their anger and resentment, and the feeling can sweep through a command like wildfire. p.315

Eisenhower follows this up with a relatively trivial story about soldiers that were complaining about not being able to get chocolate bars or cigarettes and how he fixed it. This may be a good example, which the troops appreciate, even though it is relatively trivial, and it may have been for one of the few wars that were actually worthwhile; however, regrettably, he didn't do the same thing when he obeyed orders about fifteen years earlier to suppress the Bonus Army Protests after his objections were overruled. He also supported Coups in Iraq and Guatemala and his part in the build up to the Vietnam war. Even Eisenhower doesn't always follow up his best rhetoric with action; but he would be far better than most current politicians that are starting wars based on the most absurd lies.

I've posted several articles about this subject in the past and suspected that although I try to point out that it is the politicians, Military Commanders and psychologists that are primarily responsible for a large portion of the violence that are often committed by veterans that many veterans might think I'm trying to imply that all veterans are "damaged good" as some other responses to the New York Times and Colorado Gazette articles often seem to imply, but this isn't my intention; and fortunately most of the few responses that I've got from them are from veterans that seem to recognize that I might have a point even if they don't completely agree with me.

A lot of these veterans are opposed to wars based on lies and presumably recognize that pretending these problems don't exist will make them go away. When they speak out in rational ways to attempt to solve these problems they're demonstrating that many veterans aren't "damaged goods" at all, unfortunately when they speak out against the authorities, often with legitimate concerns they're treated poorly often ignored or, on some occasions even demonized.

In one example, where they were treated with contempt by John McCain according to, Senator McCain has Iraq war veterans arrested 01/25/2017, a veteran said “I did not sign up to protect oil or the interest of people lining their pockets,” but instead of hearing them out he ordered the police to arrest them. This was only reported in a low profile manner with no mention that I saw in the mainstream media.

If they really did want to put an end to wars based on lies these are the kind of people that they should be listening to and allowing a chance to get their views across to the majority of the public yet instead they have them arrested as quietly as possible and treat the progressive media outlets that actually report on it as fringe.

If we had good media coverage that reminded the public about all the lies used to lead us into war in the pat when there is another run up to war or if they were willing to cover grassroots candidates that were willing to discus it then it would be clear that they're maintaining an unnecessary permanent state of war for one reason or another and progressive grassroots candidates that want to spent money on education day care instead of wars could get elected.

As numerous researchers have shown, including some cited in past articles listed below one of the leading causes of escalating violence is early child abuse including corporal punishment that leads to escalating including bullying domestic violence and makes them more receptive to military hazing which is designed to teach blind obedience. This also creates the traumatic stress that causes PTSD and is used to divide troops against each other, and it explains part of the reason why some of the most common victims of violence related to PTSD is often other veterans.

James Hodgkinson, who the media is now obsessing with for obvious reasons, doesn’t appear to be a veteran; however, he does appear to have a troubled past and there have been many other mass shootings from other veterans where part of their troubled upbringing included military indoctrination including Micah Xavier Johnson and Gavin Long who killed eight police officers before being killed in what they must have known was a suicide mission like the one by Hodgkinson.

Chris Coumo recently said that Hodgkinson must be of “diseased mind” when talking to a congressman who initially claimed that the Sanders supporters should scale back their rhetoric, implying that they incited Hodgkinson’s rampage, before walking it back. I don’t dispute Cuomo’s claim that Hodgkinson must be of “diseased mind” or that Johnson and Long might also have had emotional problems; nor do I think they raised their complaints in an acceptable or affective manner. However when many people do raise their legitimate complaints in an apropiate manner the political establishment and media routinely marginalize them and those complaints rarely ever get addressed often at the expense of thousands of innocent lives.

I don’t recall Cuomo ever saying that the politicians that caused all these wars based on lies are of “diseased mind;” nor do I remember him ever saying that politicians and multinational corporations that caused thousands of death through pollution depriving people of health care outrageous working conditions in sweatshops that have collapsed or burned down, or executives that covered up faulty tires or ignition switches that lead to many automotive crashes or many other white collar crimes that cause deaths among the poor or middle class are of “diseased mind.”

Even though I don’t agree with the way Hodgkinson, Johnson and Long attempted to accomplish their goals and believe that it backfired on legitimate efforts to seek reform it should be clear that tragic as the murders or attempted murders they committed are, they’re trivial compared to the atrocities that lead to many more deaths caused by those in political power and the media that enables them to maintain power by refusing to cover many of the most important root causes of violence or legitimate grievances from the poor or middle classes.

The entire media is now talking about how both parties are demonstrating that they’re united, but for what? Are they united to continue ignoring the epidemic levels of corruption and a political system that only covers candidates that sweep many of the biggest problems under the rug?

There words will inevitably deny this; however their actions have already indicated that this is exactly what they’re united against.

John Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” When Long and Johnson came back from the military it is conceivable that they rethought things and realized that the wars they were trained to fight turned out to be based on lies and that the politicians that routinely betray veterans and their electorate aren’t protecting many abandoned inner cities or rural areas that are being polluted and deprived of economic or educational opportunities at all.

Even if this isn’t exactly what happened with Hodgkinson, Johnson and Long and their violent attacks were as much if not more related to emotional instability there are many more people with emotional problems. If the political establishment don’t fix the economic and social conditions that cause them they’re doing as much if not more to incite more attacks than protesters, that are peacefully trying to convince them to respond to the will of the people and provide much better educational opportunities for the public instead of the propaganda that enables the rich to use wars and crime problems to appeal to people emotions and elect corrupt politicians, partially by refusing to cover honest one.

If as John Kennedy said John Kennedy said, we want "to complete the revolution of the Americas--to build a Hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living--and all can live out their lives in dignity and freedom," we won’t accomplish that goal by only listening to the greediest ideologues supporting a corporate agenda without regard for the most rational research into the causes of violence or global conflict.

The vast majority of the political establishment isn’t even willing to acknowledge that they don’t like it when we bomb them any more than we like it when they bomb us. The more we bomb their countries based on lies the more they will hate us and sympathize with those that fight against us.

Some things would be incredibly east to understand if people are willing to understand them.