Monday, October 29, 2018
As usual there are dozens of false flag claims about the recent bombing spree; and the mainstream media is quicker than usual to debunk them, or so they seem.
How can either the people coming up with these false claims or the ones debunking it possibly check their facts this quickly before they even conduct a thorough investigation?
Even without a thorough investigation there should be little or no doubt that the mainstream media and political establishment has been incredibly incompetent for years, if not decades, and they're constantly putting out an enormous amount of propaganda to convince a large segment of the public that there are only two options to choose from, whether it's the Democrats or Republicans; or either a fringe false flag conspiracy theory verses coming to the defense of the corporate media that claims to be a "free press."
Even though I'm not recommending that people jump on the "false flag" bandwagon too fast, especially without checking the facts, the government has admitted to seriously considering them, if not carrying them out, including Wikipedia: Operation Northwoods which was a plan presented to President Kennedy signed by Lyman L. Lemnitzer, which involved a plan to terrorize the American people and falsely blame it on Cuba. John Kennedy never implemented this plan and didn't speak publicly about it before he was assassinated, but most accounts say that he was outraged by it, although many of the top leaders in the military were much more eager to implement it.
Within a few months after submitting this plan Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman; but in 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed Lemnitzer to the Rockefeller Commission to investigate the CIA, long before his support for Operation Northwoods was publicly disclosed in 1997. This means that one of the planners of some major CIA dirty tricks was appointed to investigate them, which many people that keep track of the CIA might realize is not uncommon, raising even more doubts about the CIA and their willingness to participate in fanatical false flag operations.
Even if there is no false flag there's an enormous amount of evidence of incredible incompetence and bias in the mass media which is almost entirely controlled by six corporations that dominate over 90% of the national media; and several of the other biggest organizations, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Time Magazine are owned by billionaires; and social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter are also owned by billionaires. This means that a fraction of 1% of the richest people in the country control over 95% of the media in the country and have a major impact on the small amount left.
Some of this incredible incompetence may seem relatively trivial like announcing breaking news with three new bombs found Thursday night about eight to ten hours after the news originally broke, but giving the impression that this might be on top of the ten that were found at that time, or Friday evening repeatedly announcing that there was thirteen, at a time when they had reported fourteen. The media has much more resources than the average person yet someone paying attention and listing these can easily document them as they go along, which they should have done to avoid these trivial mistakes, but some of the biggest problems are their epidemic levels of negligence by not reporting an enormous amount of the most important news or research that could show how to make violence much less likely.
One thing that should be more relevant when it comes to bomb scares is just how often they actually go off and how difficult they are to make; and there's little doubt that the media isn't even trying to inform the public about that. There are apparently thousands of bomb threats every year but almost all of them are completely empty. the majority of ones that do have an actual bomb turn out to be incompetence and useless, and the most common that actually go off are just soda-pop bombs, which is apparently made with baking soda creating a chemical reaction blowing the top off a bottle and making aloud noise that does little or no additional damage. Since 9/11/2001 there has only been one bombing that I know of after searching that killed people within the United States, which was the Boston Bombings.
It's not nearly as easy as the media has indicated over the past few decades to download instructions to make a bomb, and the fact that these bombs didn't come close to going off indicates they aren't as dangerous as they imply, even if the FBI claims otherwise.
At the end of his show, just before 4:00 PM Friday, Oct. 26, Ali Velshi said something like, they "give the people the best possible information they need to make important decisions" Velshi's thoughts on the week: Being put to the test 10/26/2018 I read these words at the end of my show, but they were written by Quiana Burns 10/26/2018 This sounds very good, of course, and if they actually did this then it should be great; however they don't even come close.
This is true about covering the causes of violence and how it escalates, which can be found by looking for good research in academic sources or alternative media outlets, but not the mainstream media; or when they only cover candidates they support enabling them to get the name recognition they need to get elected or the best research on just about any given subject, which is available through other sources, but almost completely absent in mainstream media.
If they had done a better job covering diverse issues and candidates then Trump never would have been elected in the first place! They routinely only cover candidates that collect enormous amounts of money from corporations that cater to their interests, and ridicule candidates that rise from the grassroots without any coverage from the media, like Jill Stein, although she did eventually receive some coverage and many of the best candidates are probably people that most of us have never heard of.
The same media that now claims to be calling Donald Trump out for inciting violence also gave him a TV show that enabled him to get wide spread name recognition. For decades they only gave coverage to candidates that serve corporate interests on both sides constantly breaking one promise after another, virtually guaranteeing that a large percentage of the public would be outraged. Then they provided obsession coverage of Donald Trump, who for some people seemed like the only person standing up to the establishment, even though people with a minimal amount of critical thinking skills would easily see through his obvious lies, especially while Bernie Sanders was getting some degree of coverage and proving a better alternative.
Political advisers including Frank Luntz who virtually confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients have been studying how to manipulate voters for decades, and they conduct plenty of focus groups, polling, or other forms of research designed to enable them to develop techniques to convince voters to support candidates that have no intention of serving their best interests; instead catering to the interests of the donors over and over again. A large portion of this research is what they call "proprietary" or a "trade secret" which means that corrupting the democratic process is protected by law enabling conspiracies to commit epidemic levels of fraud against the majority of the public.
However, even though it's not justifiable to keep it secret, it's virtually guaranteed that they would recognize that if they pushed too far it would be a matter of time before the public was so outraged that they would take it out on their leaders one way or another. This was even recognized in the Deceleration of Independence which says, the public are "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Someone from the political establishment had to know that while they were pushing an incredibly bad agenda and taking advantage of all the research on how to manipulate people that it would back fire and someone like Donald Trump might take advantage of it, especially while they were giving him the enormous amount of obsession coverage he needed to get elected.
So if traditional explanations for current events doesn't quite add up without a false flag conspiracy theory then this needs to be taken into consideration. There's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that they actually know enough to manipulate the public more effectively than they are; and a false flag conspiracy theory this big would be so risky that it's virtually guaranteed to go wrong one way or another.
Another major problem with right wing false flag conspiracy theories is quite simply that Donald Trump is actually helping push the extreme corporate agenda that they claim he's opposing when he promises to "Drain the Swamp."
If there is a far-fetched false flag conspiracy theory could Donald Trump be part of it? Why would they come up with something so complicated when they can manipulate the public without such extreme measures?
When considering this these right wing false flag conspiracy theories clearly seem insane and unbelievable; however, without a false flag conspiracy theory or some other explanation, the current political insanity would also be insane and unbelievable.
Another major problem is that the academic world has an enormous amount of research showing how violence often starts at an early age and escalates later in life; but the mass media practically never informs the majority of the public about it, enabling high rates of violence. This adds to the overwhelming amount of evidence of incompetence or corruption by commercial media which has no qualms about speech that contributes to violence, but fails to report on research that prevents it.
I went into this more in Copyright And "Intellectual Property" Are endangering Lives And Democracy! where I explained that the media and political establishment are using copyright and intellectual property laws to regulate educational speech, which the six oligarchies that control the vast majority of the press can have their ideology distributed, almost without challenge. The mainstream media even makes an enormous amount of money off of some major contributing causes of violence as well. They sell ads for insurance and gambling, both of which contribute to other types of crime and violence, yet they rarely ever report on the research that shows how.
There are dozens if not hundreds of people killed every year for life insurance including over thirty emotionally unstable parents over the past sixty years killing more than fifty children to collect their insurance money, in some cases succeeding, at least temporarily. The information exposing these scams is often reported on the internet in very low profile articles enabling the mass media to profit by selling ads that contribute to violence. Within the past day or two John Berman pointed out on CNN that the reason Trump isn't trying to bring people together is because dividing people is how he attracts his followers, which is true; however the same goes for almost all politicians, although they often do a better job pretending to bring people together in times of crisis. If there is some kind of a false flag operation going on it seems far more reasonable to consider the possibility that Trump might be part of it, than that it's designed to take him down, but as long as we keep accepting the candidates that corporate media provide coverage for they can switch back and forth, with both of them catering to the same corproate interests, while we keep bickering over the latest argument.
If, as Ali Velshi said, they want to give the public the best possible information they needed to make decisions, including about reducing violence, they would provide coverage of more credible researchers like James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, or Barbara Coloroso, all of whom have conducted research into how violence starts with early abuse and escalates later in life and have indicated that they would be willing to help them educate the public. Barack Obama has been no better, when he was president his had plenty of opportunities to invite some of these people to speak out on this subject during the many disasters that took place on his watch but he didn't, although; after Hillary Clinton lost the election his Secretary of Education John King finally spoke out against corporal punishment in school as I went into in Obama’s Opposition to Corporal Punishment Needs to be Finished by Grassroots; however this received very little coverage from the traditional media and he soon left office so it's only the people that were already trying to teach the public about this that took much notice.
Now they're getting upset that Donald Trump isn't doing as good a job consoling families and arguing about gun control without discussing any of the other contributing factors that lead to escalating violence.
Simply going back to the same lip service that didn't work before won't do the trick nor will Trump's new call for the death penalty which the Death Penalty information Center has demonstrated that States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates and that only about two of the states with the highest murder rates ban the death penalty in any given year while only two with the lowest rates have the death penalty; and those two practically never use it, with New Hampshire's last execution in 1939 and Utah only executing two people in twenty years.
The same states that still allow corporal punishment in schools have the highest murder rates, highest incarceration rates, and highest support for the death penalty, even though it clearly doesn't work. They have the highest poverty rates or income inequality, and lowest rates for education.
They also have the highest support for Donald Trump, and in the Democratic primaries they had the highest support for Hillary Clinton. Thanks the front loading of the primaries in 2016, Hillary Clinton was able to win the Democratic nomination primarily by wining the states that she couldn't carry in the general election, which is part of the reason why Donald Trump was elected in the first place!
Donald Trump's supporters demonstrate their attitudes at the rallies supporting him and they show how willing they are to believe fringe conspiracy theories. However, the evidence may show that they're supporting all the wrong causes, which seems to be what the political operatives are counting on. If there is a fringe conspiracy going on, Donald Trump's supporters may just be falling for it instead of standing up to it; and, since the Democrats aren't doing much if any better when they have power, Democratic voters that accept the lesser of two evil argument, accepting the candidates presented to them by the mass media aren't doing much better and may be enabling the Duopoly system. To some degree even without a fringe conspiracy this is also true, since there's plenty of evidence to show that the wealthiest people control all powerful organizations and they hire plenty of researchers and talking heads to manipulate the majority turning them against each other.
There's plenty of research to show what can and does successfully reduce violence; but the mass media rarely ever reports on it; instead constantly repeating the same propaganda over and over again, so there's no doubt that even without a fringe false flag conspiracy theory, there's an incredible amount of incompetence and corruption by the media and both political parties.
Now instead of reporting on the most effective research that could teach the majority of the public about how to minimize or eliminate violence there's an increased call to limit speech they don't like, one way or another. Thanks to the outrage against Alex Jones and Infowars the media and political establishment managed to get an enormous amount of progressive support for censoring him on Facebook and Twitter. There were warnings that this would be the first step to censoring other outlets including progressive media; and in a few cases at least this has already come true, including shutting down the Free Thought Project, Anti-Media, TeleSUR, and numerous cop watch media outlets for a little while before allowing them back often claiming that it was a mistake. Now they're talking about banning Gab, which I haven't heard of until after the recent shooting in Pittsburgh, but this is normalizing censorship, even as the media continues to ignore some of the best research about how to reduce violence.
Louis Brandeis, former Supreme Court Justice, warned about this when he wrote, "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
Unfortunately at that time the Supreme Court had already established a patterns of behavior of censoring critics of the government, including anti-war protesters when Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," in Schenck v. United States which was about an anti-war protester during the first world war who had never made false claims.
So even without a fringe false flag operation there's a major problem going on; however some of the most effective censorship doesn't involve actually suppressing good research; instead it's more insidious. I've found that the Free Thought Project, Anti-Media, TeleSUR, and the cop watch media outlets that were briefly censored are more credible than the traditional media in most cases, but the most insidious efforts to censor the best research is often to simply ignore it. These media outlets have actually increased their circulation as a result of news about attempted censorship, which didn't last long. But some of the most effective research about preventing violence is from acceptable media outlets that aren't getting much attention at all like Murray Straus, whose web page was recently taken down about a year after he died, even though he wanted his research to be available to the public which is why I've brought some of it back and included a link to his old page which is on the Way back machine on a new Blog Murray Straus.
I'm usually not a fan of Alex Jones and InfoWars; however, in the following excerpt citing a CNN analyst they might have made a legitimate point worth considering:
Juliette Kayyem on Twitter: It's important that we recognize information in cases like these can lead in many different directions and investigators need to keep an open mind. But there's a difference between possibility and probability. 10/26/2018
The author goes on to refer to "Everyone’s favorite lunatic Maxine Waters" as if InfoWars is more credible than she is. He also refers to what he calls a batshit crazy idea by Chuck Todd that the Russians did it "This feels like a spot — I have this fear that it could be some Russian operation too, in designed to do what’s happening now. In some ways, we shouldn’t rule anything out. It is dividing us.” (also cited on "Chuck Todd: I Fear The Russians Could Be Behind The Mail-Bomb Scare" Maxine Waters may not always bee perfect and she ahs jumped on the bizarre Russian election meddling theory, but she's usually more credible than Alex Jones or InfoWars; but Chuck Todd demonstrated that the mainstream media often comes up with their own absurd conspiracy theories, often indicating that fringe conspiracy theories are now mainstream as well as from alternative media outlets.
This was written shortly before Cesar Sayoc was publicly exposed as the alleged bomber and this is probably not what Juliette Kayyem would consider a false flag operation; however right wingers are still trying to push that theory, like they have many others. Juliette Kayyem and numerous other media pundits have claimed that many of these fanatics, including Cesar Sayoc are often "radicalized" online, as if a normal rational person might go online and suddenly become a radical nutcase, or at least that's the impression the media often gives. This is at best only partially true, assuming the final stages of a "radicalizing" process takes place on line.
Better academics, who are often completely absent from the mainstream media, like James Garbarino or Dorothy Otnow Lewis, have often reported on research that clearly indicates that most if not all mass murderers come from abusive homes where they're taught to deal with their problems with violence from the beginning; and the same abusive upbringing also teaches children to blindly obey their leaders, in this case Donald Trump. If this is the case then Cesar Sayoc may have been radicalized over decades to react violently, then responded to trump's absurd rhetoric by going on the bomb spree, assuming this isn't a fanatical false flag operation designed to simulate reality.
There may be other cases where unstable people raised in abusive environments might also go onto the internet and find accurate news and respond to it in a violent manner which is extreme and ineffective way of dealing with problems. Examples of this might include the two shooters of cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge in 2016 that were trained by the military to respond to problems with violence and then came home and found that after they fought wars based on lies they realized that their own communities were being betrayed and police were killing black people with impunity; or other examples could be groups that go online and find out about accurate information about the U.S. fighting wars based on lies then going on shooting sprees. When the media refers to a "radicalization" process that they claim happens online, they ignore some of the most important facts that they often want to cover up. this requires a reasonable amount of discretion, and in some cases they may have had legitimate grievances which they responded to in extreme measures, or other they were also responding to outright lies.
If there's no false flag operation or other fringe conspiracy going on it's hard to imagine why they wouldn't have better researchers reporting on the news. However if there is a false flag or other type of conspiracy going on that requires that the best researchers are virtually banned from the mainstream media then this might begin to make sense.
But, if there is a fringe false flag operation going on of some sort, even though Alex Jones and other right wingers are ignoring a lot of inconvenient facts, what could be big enough to make something this insane seem like a reasonable objective for the media and political establishment?
Before I go any further I'd just like to say that even if you don't agree with some of this, there should be no doubt that there's plenty of research about how to prevent violence, without going into what many people consider fringe conspiracy theories. And there should also be no doubt that we need a diverse media covering all candidates. There is no reasonable justification for allowing a fraction of one percent to control over ninety percent of the media and decide which candidates are eligible for media coverage needed for them to get name recognition needed to make them viable candidates.
However, even though I think it's important to focus attention on things that we can be certain of; there's no longer much doubt that the official version of the truth is often as absurd as many conspiracy theories.
However I previously explained further details of what, if anything, might be important enough to carry out such an absurd false flag operation in several articles including Researching Poor, Slaves, Prisoners, To Benefit Ruling Class With Alien Technology? when I added to a previous conspiracy theory that involved Philip Corso's claims that he exchanged technology obtained after the Roswell crash where an alien craft allegedly was found. When it comes to extraordinary theories that skeptics say require extraordinary evidence there is additional evidence to support this theory includes megaliths that were moved thousands of years ago that were often at least ten to twenty times bigger than any megaliths that were successfully moved with ancient technology during experiments that had to cheat when they moved anything between ten and forty tons and didn't even try anything bigger despite the fact that ancient civilizations moved the Colossi of Memnon weighing 720 tons about 420 miles and many other massive megaliths between fifty and a thousand tons.
This should be enough evidence to indicate that we have a major unsolved mystery; yet mainstream academics simply act as if this mystery doesn't exist. There are additional unsolved mysteries to support this theory, although none of them are quite as clear cut.
If there is something to this and they are conducting research on humans to develop advanced medical treatments with the help of alien technology, then it's reasonable to assume they might also be conducting a large amount of additional research in a variety of other scientific fields. Since they now claim that Climate Change has been influenced by human activity, it clearly indicates that intentionally or not some degree of geoengineering is possible which as I went into in Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory is something they would want to research if they were trying to study alien technology.
Some degree of evidence that they're advancing medical research at a rapid pace is provided in Spectacular Heart Transplant for Sophia But at What Cost, which speculates about the possibility that recent medical advancements are being made as a result of all this alleged alien technology. If this theory isn't true, though, there would have to be another explanation for how ancient megaliths were moved, and why scientific technology started accelerating at such a rapid pace in the past sixty years, and even more so in the past twenty years. There would also have to be another explanation of many other unsolved mysteries and why the mainstream media is allowing all this coverage of the ancient aliens show, which does have plenty of flaws, while they're suppressing some of the best research on many subjects, including how to reduce violence.
With or without an ancient alien conspiracy theory there has to be some explanation for the insane political activity that has been escalating for decades, but became increasingly absurd during the 2016 when they provided an enormous amount of coverage for candidates that were both under FBI investigation and should have been ruled out instead of allowing them to get the nominations of both major parties, ensuring that the presidency would be a disaster no matter which candidate won. As I pointed out in June 2016 in Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy there was plenty of credible evidence from reliable sources that the media was rigging the election by rigging the coverage, but in addition to that, after taking a close look at the Book of the Apocalypse and comparing the characteristics of the "Whore of Babylon" to Hillary Clinton it became clear that she had many more of the characteristics than a reasonable skeptic might expect, and that her activities as Secretary of State increased the similarities after some people first came up with this theory. This seemed like a fringe theory at the time, but additional activities since then including the Al Smith dinner, the election of Trump instead of rigging it for Hillary Clinton and non-stop insanity since then, make this theory stronger, when it should have collapsed.
If this is partly true then it's possible that many of the people involved might have tried to convince themselves that they're doing what they can to improve the best interest of the majority of the public in the long term, by using them for research in the short term to advance science then share it with everyone later; although even if they believed this they might not follow through, and some at the top may never have intended this and not shared their intentions with them. This led me to consider the possibility that they though that this might have been some kind of a reverse psychology PsyOp in Is GOP Committing Political Suicide? Or Is Kavanaugh An Insane PsyOp? However, even if this is partly true, it wouldn't be the most effective way to look out for the best interest of the majority since that would simply involve preparing people for the truth in the most effective way possible and providing full disclosure at the same time, which is not what they're doing.
By refusing to communicate in an honest manner they've demonstrated that they're not interested in the best interests of the majority of the public whether this theory is true or not; instead there should be little doubt that the people controlling the media, government and other large corporations are using the majority for their interests not ours.
But if there is something to this, then there's a strong possibility if not a virtual guarantee that the dietary supplements Alex Jones is advertising could be part of the research being done with alien technology!
Alex Jones seems to be part of a patterns of behavior where the only people that discuss some of these subjects in a somewhat high profile manner seem like lunatics and make blunders so big and obvious that it's hard to imagine why they wouldn't fix their mistakes once in a while. there are plenty more of these obvious blunders on the History Channel "Ancient Aliens" series which has plenty of fringe researchers; but if you look close enough and do enough fact checking you might find that occasionally they get something right and when skeptics like Michael Shermer or Joe Nickell try to address some of these unsolved mysteries they often resort to distraction tactics to avoid saying they can't figure this out and there really is something worth researching.
A lot of the people that believe many of the most irrational claims by people like Trump also believe that there's a "Good God" that they expect to come in and save the day; however the Bible they worship doesn't actually describe god this way all the time, if you look at it carefully. Instead it describes a God that is manipulative and vindictive, often betraying those that worship him, assuming he exists at all. for example Exodus 14:4 claims that he "shall make Pharaoh stubborn," instead of advising him to comply, giving him the excuse to take vengeance on all the Egyptian people, even those taught to blindly obey Pharaoh, like the faithful are taught to blindly obey their leaders. This is just one of many passages in the Bible that should raise major doubts about how good God is assuming he exists at all.
this is part of a pattern of behavior, those that don't question their religious leaders, or God don't question Donald Trump either, often because they're told by their religious leaders that they should support him. However, unlike other cult leaders Trump didn't rise from the grassroots learning how to manipulate people at the local level. Instead he rose as a result of an enormous amount of air time by the mainstream media he pretends to hate, with their advisers dating back to his days at the Apprentice, when he developed his reputation. He also had more advisers telling him how to manipulate his supporters after he began running for president, raising the possibility that they were helping him all along for some absurd reason.
Furthermore, if there is an advanced intelligence of some sort that people know of ads God, and if he has some undisclosed motive for manipulating the public, then it would make more sense for him to create irrational cults that blindly obey their leaders. This Ancient Aliens may not be perfect but it doesn't ignore many major unsolved mysteries and might begin to explain some of them.
The following are some additional sources for this article:
Cesar Sayoc ‘Found A Father In Trump,’ Family Attorney Tells Anderson Cooper 10/26/2018 He “was attracted to Trump reaching out to these types of outsiders ... telling them that it’s okay to get angry,” said Ron Lowy. ..... Lowy said Sayoc did not appear to be sophisticated enough to carry out the bomb operation alone. “I wouldn’t be surprised to find out there were either others who helped prod or encourage him to do this or that the bombs were so crudely made they never could have worked.”
‘He’s 14 years old living in an adult body,’ says Cesar Sayoc’s former lawyer 10/26/2018 “He’s half Filipino, on his father’s side, and he’s half Italian,” Lowy said. “He’s been living and creating this fantasy for a very long time. He’ll deny it’s a fantasy. But I will suggest to you it’s probably a result of emotional issues that come from his father abandoning him and returning to the Philippines when he was a child."
‘False Flag’ Theory on Pipe Bombs Zooms From Right-Wing Fringe to Mainstream 10/25/2018
“False flags,” explained: How the concept of “false flags” traveled from the conspiratorial fringe to cable news. 10/25/2018 This article acknowledges it might be a false flag, before making a case that it's highly unlikely or at least that they don't have evidence yet, "Maybe it’ll turn out that the motivations were a form of political jiujitsu, or a false flag. Or maybe the motives will turn out to be something completely off the wall, not tethered to political polarization at all. We just don’t know." More balanced articles like this from mainstream media generally get much less coverage than those ridiculing false flags or ruling them out.
What we're seeing with the mail bombing suspect is an example of something that has been studied in counterterrorism, stochastic terrorism. It's a way of describing radicalization through media and mass communication that inspires random acts of violence. 10/27/2018 7:10 AM
The evidence in this case that is strong for the sort of idea of how he became radicalized is that the people he targeted like Brennan and Clapper weren't household names until Trump took them on. 10/27/2018 7:20 AM
American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence in one graph 10/03/2016 For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns. According to the US State Department, the number of US citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2014 was 369. In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the United States and found that between 2001 and 2014, there were 3,043 (2,990 on 9/11/2001 53 since then) people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,412.
Except for 9/11 most of these were the result of shootings; perhaps the only ones from bombs were the three from the Boston Bombings, which also included at least one death of a police officer and another of the suspect as a result of shootings.
The Annual Explosives Incident Report 2014
The Annual Explosives Incident Report 2015
The Annual Explosives Incident Report 2016
The Annual Explosives Incident Report 2017
Cesar Sayoc: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know 10/26/2018 According to online records, Sayoc is a registered Republican, registering with the GOP in Florida in March 2016. On his LinkedIn page, Sayoc says that his grandfather, Col. Baltazar Zook Sayoc, was a martial arts practitioner who developed his own style of fighting, Sayoc Kali. Sayoc says that style was used to fight the Communist Party of the Philippines. There is a detailed website about the fighting style.
Cesar Sayoc, mail bombing suspect, arrested in Florida: Everything we know about the man allegedly behind the packages 10/26/2018
Suspected MAGA bomber ID’d as ‘Native American Trump supporter’ Cesar Sayoc, 56, 10/26/2018 Bodybuilder Sayoc is said to have been traced by DNA and phone records, and was flagged as a suspect after making previous terror threats to judges.
Accused Bomber Cesar Sayoc Was Fervent Trump Supporter 10/26/2018 Three men in August 2017 bombed a mosque in Minnesota. Their de facto leader, Michael Hari, believed that Trump was engaged in a secret war with the deep state. In July of this year, a Nevada man named Matthew P. Wright, an unemployed Marine veteran, blocked traffic on the Hoover Dam using an armored vehicle. Armed with an AR-15 rifle, handgun, and a flash-bang device, Wright had sent letters to Trump and other elected officials, in which he referred to “QAnon,” a conspiracy theory that suggests that Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are secretly working together to expose a sex trafficking ring operated by Democrats and Hollywood celebrities.
Seminole Tribe of Florida says suspected bomber 'not a member' 10/26/2018
MAGABomber suspect Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr’s Twitter Account was suspended following his arrest on Friday 10/26/2018 includes indictment
FBI Arrests Prominent Neo-Nazi Gang Leader Robert Paul Rundo 10/24/2018
California white supremacists vowed to ‘reimagine’ racist movements with new look and secretive tactics 10/25/2018
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow walks through how Trump has inspired violence — from white supremacists to the MAGAbomber 10/26/2018
Bear spray, bloody brawls at Patriot Prayer 'law and order' march in Portland 10/14/2018
Governing magazine: High School Graduation Rates by State
US News: High School Graduation Rates by State
Why Did Facebook Purge TeleSUR English? 08/15/2018
Facebook censors Telesur and Venezuela Analysis 08/17/2018
No, Facebook is NOT “Private,” Their Censorship Arm is Government Funded 10/15/2018
Anti-Media Shut Down by Facebook and Twitter 10/11/2018
Censorship crackdown? Top 10 alt-media pages newly banned by Facebook & Twitter 10/12/2018
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
We worship wars based on lies.
This isn't such a good idea, no matter how much propaganda both political parties and the mass media comes up with. Nor does this change when one political party goes completely out of it's mind; and the other one the media is willing to cover, only does a slightly better job pretending to defend the majority of the public, occasionally coming up with better rhetoric claiming to only support wars for a just cause.
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the Vietnam war didn't involve defending democracy by fighting the people that signed their own Declaration of Independence based partly on ours; and most if not all other wars are based partly on lies, including the ones about taking babies out of incubators, and the fact that we routinely arm many of our enemies while they're on our side of another conflict before they turn against us, maintaining a permanent state of war.
Yet, even when many of these lies are disclosed we routinely glorify the veterans that fight these wars, calling them heroes, while often demonizing the people that tell the truth about these wars based on lies.
Intentionally or not, there often seems to be a massive propaganda effort to glorify war, often even coming from progressives that you would expect to oppose wars based on lies, sometimes even the reformers that the mainstream media refers to as "radicals" Bill McKibben who recently tweeted This really is a remarkable ad. Keep working, everyone--November could be remarkable 10/13/2018 citing Seth Moulton's group Serve America saying "Before these badass women decided to run for Congress, they served our country. This is the leadership we need in Washington. Let’s show up for them in November!"
This is part of a massive organized campaign to recruit veterans for Congress, often challenging the fanatical positions of the GOP and Trump administration appearing to be the lesser of two evils; however, the result is an extension of a massive propaganda effort to glorify the military, and one war after another that we fight based on lies; and it routinely has the opposite results that many progressives like Bill McKibben are trying to accomplish. One of the biggest threats to the environment that progressives are trying to protect is the military, yet they routinely help them to glorify it, distracting from the fact that we fight one war after another based on lies.
Veterans that sign up to "serve our country" are routinely led to believe that they're "fighting for our freedom" with an enormous amount of propaganda, and some of them often find out the hard way that they've been betrayed by their leaders, often abandoned after they no longer have any use for them. Many of these people learn that they haven't been recruited to fight wars to defend freedom after all, instead they learn about the lies that led them into war, but they're often under a lot pf pressure to accept these lies. The same boot camp indoctrination teaching them to blindly obey orders is also used to intimidate them if they speak out against these wars based on lies and go along with the program.
A few of them join organizations like Veterans for Peace or some other organization to protest wars based on lies or support progressive causes, however these don'e seem to include the candidates running for Congress, or at least not the ones that get enough positive media coverage to win the nomination. The candidates that are running for office with the support of the mainstream media or the traditional political parties aren't exposing the lies used to lead us into war, they're helping provide propaganda to reinforce the image of fighting for our freedom, and helping distract people from the many problems that are caused by these wars, including veterans that come home with PTSD and have a lot of emotional problems, including suicide or, in some cases, there have been a lot of high profile shootings sprees, including one about a month ago where a South Carolina police officer was killed and several more that were badly wounded, including another that just died.
It's difficult to find good statistics on whether or not veterans are more likely to go on shootings sprees; however there are some that indicate that they're at least as likely if not more, as the rest of the population, which shouldn't be to surprising, when considering that they're trained to kill people for their country. As indicated below, based on a partial review of the shootings of police officers, a higher percentage of the cop killers are veterans than the rest of the population; and numerous studies have shown that military veterans and police officers that also go through authoritarian boot camp training have higher rates of domestic violence within their own families.
Propagandists seem to have learned long ago that the most effective way to glorify wars based on lies often involves burying the truth where few people ever see it, and promoting the propaganda over and over again, often without challenge, including from so-called liberal pundits or politicians. This is exactly what the traditional media does. For a long time one of the most progressive voices on the mainstream media was considered Rachel Maddow, although she doesn't do nearly as good a job as she used to; but she's always been coming to the defense of veterans, or so it seems, often calling for veterans parades, and providing a limited amount of coverage about some of the problems they go through, although the most detailed coverage of these problems has never been in the mainstream media. This is part of an indirect strategy of indirectly glorifying the war by diverting blame away from the veterans that aren't involved in the decision making and indicating that even if the Iraq war was based on lies then it wasn't their fault, although this was considered a complexly unacceptable excuse when trying Germans after WW II.
The one thing the mass media never does, including the most progressive pundits, or perhaps the ones that do the best job pretending to be progressive, is to remind the public that it's almost always the people from the working class that are most likely to die as a result of these wars, but it's the people from the political class that tell the lies about it, which is why they don't have anyone like George Carlin or people from the anti-war movement on traditional media.
Instead they have politicians and pundits that do a much better job pretending to be progressive like Elizabeth Warren who voted for a massive increase in military spending, bigger than even Donald Trump asked for, along with several other supposedly progressive politicians, but this was hardly mentioned in the traditional press. Or like Van Jones who was supposedly one of the radicals from the Obama administration, who supported Bernie Sanders, or at least he claimed he did; but, when the primaries were half way through in 2016, like several other so-called Sanders supporters, he began defending Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump with most of the time he had on the media, instead of reporting on how the primaries were being rigged against Sanders at the time. Van Jones once said about Trump, “You can’t polish this turd,” however if they provided the same media coverage for Trump that they do for the problems of wars based on lies and the social problems it causes when veterans came home with emotional problems, they might come close, and part of the efforts that they come up with to glorify war based on lies is to portray it as the lesser of two evils.
Mainstream media spent a fair amount of time for a while, covering the problems with suicide by veterans, and some of the mass shootings, but they never covered the large number of shootings within families of veterans or incidents where many veterans killed each other, nor did they cover some of the most important contributing causes of all these problems which includes their training and abusive hazing during boot camp.
What the mainstream media almost never mentions is that boot camp indoctrination is designed to teach blind obedience, through intimidating tactics that often include massive amounts of abuse to control recruits as indicated in some of the following stories:
The mainstream media almost never mentions these stories, and on the few occasions they do, it's only briefly; and it's quickly forgotten by many people while the contradictory propaganda propaganda is constantly repeated over and over again. This is one of the most fundamental principles of propaganda, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to, especially if it's not challenged. The mainstream media is now dominated by six oligarchs that control over 90% of the national media; some the biggest exceptions including the Washington Post owned by Jeff Bezos, Time Magazine owned by Marc Benioff, and the Los Angeles Times owned by Soon-Shiong are all controlled by billionaires; and the biggest social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter are also controlled by billionaires.
This means that a fraction of 1% of the richest people in this country control or influence almost all of the national media we use to make decisions, and these people don't have to fight wars based on lies and do nothing to expose this deceptive propaganda, enabling the elites to manipulate the majority of the public with their propaganda.
The people that control the media have access to some of the best research available to the public, and more since they also have access to research that is proprietary or secret, often with that secrecy protected by law. This includes research on psychological manipulation of the public and on how early abusive child rearing tactics can be used for indoctrination purposes, and how it also leads to escalating violence.
However they demonstrate with their actions that they're far more concerned with using this research, or their own ideologies, to use the media to manipulate the majority of the public than they are with educating people about how violence escalates from early child abuse. Previously in Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine I explained how early child abuse leads to escalating violence later in life and how his teachings on corporal punishment is designed to teach blind obedience, instead of teaching children to develop critical thinking skills and learn how to recognize when their leaders are lying to them.
This indoctrination process is most common among religious people, especially in the Bible Belt, where the largest number of recruits for the military come from, although the highest recruitment rates are from rural areas in the north west with lower population. I was unable to find polling base don states to see whether or not people in the Bible Belt are more likely to support various wars including the Iraq War, which was based on weapons of mass destruction that the government knew didn't exist, but there are numerous studies or polls, some listed below, that indicate that religious people are more likely to support wars, including the Iraq War.
The Bible Belt states are among the nineteen states that still allow use of corporal punishment in schools, presumably they also are more likely to use it at home, and they also have some of the highest murder rates in the country; just a glance at the FBI reports show that the South is typically the worst. In 2015/2016 the average murder rates in states that still allowed corporal punishment in schools was 5.98 per hundred thousand people compared to only 4.54 in states that no longer allow it. The states that still allow corporal punishment in schools are also more likely to have police officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire as well, making up only about forty percent of the population, but usually having over half of police officers killed by gunfire. In the past eight years, since Ohio banned corporal punishment in schools, six years had over fifty percent of police killed by gunfire in states that allow corporal punishment, with a couple having almost 65%; the other two years had almost exactly 40%, so they always have their share or more. Three of the four years before that they also had more than fifty percent, and only one of them had forty percent, at a time when both New Mexico and Ohio still allowed corporal punishment, so this was the only year where the states allowing corporal punishment had a lower rate than those not allowing it; and that year had three high profile shootings in states without it that killed a total of eleven officers causing a spike in those states. There are many other Corporal punishment is routinely used to teach children to blindly obey orders and accept beliefs without question.
There's also evidence to indicate that veterans with emotional problems are more likely to go on shootings sprees including U.S. Mass Shooters Are Disproportionately Veterans by David Swanson 11/17/2017 and some additional articles I wrote below. The mass shootings get much more attention, but the vast majority of problems with violence from veterans is much more likely to be against their own families or other veterans. This doesn't mean that all veterans are violent, of course, and a close look at some of the few reports about this problem often indicates that other veterans and family members of veterans are often the ones doing the most to solve this problem, although they get little or no help from the media or politicians including those running as veterans, who often express concerns about PTSD, but never discuss how hazing and pressuring them to blindly fight wars based on lies contribute to the problem.
As of this writing, there have been forty-six police officers killed this year, and at least five of them were killed by four veterans, and one more was killed by a former cadet that went through JROTC boot camp training. At least four of these police shootings were double murders, so there's at most forty-two killers of police officers, which comes to about 9%, but only about 7% of the adult population are veterans, and that rate has been sharply declining for decades, so a large portion of these veterans are older veterans, and the majority of people convicted of murder, including of police officers, are much younger so this percentage should be even higher if adjusted by age. Furthermore, in most of the stories that I could find they didn't specify whether they were veterans or not, although about a half dozen or so did provide background that virtually guarantees they weren't. This means that a few more of them could have also been veterans. But the majority of cop killers aren't veterans and almost certainly come from troubled abusive homes, often in abandoned inner cities where there's little or not educational opportunities; the same goes for all other murders. However the same politicians that are pushing wars based on lies are also ignoring the education system that is abandoning these people as well.
As I went into in Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Eli Roth and Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiment much more extensive than most people realize the Office of Naval Research, perhaps with the help of the CIA has been studying how to train cadets to blindly obey orders and supported research that they claimed was doing the opposite. One of the leading researchers into the indoctrination of veterans was Philip Zimbardo, who became president of the American Psychological Association in 2002, which was also the year that they had a meeting in August to revise the ethical guidelines for the APA watering them down dramatically, and outraging some psychologists including Susan Linn who expressed shock in her book "Consuming Kids" because they removed the "Social responsibility" clause, in addition to enabling the atrocities at Abu Ghraib they also enabled psychologists to study how to manipulate children when marketing to them, which was Linn's specialty.
The people that give orders for these wars based on lies are practically never held accountable, and when they need someone to blame, assuming they can't cover up problems they routinely use those with the least amount of political power to take the blame including Sgt. Ivan “Chip” Frederick who had Philip Zimbardo testify as an expert-witness at his trial; however, his account of this story doesn't acknowledge the work he did to develop interrogation techniques, and it's unlikely that Sgt. Frederick recognized that he had a major conflict of interest as a result of this.
Veterans that recognized that this war was based on lies and refused to serve were also prosecuted and there are many more stories where veterans were betrayed by the military and abandoned; however the reports of these stories aren't covered widely in the mass media, often only reported briefly in obscure articles, or in alternative media outlets.
Many of these veterans are not surprisingly in denial about some of the worst atrocities committed in these wars based on lies, often doing what they're told to do, and many of them even say things like, "it's not my job to get involved in politics," or many variations of this; and some of the ones that do, accept the propaganda they've been given, often even when it's seriously flawed. However there are a lot more that pay more attention and speak out when they realize they've been betrayed. In some of the highest cases like when Chris Kyle wrote in his book about an alleged fight with a celebrity, he seems to think that it's appropriate to fight people that are being disrespectful by pointing out the fact that they've been betrayed by their leaders; however, in this case a jury found that he lied about this in a lawsuit. There are still many more that resulted in fight, though including, perhaps, when he was shot and killed while taking someone with PTSD to a rifle range, as part of his treatment.
Some of those that do recognize they've been betrayed help explain why, including Vietnam veteran Lynda Van Devanter, author of "Home Before Morning" who claimed that one of the reasons they often remained in denial is because of all the trauma they faced they couldn't admit to themselves that they fought the Vietnam war based on lies, since they had been led to believe that what they were doing was fighting for freedom; so even though the evidence indicated they'd been betrayed they were slow to face it, which is virtually guaranteed to be a major contributing cause of high rates of PTSD and other emotional problems.
Now, intentionally or not, there's a massive effort to make the military seem like they continue to fight for our freedom, and are often more credible than some of the fanatical politicians like Donald Trump. This includes efforts to demonstrate that they're advancing women's rights by recruiting more of them and they've been recruiting minorities more for decades, as well; however that doesn't mean they treat them as well as the officer class, which is where most of the politicians come from that the media is willing to cover.
They even have half a dozen or more CIA agents, including Abigail Spanberger, or other espionage officials (they refer to themselves as intelligence officials but there's noting intelligent about forcing the public to base their decisions on lies controlled by covert organizations) openly running for office. Anyone that does a minimum amount of research can find out that these espionage organizations have been lying to us for decades and studying how to rig elections at home and abroad is part of their routine. Intentionally or not one of the most effective methods they're currently using seems to be manipulating voters on one side that support fanatics like Trump or Dave Brat so that espionage agents, especially female espionage agents seem like a good choice or the lesser of two evils.
If they actually were a good choice they would have done much more to speak out against all these wars based on lies, and if they wanted to defend women rights or minority rights, they wouldn't be doing their part to glorify war!
As in previous articles, I would like to note that the people most involved in recognizing and fixing these problems are often veterans but ignoring them won't help fix it and as I pointed out in Teach a soldier to kill and he just might and States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations there are much more problems than most people realize; and even though the first response of many is to blame the veterans themselves and assume there must be something wrong with them, the bigger problem is the politicians and commanders that are training them to kill based on lies then abandoning them. they often have access to some of the best research to show how to reduce violence; but instead use it to increase indoctrination so they can control veterans and voters.
The following are some additional sources and stories about veteran violence:
Kayla Williams spoke to Soledad O'Brien on CNN about the suicide of her colleague Alyssa Peterson and explained how she was also forced to take part in torture interrogations during which detainees were assaulted, stripped, blindfolded, and then confronted with a female interrogator. Williams also said she is still haunted by these events years later.
Alyssa Peterson died on September 15, 2003 from a "non-hostile weapons discharge" at the Tal Afar airbase on the Syrian-Iraqi frontier. Subsequent investigation revealed that she had been placed under suicide watch after refusing further participation in interrogation sessions which she said constituted torture of Iraqi prisoners. "We told her that you have to be able to turn on and off the interrogation mode -- that you act differently towards the people we meet with outside of the detainee facility," one fellow soldier stated. "She said that she did not know how to be two people; she ... could not be one person in the cage and another outside the wire." She refused to participate in this, according to journalist Ann Wright, "for saying no to torture, is dead, perhaps by her own hand".
Fred Hopkins, 74, Suspect in deadly South Carolina police ambush identified as elderly Vietnam veteran 10/04/2018
Many express their sympathy for Investigator Farrah Turner who died weeks after being shot in South Carolina mass shooting 10/2/2018
Authorities Arrest Navy Veteran, William Clyde Allen III, in Connection With Suspicious Envelopes Sent to President Trump 10/03/2018
Insider Speaks: San Diego Psych Doc Exposes Marine Corps’ Broken Mental Health Care Culture, and How to Fix it 09/11/2012 Even if the overt message is “seek help,” the covert message is “you should be strong and man up.”
After Boot Camp Scandal, Lawmaker Calls for Hazing Review 10/29/2016 "I am concerned about the recent media reports depicting a culture of hazing and abuse at the Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot," she wrote to Reps. Mac Thornberry, a Republican, and Adam Smith, a Democrat, in a letter first reported by Marine Corps Times. "These media reports seem to be indicative of a larger, pervasive hazing problem that has harmed soldiers' mental health, caused serious injury, diminished unit cohesion, and even cost lives."
Marine Corps drill instructor convicted of abusing recruits 11/17/2017
Marine Boot Camp Covered Up Recruits' Hazing-Related Medical Issues 09/18/2016
Report Finds Sharp Increase in Veterans Denied V.A. Benefits 03/30/2016
Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy 01/12/2018
McKibben: Time to Declare a War (Literally) on Climate Change 08/15/2016
Elizabeth Warren Votes for Massive Increase of War Budget 10/02/2017
Meet America's New Generation of Veteran Leaders
Female Veterans Lead 2018 Charge 12/08/2017
Candidates Tout Careers in Espionage 08/10/2018 Campaign season features several contenders for the House, most Democrats, with backgrounds in espionage, counterterrorism and foreign policy
Protestants and Frequent Churchgoers Most Supportive of Iraq War 03/16/2006 Least supportive are non-Christians and people with no religion
U.S. evangelical support for Iraq war slipping 10/27/2006
Most Evangelical Leaders Still Support Iraq War 02/12/2008
POLITICS-U.S.: Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War 10/09/2002
Religious Groups Issue Statements on War with Iraq 03/19/2003 Bishop Adam J. Richardson, president of the Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, said in a March 12 interview that he was troubled by the support of possible war by some in Christianity’s conservative wing. “I think that, from my perspective the right-wing faction of Christianity is doing Christ a disservice by attempting to back their jaundiced views with Scripture, trivializing the Bible in public view and making a mockery of the best traditions of biblical scholarship.”
Bush And God 03/09/2003
The Iraq War and Christian Faith by Joseph L. Cumming, April 20, 2004 Ted Haggard, elected in early March as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, sought to mobilize 1,000,000 people to pray on March 3rd (03-03-03) that war might be averted. He did this because he was convinced that in November 2002 God had given him a vision in which he saw “pictures of suffering, pictures of children in Iraq, and the people in America suffering because of a war.”2
The Persian Gulf War: A Case Study in Just War Theory Laurence W. Jones 1998
American Public Support for U.S. Military Operations from Mogadishu to Baghdad 2005
Here’s what we know about the man charged with shooting 4 York Co. police officers 03/16/2018 Christian Thomas McCall, 47, The York man charged in the killing of a York County deputy and wounding three other law enforcement officers earlier this year is an Army veteran, according to new information.
Pfc. Raymond W. Begay Marine Convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in Killing of Fellow Private 07/26/2018
Army veteran describes shooting rampage on base that killed soldier from Jacksonville 10/17/2018
Iraq War veteran charged in deadly Solon shooting 'did not know wrongfulness of actions' due to mental illness, doctor finds 09/26/2018 Matthew Desha, a combat veteran of the Iraq War, believes God, Satan and the Illuminati are all trying to influence his trial on aggravated murder and other charges in the 2016 killing of Deborah Pearl, doctors have found.
Police: James Harris Jackson, Army veteran arrested for murder went to NY to attack black people 03/24/2017
Eric Brown, 45, Retired Navy veteran accused of killing girl found on lawn of Charlotte church 11/09/2017
Marine Veteran Arrested in Machete Killing in Taiwan Left Service as a Private 09/06/2018
TSA Touts Orlando Fla. Bomb Suspect, Army veteran Kevin Christopher Brown, Arrest 10/1/2018
Army combat veteran’s call for help lands him in jail 05/30/2018
Veteran sets himself on fire in protest outside Georgia Capitol 06/26/2018
Fort Polk La. soldier sentenced for making and using a chlorine bomb April 12, 2017 on post 09/25/2018
Robert Decoteau III, Mass. Veteran set to plead guilty after causing a pipe bomb panic found dead at home, spokesman for DA's office confirms 03/27/2018
Ex-soldier pleads guilty to wife’s gruesome murder 10/24/2018
Low blow — soldiers arrested after allegedly kicking South Korean policeman in the genitals 10/23/2018
Former Army employee admits taking bribes for work at military bases 10/23/2018
Report: Accused murderer 'blacked out' before shooting, killing Highlands Co. deputy 05/09/2018 Joseph Edward Ables, 69, who is listed as unemployed and disabled, said he was a Vietnam War veteran who suffers from PTSD, the report said.
Suspect has Nogales roots 04/30/2018 David Ernesto Murillo, 28, and his older brother were in the school’s JROTC program.
Isaias De Jesus Valencia, 39: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know 03/11/2018 3. A Neighbor Said He Served in the Military & Was in ‘Extreme Need of Mental Health Care’
After deadly Henry County police shootout, five boys left fatherless 02/10/2018 Tierre Guthrie, 39, ex-Marine suspect
Thursday, October 18, 2018
If someone were to distribute, for free, the most effective educational material, some funded by tax payers, about the leading causes of violence to people, including those in the poorest cities in the country with the highest rates of violence, so they could learn how to minimize crime and violence, would the government give them a medal of freedom for his or her service to their country?
Or would they threaten to throw him or her in jail for stealing "Intellectual property?"
You would think the answer would be obvious; but just a few years ago the government demonstrated, with their actions, that they might threaten to throw him into jail for educating the public about how to reduce violence, when they prosecuted Aaron Swartz for downloading documents from JSTOR. The vast majority of the public probably never understood the full implications of why he was prosecuted or how it threatens our democracy, and since it restricts educational materials about many different subjects, including how to reduce violence, it also prevents many people from understanding the most effective ways of dealing with crime, including violent crime. These complicated intellectual property laws also enable a small fraction of the public to control the educational material that we need to participate in the democratic process.
This means our intellectual property laws, which have never been adequately explained to the public, are putting lives at risk, and threatening the legitimacy of our democratic process.
This isn't limited to copyright laws, but it's part of a far-more complicated system where a small fraction of the public control large institutions and pass laws that the vast majority of the public doesn't understand, so they don't even know how it's impacting them. The mass media is now controlled by six oligarchs thanks to the merging frenzy that began decades ago and escalated, while most people weren't paying attention, until it became an oligarchy system, instead of a free enterprise system. these six oligarchies decide which political candidates get the media coverage they need to get the name recognition that makes them "viable," so contrary to what the media often used to tell us the first primary isn't the "money primary" where they see which candidates collect enough campaign donations to enable them to be viable, it's the media primary, which they never mention at all.
This means that the media, alone has the ability to limit the candidates that we choose from so that we can only hear from candidates that won't challenge their domination of the press, which is exactly what the first amendment was supposed to prevent.
The same media establishments decide which books can get promoted and which ones never even have a chance to get published. As I went into in a couple older articles, Copyright Bureaucracy and Copyright violators are thought criminals, they often allow their financial interests to impact their decision regardless of the most credible research into the social causes of violence and how to prevent them or the best interest of the majority of the public on any other give issue as well. this was also pointed out in Robert McChesney's books, "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" and "The Problem of the Media" which I cited in those articles, however he was unable to get much if any promotions from the mass media for the obvious reason that he was exposing their scams; but they became popular among people that follow alternative media outlets that spread the word about this. However good books like this are still at a massive propaganda disadvantage compared to authors that write books supported by mainstream media.
Books that are critical of the concentrated power of the mainstream media aren't the only ones suppressed, or that most of us never heard of, it's virtually guaranteed that there are many more, and we have no way of knowing how good the vast majority of them are, although in a few cases some people close to the author might know. One of the books that got caught up in the media merger frenzy of the nineties, and was stalled for a few years getting little or no promotions and unavailable in many book stores, even when the author was featured on Phil Donahue, was "Beating the Devil Out of Them," by Murray Straus, about the long term damage that can be done by corporal punishment, which often leads to escalating violence. His work was recognized by a large segment of the academic community at that time, as being very credible, and additional research since then has only added to that credibility; however as the following except from the introduction of the 2001 2nd edition indicates he had a hard time getting his book through to the public initially, and there's a possibility that he may never have been able to regain the lost opportunity as a result of the problems he had with publishing companies:
Murray Straus is just one example of many of good academic work that gets little or not promotion from the mainstream media. He's one of the earlier academics to completely argue that any use of corporal punishment is detrimental to the psychological well being of children, and that it's much more likely to lead to escalating violence; however, he didn't quite come to that conclusion with the first printing of this book in 1994, which had the problems he described. By that time both Alice Miller and Benjamin Spock had come to this conclusion. Benjamin Spock first became famous for being the "Baby doctor" shortly after World War Two but it wasn't until his revised edition in the eighties that he came out completely against it, shortly after Alice Miller did. However he did recommend alternative less punitive methods from the first printing of his most famous book "Baby and Child Care," which is still not available free online according to U-Penn Online Books Page although the eighth edition is available here for now, but why not make it available free to everyone, especially lower income people twenty years after Benjamin Spock's death?
Even though it's now virtually agreed among credible academics that early child abuse leads to much more violence later in life, including high rates of bullying, domestic violence, rape, murder and even support for wars based on lies that our politicians are always leading us into, the majority of the public is probably now nearly so well informed, and allowing free access to some of the best research along with more media coverage of credible research could do an enormous amount ot reduce the problem; and some of the most important decision s about reducing violence can be based on accurate science, instead of demagoguery and ideologies that won't stand up to basic scrutiny.
One of the simplest statistics that show how much problems early abuse cause is the murder rates in the states that still allow corporal punishment in schools compared to those that don't. The same nineteen states that allow corporal punishment in schools almost certainly also use it more in the home as well and in the years 2015-2016 combined they had an average murder rate of 5.98 per hundred thousand, while the thirty-one states plus the District of Columbia that no longer allow it in schools only had a murder rate of 4.54. (Source: FBI, additional details below) However the vast majority of the public isn't aware of this research and much more, and a large part of the problem is that instead of trying to provide the most credible research in the mass media, they provide the most profitable for the owners of media companies, and they use their consolidated control of the media to promote their own agenda on any given issue. Then on top of that, they use intellectual property laws to make sure that the vast majority of the public can only access a limited amount of the best research unless they pay for it, and some of it is outrageously priced, and often not promoted in locations where many people would even think to look.
One of the most fundamental principles of propaganda or indoctrination is that "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to; and this is much more effective if they can prevent opposing views from reaching a large audience. By allowing a fraction of 1% of the public to control the mass media and then restricting access to some of the most credible research to the rest of the public the mass media now has that enormous propaganda advantage, and they use it to manipulate those that aren't familiar with some of their indoctrination tactics.
If the vast majority of the public understood the full extent of damage done by early child abuse, including corporal punishment, there is little or no doubt that they would recognize that protecting children from violence would go a long way to reduce all forms of violence, and this should include banning corporal punishment in schools. However, since the same states that use corporal punishment in schools also use it more in homes, it would also be necessary to teach parents that passed this child rearing method down from one generation to another that there are other better ways. Simply making educational material available free, won't be enough, but it will help, and if additional counseling is available when ever possible it will help the most troubled parents reconsider these methods.
While checking for some recommended research for a recent article Protect Republican Woman And Children From Abuse! I went looking through some academic journals searching for the papers and found one Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths, that tries to charge people thirty-six dollars, which is a ridiculous price for these papers, which are typically between twenty and fifty print pages. The people in the academic world must know that this is not practical for people to pay when they go through an enormous number of these studies during their research, and if anyone from the grassroots level doing research thinks it might be worthwhile they'll be outraged when they see how little they get for their thirty-six dollars. They can often get better research for free at the library, but some of this is important, for one reason or another, but few will know what is worth paying for, assuming any of it is, until after they access it. Even if it's worth paying for it's not the most effective way to finance educational material.
Anyone familiar with copyright laws knows that the purpose of them is supposed to be to collect money for work put into it, and often on the free market, especially when electronic documents can be duplicated for free they try to find out the right balance between high prices, and low volume or low prices and high volume. However in this case the price is so absurd that few if any people are going to be willing to pay it, so this price is almost certainly not designed to maximize income, but to control who has access to educational material. As Aaron Swartz might say this kind of pricing is designed to keep "children in the Global South" from accessing it, and it also deprives students in many of the abandoned inner cities that have the highest rates of poverty and violence from accessing it, assuming they have the critical thinking skills to understand it, which many of them might not, but many others, with help from more educated advisers, can quickly learn how to sort through some of these documents, and recognize the leading causes of violence.
These high prices are also designed to keep students from studying it, until the bureaucrats controlling the education process decide it's appropriate for them to read it, and in many cases that isn't until they take out enormous amounts of loans and are heavy in debt in an education system that is more concerned with controlling education that providing it in the most efficient manner possible. If they wanted students to have an opportunity to get the most effective education possible they could allow them to access some of their course material before they began studying at college, in some cases even in high school so they might be better prepared when they do get to college, but by using these rigged methods to control the distribution of this educational material they're demonstrating that they're more concerned about controlling it than allowing people to help themselves with their own education when possible.
Of course, these copyright laws are designed to finance research, however when the cost of distributing it for free is dropping steadily, thanks to computer and internet technology, and the cost of suppressing educational material from those that don't have permission to access it is rising steadily due to the same technology, it should be obvious that we need to seek alternative means to finance research. A close look at how the academic world works often indicates that they already found some ways to finance research besides copyright, and I'll come up with a couple more ideas below, but there should be no doubt that if we can finance one war after another based on lies, and prison and court systems that are housing more people than any other country in the world, except Seychelles, which only has 100,000 people, then we can find a way to fund research on the causes of violence and how to prevent them. Europe has already done this and indicated that by funding better education and child care that they can dramatically reduce violence, especially in some states that ban corporal punishment both in schools and at home, and have murder rates that are often below one per 100,000, less than one-fifth of the United States.
This is also demonstrated in stories about how funds are intentionally withheld from poorer communities, especially minorities as indicated in the following article:
Many people that are reasonably comfortable, and rely on the traditional media for their information, might think that we have fair opportunities to advance up the economic ladder, in this country; however the people that live in many of these low income cities no damn well that they have little or no opportunities to get a well paying job and that one way or another the economic system is rigged against them, even if they don't understand how. They might think caste systems like India has been trying to abandon, or apartheid systems, that South Africa supposedly abandoned after their limited and incomplete "Truth commissions" are only happening in other countries; however it doesn't take a lot of research to learn otherwise, assuming they want to learn. While reviewing murder rates for a series of articles about causes of violence I found that there are about one hundred and twenty five cities in this country which have more than twice the national murder rates, in some cases six to ten times as high. Some of the larger cities, like Chicago or Philadelphia, almost certainly have many wealthier neighborhoods where the murder rates are much lower, which would mean that the poorer neighborhoods have even higher rates to bring the average up to about 17 or 22 city wide.
The push for Charter Schools is a major part of corporate efforts to increase their control over the education process for the working class as well, and as I reported in Is Push For Charter Schools Increasing Murder Rates? sixteen of the cities with the highest concentration of Charter Schools are all in cities with above average murder rates, and most of them are in cities with more than double the national average, often much more. Diane Raqvitch has been reporting much more on this including one article about Massachusetts: The Waltons Won’t Take “No” for An Answer 09/27/2018 showing how wealthy people spent an enormous amount of money advertising and lobbying to remove the cap on Charter Schools in Massachusetts but failed miserably when the only cities that voted in favor of this initiative were in wealthy cities that didn't expect or want these Charter Schools in their own towns.
Jonathan Kozol has also been reporting on unjustifiable spending differences on working class communities compared to wealthy ones for decades, the best of his work may still be "Savage Inequalities" where he exposed how an enormous amount of money was spent on legal fees and lobbying, not to improve education, but to avoid doing so. If these legal funds and advertising were spent on education instead of suppressing education they could go along way to reducing the problem, and additional savings from lower demand for prisons would further reduce the problem, clearly indicating that they're more concerned with controlling education so it's only available when it suits their purposes than providing it in the most effective manner possible. Kozol also reported on San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which virtually overturned Brown v. Board of Education, however the traditional media almost never mentions this while the keep reminding the public about the Brown case as if it was the solution to the problem. The San Antonio decision was written by Lewis Powell, who was also the author of the infamous "Powell Memo" which shows that he had an overwhelming bias in favor of large corporations and never should have been allowed to sit on the Supreme Court, yet he also decided Ingraham v. Wright, which allowed corporal punishment to continue to be allowed in schools even though it was about a child that was seriously injured by it, and there's been an enormous amount of evidence since then to show how much damage it does, yet the media refuses to report in in a high profile manner and it remains allowed in nineteen states, which as I said often have among the highest murder rates. Lewis Powell and other business leaders were far more concerned about controlling education and children of the working class than they ever were about educating them to learn how to stand up for their rights.
There's little if any doubt that many politicians, media pundits, businessmen, lobbyists, or the most influential people from the academic world including deans that control decisions about intellectual property, live in the most dangerous of these cities or neighborhoods. This means that the people making decisions about the economic, social and democratic system aren't the ones paying the price for their bad decisions.
The "intellectual property" laws that are designed to control the educational information available to the majority of the public aren't limited to copyright, they also include trade secrecy laws, non-disclosure laws and more that the vast majority of the public knows little or nothing about. Recent high profile examples of these laws include contractual agreement that are literally designed to make it illegal to expose crimes, believe it or not, which should be so obviously wrong that it's hard to imagine why the public hasn't demanded that they be outlawed immediately. Several members of Congress settled accusations of sexual harassment with tax payer money and as the media and Jackie Speier pointed out the forced the victims, assuming the accusations are justified, to sign a non-disclosure agreement banning them from informing the public that law makers have been involved in sexual assault allegations. Donald Trump also paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover up his alleged affairs.
Now that they've been made public, Donald Trump and several of the members of congress that have been named publicly have declared that they paid them out as nuisance claims, even though they claim they didn't have the affairs or commit sexual harassment or possibly even rape. Many people are skeptical of some of these denials, especially when the politicians making them often can't keep their stories straight, however this means that these non-disclosure laws are designed to either cover up illegal sexual harassment activities, or possibly rape, or they're designed to cover successful extortion attempts. Thanks to these absurd laws we have no way of knowing how many more lawmakers used tax payer money to cover up their sexual activities, or if some of them were potentially used for blackmail or extortion, that could conceivably even impacted their votes on important issues. Jackie Speier deserves credit for drawing attention to these outrageous laws and trying to change them, even if she hasn't succeeded; however, when asked if she would be willing to disclose the names of additional lawmakers that make settlements even though she was trying to change these laws and there's nothing respectable about laws designed to cover up crimes or potential threats to the democratic process, she declined saying that it would be illegal and while the laws are in place she would "respect" them.
However, these non-disclosure agreements are almost certainly a minuscule fraction of the contracts designed to prevent people from understanding how the economic and political system has been turned into an incredibly corrupt tragedy and farce, including trade secrecy laws which are designed to cover up psychological manipulation of children by advertisers as Susan Linn child psychologist and author of "Consuming Kids," Juliet Schor economist and sociologist and author of "Born to Buy" and Professor Roy Fox author of "Harvesting Minds" have pointed out. They exposed how some psychologists or advertising executives have been researching child behavior from the cradle and how they begin targeting them with advertising non-stop, now often even in schools, long before they develop critical thinking skills.
There have been plenty of stories about kids being killed for sneakers that they thought were worth two hundred dollars thanks to some of this deceptive advertising research so their should be little or no doubt that this is a contributing cause of violence. I haven't done what would be considered a scientific study on the subject, however when you see enormous volume of crime stealing petty Christmas decoration and Black Friday violence, it doesn't take a genius to see the connection, assuming people actually want to see the connection. One of the things Schor and Linn exposed was the "Girls Intelligence Agency" which recruits cool girls to market merchandise to their friends or help study how to manipulate them, which could potentially have a major negative relationship on their friendship once some of them realize they're being used. And there should be little or no doubt that this involves massive amounts of fraud increasing poverty, which also increases violence and crime, so it provide additional indirect impacts on crime as well. However a large portion of this is a trade secret and the portion that these researchers exposed gets little or no media coverage from the industries that are in the business of selling the ads targeting children.
One thing that is almost never considered by most people, is that our media is funded by advertising expenses, which are passed on to consumers. They don't maximize profits by providing us with honest advertising, they do so by finding the most effective methods of deceiving the consumer as possible than add the costs of this research and ads to the price of goods, which also funds the media. However just because consumers indirectly finance our current media system, that doesn't mean they have any influence over them; instead it gives the media an incentive to help their clients deceive consumers, which is essentially a hidden propaganda tax, levied by corporations instead of the government.
As I reported in Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime trade secrecy laws are also used to cover up activities from union busting consultants, however some of it has been disclosed any way, including confessions of Marty Jay Levitt a former union busting consultant who disclosed many of the dirty tricks they've used and how it lead to increased violence at coal mines, and could conceivable also lead to additional violence elsewhere, including at Walmart, which is infamous for it's union busting tactics and As I've reported repeatedly in several articles including Walmart’s crime problem, Rolling Back Safety more than prices? trade secrecy laws are also used to hide research to study how complacent consumers are when corporations gradually reduce the quantity of products in every day items while slowly increase the prices, and to hide sweatshop conditions and an enormous amount of additional epidemic levels of fraud that often go unnoticed as the quality of life for working class people is gradually reduced creating unjustifiable income inequality. These secrecy laws are basically designed to help wealthy people steal, and that indirectly contributes to traditional blue collar crime.
Susan Linn also pointed out how coal companies impacted the educational material that was provided in one of the schools that was funded with help from advertising, and ironically as I pointed out in "Frank Luntz confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients" Frank Luntz also exposed additional trade secrecy laws designed to keep secrets about his studies on how to manipulate voters to support candidates that oppose the best interests of the working class. It's hard to imagine why he wrote "Words That Work" PDF since it obviously looks to me like a virtual confession, even though it includes some incredibly bad spin designed to justify his manipulation tactics. Ironically the voters he targets primarily are conservatives that don't seem to recognize that he's studying how to manipulate them, but other political operatives do the same things for Democratic candidates including James Carville and George Stephanopoulos who came up with Clinton's rapid response team in 1992. Frank Luntz admits that some of his additional research not in his book is protected by non-disclosure contracts; however he provided enough material in his book to show that he studies how to manipulate people to elect candidates that turn around and serve the interests of their campaign donors instead of voters.
The recent leaks of the DNC or Podesta E-mails also exposed how they political establishment is using trade secrecy laws to hide how they corrupt the political system. Even before they came out, those that thought it through recognized that the media was rigging elections by simply refusing to cover honest candidates that don't support their agenda; however when the leaks exposed how the Democratic Party was rigging the election people were, of course, outraged; but then, amazingly, the Democratic Party began arguing they were the victim, and that they had the right to manipulate the public in secrecy, and that the only crime was that their manipulation was exposed. Ironically a surprising number of people don't recognize that the Republicans and Donald Trump are doing the same things and that the sincere candidates are the ones that never get any media coverage at all, which is unacceptable in a democratic country. This enables the oligarchs to ensure that the most effective research on preventing crime isn't discussed at the national or statewide level, although local levels with informed people do implement some successful reforms in some cases.
This is especially true when it impacts corporate profits.
One of the most brazen examples of this is the insurance industry, especially when they try to sell life insurance for babies, often marketing it as a "College Plan," however as I pointed out in Killing Kids For Insurance Is Semi-Routine, not only is this an obvious fraud, where the more they spent on advertising or lobbying the less they had to pay claims, which was exposed by Helaine Olen and Chuck Jaffe but over thirty desperate and emotionally unstable parents were implicated in killing over fifty children, partly as a result of the incentive provided by life insurance that never should have been sold in the first place.
When I wrote the first of at least half a dozen articles about epidemic levels of insurance fraud incorporated into the current system, Gerber Life was advertising a lot on television for this incredibly obvious scam, including even on major news shows like This Week With George Stephanopoulos, and shortly after that there were two high profile cases in Georgia where two toddlers were killed with possible insurance motives. In both cases after a few months the majority of the online news stories about them stopped mentioning the possible insurance motives, although when they allowed comments there were occasionally people that reminded others of this. One of them was a hot car death, and the other one wound up convicting a black teen after a witness that was given a financial reward for his testimony testified against him, despite the fact that the adult daughter of the mother claimed she had emotional problems and both the mother and father of the toddler tested positive for gunshot residue, leading many people to suspect it might have been a wrongful conviction. Within a couple years after that TV commercials for Gerber Life became much less common, but they still have an enormous amount of online advertising and come up with the annual Gerber Baby contest to pick a spokes baby for their insurance policies. They never mentioned, that I know of, that they might have scaled back on their advertising because of outrage, but it seems like a reasonable possibility. Regardless of how hard they push for insurance in this scam there should be major doubts about the integrity that tries to prey on uneducated lower income parents and whether or not such a company should be trusted to provide baby food or anything for children.
Epidemic levels of fraud by insurance companies isn't limited to children, although that may seem like the most shocking, and there are at least three to four times as many adults killed with a potential insurance every single year, and as I pointed out in Insurance Executives Profit By Inciting Murder Occasionally Paying Killers, there have been dozens if not hundreds of examples where people really did get away with murder and collected the insurance money, at least for a little while, often not getting caught for years or decades and including at least eight times where insurance companies paid out claims over one million dollars to people that may have been implicated in the murder, and dozens more that were over half a million. One of these million dollar payouts was a friend of Marla Maples and her former husband Donald Trump, another victim was a political ally of George Bush, and a third victim for these million dollar pay outs was a former professional basketball player.
However there's little or no research to expose how much these insurance incentives are increasing violence, and what ever research that is available on the subject is often done by people with ties to the insurance industry, with an incentive to cover it up, or they can't get any media attention. In past reviews based on killers cited on Murderpedia, I've found that at least 5% of their entries if not close to or more than 6% have a potential insurance motive, almost all involving life insurance, although a handful might be murders to cover up other scams or accidents that weren't intended to kill anyone but did any way. There's no guarantee, for now that this is statistically representative, but if it is it comes to about 750 murders each year, if it's not it could be even higher or if they do over represent insurance related incidents it's still virtually guaranteed that there are over a hundred murders every year if not three or four hundred.
That doesn't mean that insurance was the sole contributing factor in many or any of these murders, but there's little or no doubt that it was a contributing factor in many that might not have been committed at all if it weren't for the insurance. However the insurance system that we have is based almost entirely on fraud, where the more money they spend on adverting or lobbying the less money they have available to pay out claims, especially with their enormous CEO salaries, profit margins and other bureaucratic expenses, so by increasing poverty as a result of this fraud, sanctioned by the political establishment, they indirectly increase another contributing factor to violence.
If you search the background of most, if not all of these killers there'll almost certainly be additional evidence of early child abuse that led to them to become violent as adults. Psychologist Dorothy Otnow Lewis claimed that every one that she researched in depth turned up additional evidence of an abusive upbringing, and James Garbarino also indicated that all the child killers he dealt with came from abusive homes. Even though Benjamin Spock was focusing on childhood behavioral problems when he wrote the following over seventy years ago he indicated that they understood how important early child rearing tactics are when it come to preventing violence:
Seventy years after Dr. Spock wrote this and decades after mountains of additional research has piled up adding to this, there's little or no discussion about this in the mass media. Occasionally the Democrats pretend to support scientific research about one subject or another more than the Republicans, and since the Republicans do such an incredibly bad job supporting science, this seems legitimate; however when it comes to get tough on Crime policies, instead of helping the best academics educate the majority of the public about how to reduce violence by increasing early child care and providing at risk parents with the help they need they often try to compete with the Republicans sounding tough and intimidating, except on a few examples at the grassroots level when informed members of the public speak out against them, but then the media refuses to cover this. James Garbarino has recommended a home visitor program, which is very cost effective, to advise at risk parents on how to help raise their children. this is one of many successful programs that have been proven to work, yet there are no politicians willing to champion them and and push for funds to implement them, nor are the media pundits willing to report on them. Instead they cut programs like this, pretending to save money, even though the research indicates that they result in much higher court and prison costs.
There's no doubt that our current economic and political system is a major contributing cause of violence, although it's almost certainly not as important as early child abuse leading to escalating violence later in life; however, one of the other biggest contributing factors is almost certainly abandoned cities with a dysfunctional education and economic system, and our economic system is a major cause for that.
First of all we need to acknowledge that our political system, has broken down and they're not even doing a good job pretending to represent the majority of the public. they've demonstrated this by providing an insane amount of obsession coverage that enabled two political nominees to run for president while both were under FBI investigation. There's no way either of them could have won their nominations if they didn't have an enormous amount of institutional support, despite all the rhetoric about Donald Trump standing up to the establishment, which just happened to give him the coverage they refuse to provide to honest candidates. If the current political establishment wanted to do a better job they already would have, so it should be clear that if there's going to be major reform on a national basis there needs to be a massive grassroots uprising, or something else that will bring in major changes.
If there is such a movement they're going to need a lot of well informed people helping to make it successful, but even if it doesn't come right away, there's some indication that some improvements can be made at the grassroots level, and in some cases they already are.
There's no doubt that we need to stop allowing a minuscule fraction of one percent of the wealthiest people in this country to control all the major institutions without much if any accountability to the general public. One solution that Robert McChesney and John Nichols floated a few years ago with the help of Dean and Randy Baker was to help fund alternative media through a “Citizens News Voucher,” however before you object to media funded by citizens, keep in mind we already fund the media indirectly through a portion of the sales that we buy where some of it is used to pay for ads, so keep in mind, unlike the current system the following idea allows citizens to influence the media and hold them accountable:
This idea was written to provide additional funding for alternative media outlets that are already doing a better job than the mainstream media; however it clearly hasn't gotten very far, because no one has pushed it yet. It may continue to sit there until more people pay attention to it and try to push it eventually finding a politicians that might mention it on the campaign trail forcing the mainstream media to either cover the discussion or provide additional evidence of their efforts to suppress media reform by spinning it or smearing it, as they often have in the past.
This could also be used to fund copyrights or additional research into a variety of subjects including on how to reduce violence. In many cases there are already a lot of alternative media outlets seeking donations or other sources for funds, with limited degrees of success, however people that check some of these outlets already know they're far more credible than the mainstream media, although people need to be cautious about some of the extreme alternatives, including Alex Jones, the medias current favorite punching bag, which I usually don't like either, however there have been a few exceptions where even Alex Jones has done better job than traditional media.
One of the obvious rebuttals that will come up if this idea gets more attention is that they'll refer to it as that old fashioned evil they call "Socialism," which has been demonized for decades. However, whether Socialism is as bad as they claim depends on how it's implemented, since either "the devil is in the details," or "the most effective solution could be in the details," assuming we sort through them well enough. Many countries in Europe are partially socialist, and they provide much better education, child care and have a better quality of life and much lower murder rates, so Socialism isn't always bad. Besides, as Noam Chomsky and others often accurately say, our economic has socialized the risks and privatized the profits, providing massive subsidies for wealthy campaign contributions, so the people calling Socialism evil are trying to distract from the fact that they support it as long as it's rigged in their favor.
This isn't much of a start but if there is major reforms coming and more progressives elected then we'll need to start working on more ideas to begin with so they'll have something to help push, and along with exposing all the corporate scams this could help contribute to more solutions. While preparing this and on at least one or two previous occasions I inquired with several authors about non-disclosure agreements and if they're used in copyright contracts, or if they might consider alternative funding for their work, most of them haven't replied yet, even though they were involved in research that is designed to reform one subject or another to reduce violence or reform media; however I did get one reply from Sherry Hamby, who seems open to suggestions even though she may be skeptical. Skepticism is justified since little is likely to change unless it has a lot of support, but if something does change the results could eventually be enormous.
Professor Hamby says that she's already trying to make her research available through "a variety of outlets, including some open-access," (her work on her website) which a lot of good researchers are also doing, and is helpful; however, most people probably aren't aware where to find these open-access sources that have the best research, often including myself, so until there's more effective media reform, we need more efforts at the grassroots level to spread the word. She also said, "Most copyright agreements are for perpetuity (last forever). Sometimes if the publisher takes your book out of print, the rights revert to the author. Copyright agreements don't usually have nondisclosure clauses. The main place you might see nondisclosure agreements is when you review grants, to protect the applicants."
I'm a little skeptical about whether she knows about some of the most outrageous non-disclosure agreements, especially since we already know that congress has been using them to cover up lawsuits that might have impacted their legislative performance and corrupted their decisions; and it's highly unlikely they would want more people knowing about the most outrageous of these non-disclosure agreements than they have to. This is especially true when it comes to academic fields that attract researchers that are as concerned about solving social problems as they are about making lots of money, including those that study how to reduce violence, or in Professor Hamby's case rape, or expose deceptive advertising like professor Schor, or many other researchers in fields that aren't primarily focused on maximizing profits regardless of negative externalities. If they let some of these academics know about some of the worst uses for trade secrecy laws, many of them would inevitably leak it more often.
Professor Hamby provided a link to publicly disclosed APA Forms for Journals Publication including copyright forms, which are disclosed, however, only a small fraction of the public would even think to look at it. I have no hard evidence to show that there's anything more to it than that; however, Robert McChesney, Ben Bagdakian and Lawrence Lessig have written extensively about how politicians have been collecting an enormous amount of campaign money from publishing and media companies, and coincidence or not, they've passed a series of laws escalating for decades gradually shifting control away from authors and to large institutions controlling who gets published and promoted and who doesn't. McChesney has reported on how they often give preferential treatment to those that support their ideological or financial agenda. Professor Hamby claims most agreements last forever, or as copyright law indicates, seventy years after the death of the author, assuming they don't extend it again, which they've already done repeatedly. However they didn't always do this and as Murray Straus indicated there have been problems during the merger frenzy and companies that used to be reputable within the academic community for promoting good research may now be more increased in controlling academic work to increase profits.
When Murray Straus was alive he put most of his work available free on line at Murray A. Straus articles on his home page, (Way-back copy) presumably because he wanted it freely available for all to take advantage of. Unfortunately UNH is no longer maintaining it so it's only available for now on the way-back machine. Shortly before he passed away I wrote him about Steven Pinker's book "Better Angels of Our Nature" which included a citation of him I felt sure he would disagree with, and he did responding by sending me a copy of what he calls "the Legitimate Violence Spillover theory of crime," which was written partly in response to Pinker's book; but in addition to that he also sent me a free digital copy of "The Primordial Violence" which I later realized wasn't available free on-line. I can't say for 100% certainty, but I suspect the most likely reason why he did this was because he knew he had limited time to send out copies of his work and he wanted to do so. Thanks to current laws, which seem to have abandoned the best interests of authors or the public in favor of publishing and media companies he may have been forced to sign a long term contract that would last seventy years after his death to get some promotion for his book to spread it in the short term but would prevent people from accessing it free for decades to come if not over a hundred years, assuming publishing companies have their way.
This is what leads me to suspect that even though I don't doubt Professor Hamby's claim that NDAs are used in publishing agreements with scholars concerned about the well being of society and willing to balance it with their own financial well being, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that authors promoting pro-corporate ideology might be more inclined to provide propaganda that puts profits ahead of addressing legitimate social research to reduce violence. One example of this is Frank Luntz, who's book is available free on-line, with or without permission, and it has been taken down from previous locations. It appears as if his publishing companies might be playing "whack-a-mole" with so called pirates distributing his book for free. In the case of Luntz, I don't have a lot of sympathy since he's worth about twenty-six million dollars or more, because he helps billionaires study how to manipulate voters so they will vote for candidates that oppose the best interests of the majority of the public. In other words, he's a government authorized thief! But the same doesn't go for those that are looking for a much more reasonable balance, which I'm sure includes many good researchers including Straus, Hamby, Garbarino, Coloroso, Linn, Schor and more; which is why I suspect that the people distributing material for free, that the government and media often refer to as "pirates" might actually be doing more to force a solution to this problem than the media that refuses to even discuss it.
We already have reason to know that it's standard operating procedure to require non-disclosure agreements for wrongful deaths, injuries or many other civil cases, including Tracy Morgan, who initially expressed an enormous amount of outrage when he was hit by a Walmart truck, but after he settled with a non-disclosure agreement he was talking about how they treated him so well and indicated he was extremely happy with Walmart, which is very unusual for people settling lawsuits with Walmart. This was followed up by another lawsuit because the insurance company initially refused to pay their share of this lawsuit, which was also eventually settled with another non-disclosure agreement. Even without inside knowledge it doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened, they gave Tracy Morgan a much better settlement than they ever would have provided for anyone that isn't a celebrity because it would have been devastating to their reputation if he drew attention to their typical practices. This isn't just speculation, the vast majority of lawsuits against Walmart don't get nearly as much media attention but they routinely fight them tooth and nail, and public disclosures are enough to know they treated him very differently because he was a celebrity.
There's no doubt that trade secrecy laws or other intellectual property laws are being used to hide an enormous amount of corporate fraud, which is why one of my previous suggestions for reforming democracy including increased reliance on ballot questions, since politicians routinely demonstrate they're not interested in supporting some laws with wide support among voters and came up with Ten ballot questions of my own that included one that banned all trade secrecy laws unless they could provide justification for some of them, without exception for epidemic levels of fraud, psychological manipulation of the public, activities that put the public at risk or any research that is funded by taxpayers. This should have been a no-brainer, which would have banned the settlements for sexual harassment lawsuits with tax payer money; however they've demonstrated that lawmakers don't seem to want to be accountable to the law.
Another one of my previous ballot questions involved increasing spending for schools and day care every time they increased spending for prisons. There's no doubt that this is a much more effective way of preventing violence from escalating, and even though the financial expenses shouldn't be as important as the social expenses, it's much cheaper to, and would save an enormous amount of money. Claims that they save money by cutting these kinds of programs are based on ideological extremist beliefs, not on the most credible research; and if we had a media establishment that was willing to report on educational research most of the public would know this!
The average murder rates for the nineteen states that still allow it in 2015-6 was 5.98 per hundred thousand; the average murder rate in states that don't allow it in schools is only 4.54 during the same two years. These averages were based on FBI crime rates 2015/2016 includes population estimates The nineteen states states that still allow it includes NC, SC, Ga., Fla., Al, Mi, La., Ak., Tn., Ky, Mo, Ind., Tx, Ok, Ks, Co, Wy, Ariz, and Ind. The estimated population for these nineteen states combined in 2015 was 133,322,590; in 2016, 134,800,581; total number of murders in 2015 was 7,589; in 2016, 8450; the rest of the country including the District of Columbia, but not territories like Puerto Rico had an estimated population of 2015: 187,574,028; in 2016, 188,326,932; murders: 2015: 8,294 2016: 8,790. The average murder rate in states without corporal punishment in 2015 was 4.42, in 2016 it was 4.67; the average rate for those with corporal punishment in 2015 was 5.69; in 2016 6.27.
The following are a few related articles:
Correlation Between High Rates of Corporal Punishment in Public Schools and Social Pathologies By John Guthrow, December 2002
Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care 1966 edition PDF
Dr. Benjamin Spock comments on spanking (1989) In the eighties Benjamin Spock reversed himself on supporting minimal amounts of spanking when other options don't work to oppose it all the time; and additional researchers from many other researchers since then has indicated that this is a better alternative, and that child rearing experts like Dr. Spock or Barbara Coloroso have come up with better alternatives.
Copyright violators are thought criminals
The following are some of my past articles about contributing causes to crime and how to prevent them:
Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows
Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?
How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?
States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations
Teach a soldier to kill and he just might
The tragedy of gambling politics in United States
How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime?
Politics, not technology, caused botched executions
Troy, Cameron, Gary all innocent? And executed?
Democrats do a bad job on crime; Republicans and the Media are worse!!
Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit
Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders
Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime
Obama’s Opposition to Corporal Punishment Needs to be Finished by Grassroots
Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation Should Become a Priority Again!
Prevention of violence has to address all causes, not just Guns!
Growing Evidence Of Mega-Church Fraud Violence & Support For War?
Apartheid States of America
Is Push For Charter Schools Increasing Murder Rates?
Insurance Executives Profit By Inciting Murder Occasionally Paying Killers
Media Glorify Themselves While Still Refusing to Cover Causes of Violence!