Monday, October 29, 2018
False Flag Bombs, Incredible Incompetence or Both?
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