From the Archives / Superstition, Mass Murder, Psychosis

Why am I “exposing” my thinking from many years ago? Because the frustration of “dealing with” social humans was so debilitating, that I turned to a “new” asset – writing, in order to make my unconscious internal conflict something that I could “analyze” in terms of the social structure that mystified me.

That is, I discovered that nature had equipped me with thinking skills that could unlock the prison of human self-created misery. It’s ironic, I suppose, that finally “finding” that Asperger people, by whatever “name” one calls them, do exist, and that I am one of them, has actually “softened” my opinion of social typicals; modern humans are products of their brain type and obsessive social orientation, due to “evolutionary” trends and directions that they cannot control. The same can be said for neurodiverse and neurocomplex Homo sapiens: adaptation is guided by the environment; adaptations can be temporarily positive, but fundamentally self-destructive. “Being” Asperger, and exploring what that entails, has gradually allowed me to “be myself” – and to gain insight into the advantages of cognitive detachment in understanding “humanity” – which contrary to psychologists, REQUIRES empathy – empathy that is learned and discovered by experience, and not by “magic”.  


From the archives:

Nature exists with or without us.

The Supernatural Domain is delusional projection; therefore, it is prudent to assume that any and all human ideas and assumptions are incorrect until proven otherwise! 

The supernatural realm is a product of the human mind – and most of its contents have no correlation with physical reality. As for the content that does correspond, mathematics supplies the descriptive language that makes it possible for us to predict events and create technology that actually works. Whatever jump-started human brain power, the results have been spectacular – from hand axes to planetary probes, from clay pots to cluster bombs. Designing simple tools is fairly easy; a thrown spear either travels true or it doesn’t. Improvements can be made and easily tested until “it works.”

Human beings not only learn from each other, but we observe and copy the behavior of other animals. Useful knowledge can be extracted from nonliving sources, such as the ability of water to do work.

Responses to the environment that belong to the category of conscious thought, and which are expressed by means of language (words and symbols), I would identify as The Supernatural Realm – a kind of warehouse or holding area for ideas waiting to be tested in the physical environment. Problems arise when we fail to test ideas! 

The ability to imagine objects that simply cannot exist, such as human bodies with functional wings attached, is remarkable as a source of useful imagination and dangerous mistakes. Ideas that produce aqueducts, sanitation, medical treatments, or aircraft correlate to conditions of physical reality, and therefore move out of fantasy and into a body of real knowledge. This system of observation, along with trial and error, and the building of a catalogue of useful environmental skills is what has made human adaptation to nearly all environments on earth possible. Each generation has capitalized on the real world techniques of the ancestors, but what about the content of the supernatural that has no value as a description of reality and which if tested, fails miserably?

Ironically this lack of correlation to reality may be what makes some ideas impossible to pry loose from the majority of human minds. Some supernatural ideas can easily piggyback onto acts of force: the religion of the conqueror needs no explanation nor justification. It is imposed and brutally enforced. The fact that the human brain can accommodate mutually impossible universes leads to fantastic possibilities and enormous problems. Without self-awareness and discipline, the result is a continual battle over ideas that are utterly insubstantial, but which are pursued with the furor of blind emotion.

There is widespread belief in the supernatural as an actual place in the sky, under the earth, or all around us, existing in a dimension in which none of the familiar parameters of reality exist, and that it is inhabited by powerful beings that magically take on the physical form of people, ghosts, animals, space aliens, meddlers, mind readers, winged messengers, law givers, deliverers of punishment – who stage car wrecks (then pick and choose who will be injured or die in them), killer tornados, and volcanic eruptions. These spirits prefer to communicate via secret signs and codes which have become the obsession of many. These disembodied beings monitor and punish bad thoughts, hand out winning lottery tickets to those who pray for them, but alternately refuse “wins” to those who are equally needy and prayerful. They demand offerings of flowers, food, blood, and money and millions of lives sacrificed in wars.  

More people believe in a universe where nothing works, or can possibly work, except through the temperamental will of unseen inflated humans, than understand the simple principle of cause and effect. This failure, in a time of space probes that successfully navigate the solar system, indicates that something is functionally delusional in the human brain. The ability of our big brain to investigate the world, to imagine possible action, and to test ideas for working results is remarkable, but our inability to discard concepts that do not reflect how the world works, is bizarre and dangerous. Powerful technologies are applied without understanding how they work. The dire consequences are real. Superstition is the mistaken assignment of cause and effect. The election of leaders who are automated by supernatural ideas, and our frustration when they cannot produce results, is a disaster. The physical processes that drive reality trump all human belief. The destructive power of the richest nation on earth is handed over to a leader without a technical or science-based education, on the claim that his intentions are good and those of the enemy are evil. Does this not seem inadequate?

In the supernatural state of mind, intent guarantees results: Cause, effect, and consequences are nowhere to be seen.

Just where does sanity exist? is a question that still awaits a functional answer. As ideas are vetted and removed to a rational catalogue, which in the U.S. has become the domain of science and engineering, the supernatural realm becomes enriched in fantasy.

Unless children are taught to distinguish between the two, they merely add to a population that is increasingly unable to function. Countries that we arrogantly label as backward embrace science and engineering education. Why is that?



Recent History of Socio-Political Anthropology Battles / Important

From Natural History Magazine:

Remembering Stephen Jay Gould

Human evolution was not a special case of anything.

By Ian Tattersall

For long-time readers of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould needs no introduction. His column, “This View of Life,” was a mainstay of the magazine, starting in January 1974 with “Size and Shape” and concluding with the 300th installment, “I Have Landed,” in the December 2000/January 2001 issue. What made his columns so popular was not just Gould’s range of chosen topics, but also the way he regularly allowed himself to be carried away on any tangent that he found interesting.

Gould died on May 20, 2002. Last spring, on the tenth anniversary of his death, I was invited to join other scholars at a commemorative meeting in Venice organized by the Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti in collaboration with the Università Ca’ Foscari. It fell to me, as an anthropologist, to talk about Gould’s intellectual legacy to anthropology. Gould was, of course, anything but a primate specialist. But as it happens, in 1974, the year Gould started writing “This View of Life,” he and I were both invited to attend a specialized meeting on “Phylogeny of the Primates: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” Even at that early stage in his career, I learned, the reach of his writings had broadened well beyond his realms of invertebrate paleontology (he was a fossil-snail expert) and evolutionary theory. He came to address the roles of ontogeny (development of the individual) and neoteny (the evolutionary retention of juvenile traits in adults) in human evolution. What I personally found most interesting, however, was his preprint for the conference, which contained, among much else, a virtuoso canter through the history of human evolutionary studies. He effortlessly displayed mastery of a huge literature on a scale that many professional paleoanthropologists fail to achieve in entire academic lifetimes.

Despite a paucity of strictly technical contributions, there can be no doubt that Gould’s influence on anthropology, and on paleoanthropology in particular, was truly seminal. Foremost among such influences was his 1972 collaboration with Niles Eldredge in developing and publicizing the notion of “punctuated equilibria,” the view that species typically remain little changed during most of their geological history, except for rapid events when they may split to give rise to new, distinct species. This breakthrough enabled paleoanthropologists, like other paleontologists, to treat the famous “gaps” in the fossil record as information, a reflection of how evolution actually proceeded.

Similarly, it was Gould who, in collaboration with Yale paleontologist Elisabeth S. Vrba (then at the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria, South Africa), emphasized that an anatomical or behavioral trait that evolved to serve one function could prove a handy adaptation for an entirely unanticipated one—and that the term exaptation was a better name for this phenomenon than preadaptation, which implied some kind of inherent tendency for a species to follow a certain evolutionary path. Anthropologists were forced to recognize exaptation as an essential theme in the history of innovation in the human family tree.

Speaking of trees, I am convinced that Gould’s most significant contribution to paleoanthropology was his insistence, from very early on, that the genealogy of human evolution took the form of a bush with many branches, rather than a ladder, or simple sequence of ancestors and descendants. As he wrote in his April 1976 column, “Ladders, Bushes, and Human Evolution”:

“I want to argue that the ‘sudden’ appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. Evolution usually proceeds by “speciation”—the splitting of one lineage from a parental stock—not by the slow and steady transformation of these large parental stocks. Repeated episodes of speciation produce a bush.”

Before World War II, paleoanthropologists had overwhelmingly been human anatomists by background, with little interest in patterns of diversity in the wider living world. And having been trained largely in a theoretical vacuum, the postwar generation of paleoanthropologists was already exapted to capitulate when, at exact midcentury, the biologist Ernst Mayr told them to throw away nearly all the many names they had been using for fossil hominids. Mayr replaced this plethora, and the diversity it had suggested, with the idea that all fossil hominids known could be placed in a single sequence, from Homo transvaalensis to Homo erectus and culminating in Homo sapiens.

There was admittedly a certain elegance in this new linear formulation; but the problem was that, even in 1950, it was not actually supported by the material evidence. And new discoveries soon made not only most paleoanthropologists but even Mayr himself—grudgingly, in a footnote—concede that at least one small side branch, the so-called “robust” australopithecines, had indeed existed over the course of human evolution. But right up into the 1970s and beyond, the minimalist mindset lingered. Gould’s was among the first—and certainly the most widely influential —voices raised to make paleoanthropologists aware that there was an alternative.

In his “Ladders, Bushes, and Human Evolution” column, Gould declared that he wanted “to argue that Australopithecus, as we know it, is not the ancestor of Homo; and that, in any case, ladders do not represent the path of evolution.” At the time, both statements flatly contradicted received wisdom in paleoanthropology. And while in making the first of them I suspect that Gould was rejecting Australopithecus as ancestral to Homo as a matter of principle, his immediate rationale was based on the recent discovery, in eastern Africa, of specimens attributed to Homo habilis that were just as old as the South African australopithecines.

Later discoveries showed that Gould had been hugely prescient. To provide some perspective here: In 1950, Mayr had recognized a mere three hominid species. By 1993, I was able to publish a hominid genealogy containing twelve. And the latest iteration of that tree embraces twenty-five species, in numerous coexisting lineages. This was exactly what Gould had predicted. In his 1976 article he had written: “We [now] know about three coexisting branches of the human bush. I will be surprised if twice as many more are not discovered before the end of the century.”

Indeed, his impact on the paleoanthropological mindset went beyond even this, largely via his ceaseless insistence that human beings have not been an exception to general evolutionary rules. Before Gould’s remonstrations began, one frequently heard the term “hominization” bandied about, as if becoming human had involved some kind of special process that was unique to our kind. Gould hammered home the message that human evolutionary history was just like that of other mammals, and that we should not be looking at human evolution as a special case of anything.

Of course, Gould had ideas on particular issues in human paleontology as well, and he never shrank from using his Natural History bully pulpit to voice his opinions. Over the years he issued a succession of shrewd and often influential judgments on subjects as diverse as the importance of bipedality as the founding hominid adaptation; the newly advanced African “mitochondrial Eve”; hominid diversity and the ethical dilemmas that might be posed by discovering an Australopithecus alive today; sociobiology and evolutionary psychology (he didn’t like them); the relations between brain size and intelligence; neoteny and the retention of juvenile growth rates into later development as an explanation of the unusual human cranial form; and why human infants are so unusually helpless.

(Removed here; a narrative about the search for who had perpetrated the Piltdow Man hoax)

Gould’s devotion to the historically odd and curious, as well as his concern with the mainstream development of scientific ideas, is also well illustrated by his detailed account of the bizarre nineteenth-century story of Sarah “Saartjie” Baartman. Dubbed the “Hottentot Venus,” Baartman was a Khoisan woman from South Africa’s Western Cape region who was brought to Europe in 1810 and widely exhibited to the public before her death in 1815. Gould’s publicizing of the extraordinary events surrounding and following Baartman’s exhibition may or may not have contributed to the repatriation in 2002 of her remains from Paris to South Africa, where they now rest on a hilltop overlooking the valley in which she was born. But what is certain is that Gould’s interest in this sad case also reflected another of his long-term concerns, with what he called “scientific racism.”

Principally in the 1970s—when memories of the struggle for civil rights in the United States during the previous decade were still extremely raw—Gould devoted a long series of his columns to the subject of racism, as it presented itself in a whole host of different guises. In his very first year of writing for Natural History, he ruminated on the “race problem” both as a taxonomic issue, and in its more political expression in relation to intelligence. He even made the matter personal, with a lucid and deeply thoughtful demolition in Natural History of the purportedly scientific bases for discrimination against Jewish immigrants to America furnished by such savants as H. H. Goddard and Karl Pearson.

Gould also began his long-lasting and more specific campaign against genetic determinism, via a broadside against the conclusions of Arthur Jensen, the psychologist who had argued that education could not do much to level the allegedly different performances of various ethnic groups on IQ tests. And he began a vigorous and still somewhat controversial exploration of the historical roots of “scientific racism” in the work of nineteenth-century embryologists such as Ernst Haeckel and Louis Bolk.

But Gould’s most widely noticed contribution to the race issue began in 1978, with his attack in Science on the conclusions of the early-nineteenth century physician and craniologist Samuel George Morton, whom he characterized rather snarkily as a “self-styled objective empiricist.” In three voluminous works published in Philadelphia between 1839 and 1849—on Native American and ancient Egyptian skulls, and on his own collection of more than 600 skulls of all races—the widely admired Morton had presented the results of the most extensive study ever undertaken of human skulls. The main thrust of (Morton’s) study had been to investigate the then intensely debated question of whether the various races of humankind had a single origin or had been separately created. Morton opted for polygeny, or multiple origins, a conclusion hardly guaranteed to endear him to Gould. Along the way, Morton presented measurements that showed, in keeping with prevailing European and Euro-American beliefs on racial superiority, that Caucasians had larger brains than American “Indians,” who in turn had bigger brains than “Negroes” did. (Cranial-brain size DOES NOT correlate to intelligence)

After closely examining Morton’s data, Gould characterized the Philadelphia savant’s conclusions as “a patchwork of assumption and finagling, controlled, probably unconsciously, by his conventional a priori ranking (his folks on top, slaves on the bottom).” He excoriated Morton for a catalog of sins that included inconsistencies of criteria, omissions of both procedural and convenient kinds, slips and errors, and miscalculations. And although in the end he found “no indication of fraud or conscious manipulation,” he did see “Morton’s saga” as an “egregious example of a common problem in scientific work.” As scientists we are all, Gould asserted, unconscious victims of our preconceptions, and the “only palliations I know are vigilance and scrutiny.”

That blanket condemnation of past and current scientific practice was a theme Gould shortly returned to, with a vengeance, in his 1981 volume The Mismeasure of Man. Probably no book Gould ever wrote commanded wider attention than did this energetic critique of the statistical methods that had been used to substantiate one of his great bêtes noires, biological determinism. This was (is) the belief, as Gould put it, that “the social and economic differences between human groups—primarily races, classes, and sexes—arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology.”

We are still plagued by this pseudo-scientific “justification” of poverty and inequality; of misogyny and abuse of “lesser humans” by the Human Behavior Industries. Remember, this is very recent history, and the forces of social “control and abuse” are very much still with us.  

It is alarming that the revolution in DNA / genetic research has shifted the “means” of this abuse of human beings into a radical effort to “prove” that socially-created and defined “human behavior pathologies” are due to genetic determinism. The race is on to “prove” that genetic defects, rather than hidden social engineering goals, underlie “defective behavior and thinking” as dictated by closet eugenicists. Racism and eugenics are being pursued in the guise of “caring, treating and fixing” socially “defective” peoples. Genetic engineering of embryos is already in progress

SEE POST August 11, 2017: First Human Embryos ‘Edited’ in U.S. / 7 billion humans not consulted

In Mismeasure, Gould restated his case against Morton at length, adding to the mix a robust rebuttal of methods of psychological testing that aimed at quantifying “intelligence” as a unitary attribute. One of his prime targets was inevitably Arthur Jensen, the psychologist he had already excoriated in the pages of Natural History for Jensen’s famous conclusion that the Head Start program, designed to improve low-income children’s school performance by providing them with pre-school educational, social, and nutritional enrichment, was doomed to fail because the hereditary component of their performance—notably that of African American children—was hugely dominant over the environmental one. A predictable furor followed the publication of Mismeasure, paving the way for continuing controversy during the 1980s and 1990s on the question of the roles of nature versus nurture in the determination of intelligence.

This issue of nature versus nurture, a choice between polar opposites, was of course designed for polemic, and attempts to find a more nuanced middle ground have usually been drowned out by the extremes. So it was in Gould’s case. An unrepentant political liberal, he was firmly on the side of nurture. As a result of his uncompromising characterizations of his opponents’ viewpoints, Gould found himself frequently accused by Jensen and others of misrepresenting their positions and of erecting straw men to attack.

Yet even after Mismeasure first appeared, the climax of the debate was yet to come. In 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published their notorious volume, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. At positively Gouldian length, Herrnstein and Murray gave a new boost to the argument that intelligence is largely inherited, proclaiming that innate intelligence was a better predictor of such things as income, job performance, chances of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are factors such as education level or parental socioeconomic status. They also asserted that, in America, a highly intelligent, “cognitive elite” was becoming separated from the less intelligent underperforming classes, and in consequence they recommended policies such as the elimination of what they saw as welfare incentives for poor women to have children.

Eugenics has never died in American Science; it remains an underestimated force in the shaping of “what do about unacceptable humans”. It is neither a liberal nor conservative impulse: it is a drive within elites to control human destiny.

To Gould such claims were like the proverbial red rag to a bull. He rapidly published a long review essay in The New Yorker attacking the four assertions on which he claimed Herrnstein and Murray’s argument depended. In order to be true, Gould said, Herrnstein and Murray’s claims required that that what they were measuring as intelligence must be: (1) representable as a single number; (2) must allow linear rank ordering of people; (3) be primarily heritable; and (4) be essentially immutable. None of those assumptions, he declared, was tenable. And soon afterward he returned to the attack with a revised and expanded edition of Mismeasure that took direct aim at Herrnstein and Murray’s long book.

There can be little doubt that, as articulated in both editions of Mismeasure, Gould’s conclusions found wide acceptance not only among anthropologists but in the broader social arena as well. But doubts have lingered about Gould’s broad-brush approach to the issues involved, and particularly about a penchant he had to neglect any nuance there might have been in his opponents’ positions. Indeed, he was capable of committing in his own writings exactly the kinds of error of which he had accused Samuel Morton—ironically, even in the very case of Morton himself.

In June 2011, a group of physical anthropologists led by Jason Lewis published a critical analysis of Gould’s attacks on Morton’s craniology. By remeasuring the cranial capacities of about half of Morton’s extensive sample of human skulls, Lewis and colleagues discovered that the data reported by Morton had on the whole been pretty accurate. They could find no basis in the actual specimens themselves for Gould’s suggestion that Morton had (albeit unconsciously) overmeasured European crania, and under-measured African or Native American ones. What’s more, they could find no evidence that, as alleged by Gould, Morton had selectively skewed the results in various other ways.

The anthropologists did concede that Morton had attributed certain psychological characteristics to particular racial groups. But they pointed out that, while Morton was inevitably a creature of his own times, he (Morton) had done nothing to disguise his racial prejudices or his polygenist sympathies. And they concluded that, certainly by prevailing standards, Morton’s presentation of his basic data had been pretty unbiased. (WOW! What an indictment of current Anthropology) What is more, while they were able to substantiate Gould’s claim that Morton’s final summary table of his results contained a long list of errors, Lewis and colleagues also found that correcting those errors would actually have served to reinforce Morton’s own declared biases. And they even discovered that Gould had reported erroneous figures of his own.

These multiple “errors” DO NOT cancel each other out: this is a favorite social typical strategy and magical belief – Present the contradictions from “each side” and reach a “socially acceptable” deadlock. No discussion is possible past this point. The American intellectual-cultural-political environment is trapped in this devastating “black and white, either or, false concept of “problem-solving”. Nothing can be examined; facts are removed to the “supernatural, word-concept domain” and become “politicized” – weapons of distortion in a socio-cultural landscape of perpetual warfare. In the meantime, the population is pushed to either extreme. This is where we are TODAY and this “warfare” will destroy us from within, because the hard work of running a nation is not being done.

It is hard to refute the authors’ conclusion that Gould’s own unconscious preconceptions colored his judgment. Morton, naturally enough, carried all of the cultural baggage of his time, ethnicity, and class. But so, it seems, did Gould. And in a paradoxical way, Gould had proved his own point. Scientists are human beings, and when analyzing evidence they always have to be on guard against the effects of their own personal predilections.

And of the domination and control of their professions by the “elite and powerful” who promote a racist-eugenic social order and control how their work is “messaged” and used to achieve socioeconomic and biological engineering goals – worldwide.


First Human Embryos ‘Edited’ in U.S. / 7 billion humans not consulted

The work, which removed a gene mutation linked to a heart condition, is fueling debate over the controversial tool known as CRISPR. Two days after being injected with a gene-editing enzyme, these developing human embryos were free of a disease-causing mutation.

Two Words: “Unintended Consequences”

By Erin Blakemore

PUBLISHED by National Geographic, August 2, 2017

What if you could remove a potentially fatal gene mutation from your child’s DNA before the baby is even born? In an advance that’s as likely to raise eyebrows as it is to save lives, scientists just took a big step toward making that possible.

For the first time, researchers in the United States have used gene editing in human embryos. As they describe today in the journal Nature, the team used “genetic scissors” called CRISPR-Cas9 to target and remove a mutation associated with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a common inherited heart disease, in 42 embryos.

DNA Hacking Tool Enables Shortcut to Evolution

Scientists who want to explore the technique hail it as a biomedical advance that could one day give people the option not to pass down heritable diseases. The tool could also reduce the number of embryos that are discarded during fertility treatments because of worrisome genetic mutations.

“The scientists are out of control,” says George Annas, director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights at the Boston University School of Public Health, who thinks that scientists should not edit the genomes of human embryos for any reason. “They want to control nature, but they can’t control themselves.”

Healing Hearts

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy occurs in about one in 500 people. The condition causes the heart muscle to thicken and can lead to sudden cardiac arrest. It takes only one gene mutation to cause the condition, and you can get the disease even if only one of your parents has the mutated gene. If you inherit it, there’s a 50 percent chance you will pass it on to your children.

For their work, Shoukhrat Mitalipov, principal investigator at the Oregon Health and Science University’s Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy, and his colleagues targeted the genetic mutations that cause the majority of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy cases.

First, they created 58 human embryos from the sperm of a male donor with the mutation and the egg of a female without the mutation. Then, they used CRISPR to cut the mutation out of the gene. When things go right, the DNA repairs itself and the mutation disappears.

The technique isn’t always successful. In previous studies, some CRISPR-edited embryos developed mosaicism, a condition in which some cells have the unwanted mutations and others don’t. All in all, the team was able to repair the gene mutation in about 70 percent of the embryos, and the study showed no unwanted changes at other sites in the edited DNA.

The team allowed the fertilized cells to develop into blastocysts—the stage at which embryos are usually implanted into the mother during fertility treatments. They showed normal development, the team reports. Then, the embryos were destroyed.

Science in Motion

“Of course further research and ethical discussions are necessary before proceeding to clinical trials,” study coauthor Paula Amato, adjunct associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at OHSU, said during a press briefing on August 1.

Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine asked an international committee of scientists and ethicists to weigh in on the benefits and risks of genome editing in humans. (Find out why scientists think gene editing is both terrifying and terrific.)

The panel recommended that in the case of the human germline—genes passed down from generation to generation—scientists refrain from editing genes for any purpose other than treating or preventing a disease or disability. (No more neurodiverse people will be allowed to be born? Where does this “elimination” of genetic diversity end?) The report also insisted on a more robust public debate before such experiments begin. (Oh sure, as if anyone in power will listen to the “peasants” at the bottom of the pyramid)

In the United States, there’s currently a ban on using taxpayer funds for any research that destroys human embryos. In this case they used institutional and private funds. If the team can’t move ahead as quickly as desired in the U.S., (blackmail?) they’ll consider pursuing their research in other countries.

Of course, poor and developing countries need the money and will sacrifice their embryos, and the “outcomes” for the population, good or bad, gladly…)

Debating the Future

It’s already possible to screen for genetic defects within embryos during in vitro fertilization using a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The team thinks their CRISPR technique could eventually be applied to gene mutations associated with other diseases, like cystic fibrosis.

In their paper, the team writes that their method may one day “rescue mutant embryos, increase the number of embryos available for transfer and ultimately improve pregnancy rates (for the Elites who can $$$$ pay for it)

“That’s just absurd,” says Annas. “They admit right up front that if you want to avoid having a baby with [the mutation], you can just not implant the embryos that are affected.”

Mitalipov disagrees: “Discarding half the embryos is morally wrong,” he tells National Geographic. “We need to be more proactive.”

The embryos in this experiment were destroyed!

This is unbelievable: taking over the future evolution of our species, is “morally” right? Nature provides genetic variation which is necessary for organisms to adapt to a changing environment – we are not smart enough to interfere with this process.

Has anyone asked 7 billion  humans if they think it’s a slam dunk “moral good” for a handful of scientists, who obviously are not the least concerned about morality or ethics, to just “go ahead” and terminate 3.5 billion years of evolution?

Either way, Annas says, it’s time to revisit the conversation about how to regulate CRISPR in the United States. “My guess is that the regulators will be horrified.” (Until $$$$ decides the issue)

But for Mitalipov, the debate is a chance to inform the world about the technique’s potential. And for a scientist who has also cloned monkey embryos and even cloned human embryos to make stem cells, he knows plenty about how to ignite public debate.

“We’ll push the boundaries,” he says.

Of course, “the rest of” Homo sapiens just don’t count; we have no choice but to submit to a future dictated by individuals who regard themselves as “GODS” The track record of “ethical nightmares” in human recent history (Eugenics, genocide, the Holocaust, chemical and biological warfare, and other mass murder of “defectives” – who are simply people of another race, religion, or ethnicity) has proven over and over that the power-insane “Male Psychopaths” at the top of the social pyramid are destroyers of Nature.








Top Psych Experiments / Psychologists cleverly embarrass themselves

OMG! The website is: Online Psychology Degree Guide

Wow! Visit the site for the other 22 most influential psychology “experiments” PLUS many other informative lists offering “5 most” to “50 most” lists in this popular pop-social media format.

The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History

By Kristen Fescoe Published January 2016

“A Class Divided”

Study Conducted By: Jane Elliott

Study Conducted in 1968 in an Iowa classroom

Experiment Details: Jane Elliott’s famous experiment was inspired by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the inspirational life that he led. The third grade teacher developed an exercise to help her Caucasian students understand the effects of racism and prejudice.

Elliott divided her class into two separate groups: blue-eyed students and brown-eyed students. On the first day, she labeled the blue-eyed group as the superior group and from that point forward they had extra privileges, leaving the brown-eyed children to represent the minority group. She discouraged the groups from interacting and singled out individual students to stress the negative characteristics of the children in the minority group.

What this exercise showed was that the children’s behavior changed almost instantaneously. The group of blue-eyed students performed better academically and even began bullying their brown-eyed classmates. The brown-eyed group experienced lower self-confidence and worse academic performance. The next day, she reversed the roles of the two groups and the blue-eyed students became the minority group.

At the end of the experiment, the children were so relieved that they were reported to have embraced one another and agreed that people should not be judged based on outward appearances. This exercise has since been repeated many times with similar outcomes.

OMG! It’s ironic that the very studies on which psychologists base their claims are so obviously “super-flawed” that their claim to “be scientists” is easily disproven:

  1. Psychologists claim that use of human subjects as “lab rats” is an ethical “No-No”, but here we see uninformed, not-consenting “captive” children being manipulated (I would call it abuse…) by a teacher! The children suffered distress over the tactics used, including becoming bullies and objects to be bullied. How is this conceptually any different than “punishment” as pedagogy?
  2. The students were “relieved” to be “freed from” this awful manipulation – which automatically is interpreted as instant “moral enlightenment” over the question of physical appearances. This reveals the “social engineering” goals of psychology and the reckless “social puppeteer” attitude that prevails.
  3. This “experiment” (abuse of a word that has specific meaning in science) is “predatory” abuse of power: it may have been “repeated” in various forms (like a “fun prank”) but repetition means that many more children were subjected to manipulation and for no legitimate “reason”.

Car Crash Experiment

Study Conducted by: Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer

Study Conducted in 1974 at The University of California in Irvine

Experiment Details: Loftus and Palmer set out to prove just how deceiving memories can be. The 1974 Car Crash Experiment was designed to evaluate whether wording questions a certain way could influence a participant’s recall by twisting their memories of a specific event.

  1. And yet, “psychological diagnosis” ARE BASED ON JUST THIS: “self-reporting” or “subjective” opinion of parents, teachers, school counselors, gym teachers, coaches, bystanders and the family dog! A “Psych Wizard” spends three minutes asking “loaded, leading” questions or worse – the “client” is required to fill out a “questionnaire” that is so biased that answers will “reveal” pathology – there are dozens to choose from.
  2. The “researchers” set out to prove what they already know ABOUT THEMSELVES: that manipulation can distort “memories” – it’s their prime directive.

The participants watched slides of a car accident and were asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses to the scene. The participants were put into two groups and each group was questioned using different wording such as “how fast was the car driving at the time of impact?” versus “how fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car?” The experimenters found that the use of different verbs affected the participants’ memories of the accident, showing that memory can be easily distorted. 

This research suggests that memory can be easily manipulated by questioning technique, meaning that information gathered after the event can merge with original memory causing incorrect recall or reconstructive memory. The addition of false details to a memory of an event is now referred to as confabulation. This concept has very important implications for the questions used in police interviews of eyewitnesses (-and in psychology) 

As for the validity of “psychology” having a scientific “fact-finding” interest in assessing human behavior, we can see that the “goal” is to “test” manipulation techniques on human lab rats. It’s utterly non-objective, non-scientific and unethical. Psychologists refuse to be accountable for “proof or results” in theory or practice. 

Cognitive Dissonance Experiment

Study Conducted by: Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith

Study Conducted in 1957 at Stanford University

Experiment Details: The concept of cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This conflict produces an inherent feeling of discomfort leading to a change in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to minimize or eliminate the discomfort and restore balance.

Again, the “basis” is putting humans in situations which manipulate personal morality, group ethics, social obedience, and “pain” in order to find out how these may be “applied” in contexts such as the classroom, workplace, consumer markets, media and advertising – and in government. The conclusion is simple: Lie, and use “bribes” and punishment – the Social Pyramid as we experience it every day. Psychology “intends” to legitimize lies, deception and manipulation as “scientifically valid” in human relationships. This is sick.

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, after an observational study of a cult that believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. (Christians, perhaps?) Out of this study was born an intriguing experiment conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith where participants were asked to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). Participant’s initial attitudes toward this task were highly negative. (Anecdotal, hearsay, subjective opinion, not an “experiment” at all)

They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a participant waiting in the lobby (lie to them) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the next participant that the boring experiment would be fun. (The human lab rats were paid to lie and most agreed – where is motivation in this? Were they “students” who always need cash, or individuals who would lie because “an authority figure” asked them to? Who are these human beings ?)

When the participants were later asked to evaluate the experiment, (no, they were asked to evaluate their own experience) the participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie. Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to (being lied to) believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs and there is therefore no dissonance.

OMG! Where do I begin with dissecting this monstrosity of “social logic” and magical thinking?

(I need “fuel” – time for breakfast…LOL)

War is a MALE Social Activity / Nukes

Who will be “King” of a dead planet?

My childhood story wrote itself, directed by an impulse to challenge The Official Story, which never did make sense to me. First, there was the story my parents told about their marriage. I would listen to their private histories, both sad and tragic, and wonder why these obvious strangers insisted that finding each other and committing to an unworkable lifelong union was the best of all possible outcomes. Each parent had chosen to add to each other’s suffering by making a brief courtship legal, when apart, each could have pursued happiness. Why would any person do this?

It’s a simple question, but thousands of years of myth, religion, rules and laws, social convention, government institutions, and even reform and innovation in these areas, promote suffering, which has been elevated to the unshakeable position of human destiny. It wasn’t that I imagined a perfect world; I could not imagine why, when suffering exists as an inescapable consequence of being physical creatures, one would choose to voluntarily increase that suffering, and yet, it seemed to me that human beings put great effort into that outcome.

The consequences of choice preoccupied my mind. It took a long time for the reality to sink in: many people don’t recognize that they can make independent choices; their “choices” have been  predestined by a belief system that is so powerful that everything they do is shadowed by the question, What am I supposed to do?” It was shocking to me that people suffered unnecessarily by sticking to roles that had been proven over and over again to result in physical and mental harm to both individuals and groups, and which brought humankind to a state of nearly universal and chronic suffering.

Technology and science appeared as bright spots in the dead gray fog of human behavior that plagued mankind. Radio, television, household appliances, bicycles, automobiles, photography, hot running water, antibiotics, aspirin, eyeglasses – all were advances in comfort, health and pleasure. But! On the new and mysterious TV in our living room, movies were shown that dramatized war and the “wonderful machines of war’ that man had created. Soldiers were happy to be able to help out, as if they were at a communal barn-raising. They looked forward to killing strangers, whether men, women, children or animals, known as The Bad Guys, using guns, knives, grenades and flamethrowers to mangle, maim, and roast people alive. They did this, and then smoked cigarettes. War was fun: a joyful guy thing. The actual horror was ignored, except for an occasional hospital scene where doctors and nurses fixed wounded men so that they could go back and kill more people, or inevitably for some, to be killed. The reward for death and suffering was a cigarette if you lived and a flag and a speech about patriotism if you died.

I couldn’t imagine participating in a war, inflicting pain and death in horrific ways, and also risk my own life – for what? My life was given to me and was sacred. It didn’t belong to anyone else, especially to Big Men who were so careless as to throw lives away so easily.

The usual answer given to children was that there are The Bad Guys, and you have to kill The Bad Guys.

This wasn’t an answer simplified for a child; this was The Answer. It still is.

Soldiers usually do know, once there are at war, that they are being used by the Big Men (human predators) to do their killing.

Many soldiers realize, once they are at war, that they are being used by the Big Men (human predators) to do their killing.

The Korean War began in 1950: we rushed in to "save" Korea from the communists: the country is still divided and 28,000 U.S. troops are still deployed there, 64 years later.

The Korean War began in 1950: we rushed in to “save” Korea from the communists: the country ended up being divided, and 28,000 U.S. troops are still deployed in S. Korea 64 years later.

Few American young people have any idea that the U.S. we invaded Viet Nam, lost, and had to hand the country over to the communist Viet Cong.

Few American young people have any idea that the U.S. invaded Viet Nam, lost the war, with 58,000 dead American soldiers and lost the country to the communist Viet Cong.

Better not ask the question, “How can God be on our side and theirs, too? Everyone says God is always on our side, therefore we are The Good Guys, but The Bad Guys say the same thing. It’s this loopy thinking that keeps people stuck. Why can’t people exit the loop?”

If one pressed the question of war, supplementary answers appeared: the technology developed in war time benefits civilians later. Improved emergency medical techniques, antibiotics, more accurate clocks, fast computers, and many other gadgets were developed to better prosecute war. I found it absurd and shocking that we must have wars in which millions suffer and die so that Mom can cook in a microwave oven and I can take penicillin for a strep throat. Isn’t the suffering brought by disease or accident sufficient motivation to develop medical treatments? The Bull Shit  kept getting deeper.

I lived with a distinct biting anxiety over my obvious lack of sympathy for traditional ideas, which were presented as demands by those who had secured a rung of authority on The Pyramid. Lies were everywhere: in school, at church, at home, on television and in newspapers. I devoured  history books, and biographies of artists, scientists and adventurers – many of whom were people who defied The Official Story, not as bad guys or crusader or reformers, but because alternative explanations made more sense. They often had to hide their work and lived precarious lives, only to have their ideas rediscovered much later, when people discovered profit in their ideas. A happy few gained protection from a powerful patron, and saw their ideas exploited to perpetuate The Official Story that war is necessary, and isn’t it great to have bigger and better weapons, so that our side can kill more and more of The Bad Guys, and whole swathes of innocent bystanders who somehow get in the way.

I listened to educated people make abundant excuses as to why any improvement  is impossible, or must be carried out in the way it has always been done, despite acknowledged failures, as if they were driving forward, but with the parking brake set. “Let’s just throw some platitudes and money at the problem. Maybe it will stick,” is proof that humans are not very smart. Social humans claim to possess all sorts of intelligence and problem-solving skills, and then fall flat on their faces in the same old ruts.

After a lifetime of wondering why humans make life intolerable, I was informed that I am Asperger, which means that I’m not a Social human, but I still have to wait for the nukes to fall, just like everyone else…


Delusions of Social Grandeur / Human-on-Human Predation


Ancestral humans relied on their senses. Visual memory and concrete thinking formed their perception of the world. They were animals  – and so are modern humans, except that modern humans suffer delusions of grandeur made possible by technology and magical thinking – two partners at work in creating human cultures.

Modern social people have an indirect relationship to nature, which causes big problems. Our perception of the world is moderated and modified by words; words are a valuable invention, but too often serve our egotistical notions. Scientists may have dismantled the idea that Earth is the center of the universe, but humans refuse to believe that man is not.

The integration of early humans with the natural world was more intimate than we can imagine. No other world existed. There were no written instructions, no external memory, no schools or delicatessens nor emergency medical services. Not even a bicycle. There were Master Humans, who may have been no more than teenagers, who functioned as the repositories of human knowledge for their group. Few memory aids had been invented – lines  and designs scratched into a familiar rock outcrop or fascinating lumps of rock that resembled an animal or a person; a resemblance that could be enhanced with a few strokes of a tool. Dependence on each other was literal, not social, conceptual or abstract. To live was to exist in the present moment, and one instant of distraction or of inattention and – Bingo! Your time was up. Success required absolute trust in the behavior of people one lived and died with.

Dog and baby – how cute! Thousands of years of domestication of dogs and humans have made this interaction possible, but the dog retains wild behavior, and if its instinctive buttons are pushed, the baby is in serious danger of injury. (The baby is, in fact, in far more danger from predation by other humans) Big carnivores, with whom our ancestors shared the environment, have no such restraints. Human infants, like the young of other prey, would have been easy targets. Predation held human population in check, so that scavenging and gathering were sufficient to feed human groups that remained low in number. The gradual shift to human-as-carnivore would have boosted nutrition, providing the fat and protein that fueled larger brains and bodies. Bigger and better-fed humans would have been able to reduce predation. Infant survival rates gradually increased.  

We forget or ignore that for most of existence humans were prey animals, and indeed for most humans alive today, that is the still the case. Now that we have  greatly reduced, or exterminated, our wild rivals in the hunt for food and territory, man has turned on his own kind. Man is the predator most dangerous to children (pedophiles), to women (rapists, domestic abusers, murderers), to young men (violent gangs), to consumers (toxic and dangerous products), to entire predatory economies (sociopaths in suits), to civilian populations (chronic war), to entire nations (political interference and war. )

Modern human-on-human predation is a social activity built into the foundations of the social order – a hierarchy of power and authority that determines who can abuse lesser humans without consequence.   

Thy Child’s Face / website

Thy Child’s Face is a testimonial to the sexual violence inflicted on children by predatory Roman Catholic priests. In the last 25 years, clergy sexual abuse of children has been revealed for what it is: an organized syndicate of criminal accomplices who work in concert to shield pedophile priests.

More at: http://thychild’



Yep! This is about as deep and complex as social feeling gets in the Good ‘ol USA. .

An alarming disconnect exists between the infantile modern social mantra that Life is a Hug and the real suffering inflicted by social institutions, including schools and the family. 





A Humane View of Autism by a Dog Trainer

I came across this site while looking for information on “trance” states in autism and Asperger’s. The site is about a method to treat behavior syndromes in dogs – the writer is a bit mysterious (incognito?) but I’m collecting ideas from “outside” the “autism industry” about behavior and their analysis is so spot on. 

I’m switching gears to “folk knowledge” – always an arena fraught with myth – fantasy, supernatural belief, hearsay, awkward repetition of “strange stories” etc, but the domain where one finds the human brain-mind-culture feedback to be ever-active: it’s a great arena in which to “see” the human mind being created as the brain interacts with the environment. It also often presents a “humane” view of human behavior – an antidote to the cruelty of social order systems.

(Comments) in italic and parentheses

Dog Autism

(Can we not substitute “child” for “animal” in the following statement; and parent, caregiver, teacher, and therapist for “owner”?)

It is one of the saddest things I personally find to have to deal with to meet an animal that has entirely shut down within itself and is no longer able to make attention energy exchange based relationships with others. Autism is a rainbow scale of a naturally existing neurological function, not an on and off switch – and autistic behaviours in animals are often, and once again, very sadly mistaken for “being stubborn” or “wilful” or “disobedient”.

As autistic animals cannot provide the owners with “attention energy” in turn (as they are trapped within themselves), the owners may actually go through the same attention seeking escalations that can end up with attacking the creature just so it will take notice, respond at last and acknowledge their existence. (This is incredibly important for understanding the CRUELTY aimed at children in Western Cultures, especially minority children, and disobedient, different or vulnerable children.)

Trance Behaviours & Repetitive Behaviours

A safety mechanism of any social creature’s neurological set up is to induce autistic-like deep trance states to protect themselves from the systemic catastrophe.

·        Repetitive rocking in small human and monkey babies who are left to themselves,

·        head weaving in elephants and horses,

·        flank sucking in Dobermans,

·        shadow chasing and tail chasing in collies,

·        crib chewing in horses,

·        pacing endlessly in a ritualistic way in caged cats

… are just amongst the many, many examples of this. In pet dogs, spaniels and crosses thereof are highly pre-disposed to enter these trance states in moments of stress and there are many variations on the theme.

Self mutilation and ritualised howling/vocal expressions also lead to the security of a deep trance state where the individual may rest inside when external environmental conditions have become unbearable these external conditions being systemically, a short fall of energy of the correct kind to re-balance the stressed and hungry system.

It is my supposition that the individual creature’s choice of which route into trance they will take is a mixture of genetic pre-disposition and chance; I have seen many animals who have developed a chance behaviour into these rituals and the behaviours themselves, which may be quite bizarre to an unsuspecting onlooker, are, indeed, secondary to the trance state they are designed to induce.

The Harmony Programme In Brief

Let us back up here and go through the main points of the energetic circumstances and causes and effect of “attention seeking behaviour disorders” in mammals (and this includes people too) step by step. (Note how attention –seeking disorders have become pandemic; a true social problem – behavior “revealed by” the mass availability of “smart” technology, the existence of which has expanded exponentially, and with it, “attention-seeking infection” just as if it were a contagious disease. “Viral” is the correct word to describe this mass infection)

1. There is a form of energy that is exchanged between social creatures that is derived from the attention of another. This attention is focussed, direct and involves eye contact, no matter how fleetingly this takes place. (See my post on humans and open thermodynamic systems)

2. This energy form is as important to a social creature as is sleep, or food. In experiments, human babies died when attention was withheld (although the babies were fed and their physical care taking proceeded as normal). (Note how the “take over” of parenting by government programs, agencies, and policy institutions is strictly about “feeding” poverty stricken children in the U.S. and around the world. Distribution of minimally nutritious food is a gesture only – real nutrition is absent. No attention is paid to the impoverished environments the children live within; to true education, to “proper” care by parents and community. It’s the traditional Christian forced “charity” attitude: Feed and water a human being as if it’s a house plant. If it doesn’t grow and thrive, it’s time to resort to the social order / survival of the fittest “theory” behind racism and discrimination. “Unfit” humans are literally a “throw away” commodity.) Adults develop severe behaviour disturbances including rage, deep trance type repetitive behaviours, antisocial behaviours and autism under similar conditions.

3. Western humans have been trained from birth to withhold attention, especially when it is being “demanded” – possibly a learned response and set up that occurred in their own energy systems when their energetic attention needs were repeatedly and systematically refuted when they themselves were young. (Bad Old Testament “Biblical” style parenting descends through generations – a (male) human-hating theory of child development is entrenched in culture; one that prohibits nurturing of babies in the proper and natural way. See my post on how hunter-gatherers raise their children – with kindness and tolerance)

4. Companion animals (children) vary widely in how great their tolerance is to living with “not enough attention energy” being supplied. (Junk food, toys, TV and video games – cartoons and violent films, etc. are not a substitute for parental attention and engagement)

It seems to be also specific to an individual if their first choice response to a shortfall of this form energy is withdrawal towards autism or escalating fiercely in their “attention seeking behaviours” before systemic collapse and those, too, falling into autism. (A bit convoluted. I think what is said is this: Individual children are predisposed to react in different ways to “attention-deprivation” – either “withdrawal” or “battle until exhaustion and collapse”)

5. Attention Energy is Attention Energy – in general, creatures do not seem to care one way or the other if the attention energy they receive is of the loving or of the non-loving kind. Indeed, with the set up amongst the Western Human caretakers, creatures find it far easier to obtain negative attention through disturbing / annoying / ”naughty” behaviours than to obtain positive attention. Indeed, a great many caretakers “train” their animals into ever more outrageous behaviours by firstly, failing to give attention of the positive kind and secondly, trying to ignore developing behaviour escalations in the beginning stages when they are still fairly mild.

(SO IMPORTANT! This pernicious American “strategy” comes directly from psychological theory and has “taken over” control of child-rearing, education, employment, personal relationships, and all aspects of social behavior. It’s the same old vicious reward-punishment “black box” hatred of human beings that condones social status conflict as “healthy, normal behavior” – A LIE.  

6. Giving focussed attention in the beginning stages of any escalation pattern does not only stop the escalation pattern dead right there but over the long term, actually cures the individual and re-sets their energetic exchanges with everyone and not just with the owner to a natural and sociable status.

7. With the energy system balanced that needs this social love energy, a creature truly blossoms, becomes more self assured, self balanced and gains access to sleeping resources of problem solving, interaction, communication, thought and experience that were previously out of reach. (Asperger “withdrawal” at least preserves and enhances this “potential” – but, with NO “Positive” INTERACTION available with other humans, the fruits of these endeavors too often whither and die.)

With this part of the energy system balanced, an individual will be radically better placed to face any kind of stress challenge including showing a greater tolerance to environmental poisons, toxic energy systems and all immune system stressors. (No attempt at balance is made –“Asperger’s are systematically “excluded from humanity” and participation in society; instead of “help” from the autism industry, Aspergers are “pathologized” – their special (even gifted) talents are demonized as symptoms of “disorder”. Bullying is encouraged, prejudice reinforced, and lies are told.)

 Love, Not War – Turning The Dog (CHILD) Training World Upside Down

Back in 1993, I formulated the “appalling” idea, based on my theoretical musings and practical observations, that instead of playing power games with a companion animal, one should try and give positive attention right away, as soon as the animal would indicate a need by a small behaviour such as coming up, looking at the owner, or trying to make contact in any other shape or form. (Forbidden in modern psychology: the infant-child must “perform” on schedule, and in the “approved way” or it is discarded as defective.)

This contradicted everything I had ever been taught or learned to do; for example, it was common practise to let small puppies howl and cry all night until “they had learned that no-one would come”and “thus never to reward this appalling attention seeking behaviour”. (Isn’t this the basis for TRUST on which all social interaction depends? Trust has been obliterated in American society and hatred has erupted) 

So it must be said that it was not without trepidation that I began to experiment in earnest and put my theory to the test.

And here’s what happened in actuality. (See website for more)

 Or better yet, send them to a “therapist” who will “carpet bomb” their brains with psychoactive  drugs. That’s experimentation on human subjects without legal or ethical constraint. That’s a “living” HELL.

Psychotropic Drug Prescriptions / Link to Suicide, Violence in Military

Let’s face it: The “helping, caring, fixing” industry has a policy of “carpet-bombing” American children and adults with dangerous and lethal drugs and with absolutely no regard for human life – WHY?

PDF : https://


A Report by Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, April 2014


The recent tragedies at Fort Hood and the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard are deeply concerning because of the increasing reports of military and veteran violence and suicide in our Armed Forces. Though there can be many reasons for killing oneself or others, the possible role of psychiatric drugs in these tragedies has not been effectively explored. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this factor.

  • Researchers have identified 25 psychiatric medications disproportionately associated with violence, including physical assault and homicide.
  • There are 22 international drug-regulatory agency warnings about these medications causing violent behavior, mania, psychosis and homicidal ideation.
  • There are almost 50 international drug-regulatory agency warnings about psychiatric drugs causing suicidal ideation.
  • One in six American service members were taking at least one psychiatric medication in 2010. More than 110,000 Army personnel were given antidepressants, narcotics, sedatives, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs while on duty in 2011.3


  • Between 2005 and 2011 the military increased its prescriptions of psychoactive drugs (antipsychotics, sedatives, stimulants and mood stabilizers) by almost 700 percent, according to The New York Times.
  • Prescriptions written for antipsychotic drugs for active-duty troops increased 1,083 percent from 2005 to 2011, while the number of antipsychotic drug prescriptions in the civilian population increased just 22 percent.5
  • The Department of Defense Suicide Event Reports (DoDSERs) for 2012 reported that the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES) found that as of 31 March 2013, there were 319 suicides among Active component Service members and 203 among Reserve component Services members. 92.8 percent of the Service Members were male, with 39.6 percent aged between 17 and 24.
  • DoDSERs were only included in this report if they were submitted by April 1, 2013 and thus there are discrepancies between the fi gures reported by the AFMES and the number of DoDSERs included in the DoDSER 2012 report. In addition, there were some DoDSERs that were submitted for events that were still pending a final determination as a suicide.
  • A total of 841 Service members had one or more attempted suicides reported in the DoDSER program for CY 2012.
  • Some 134 suicide DoDSERs (42.1 percent) and 452 suicide attempt DoDSERs (52 percent) indicated a history of a behavioral disorder.
  • The reports also indicated that “93 decedents (29.2 percent) were reported to have ever taken psychotropic1 medications. A total of 63 decedents (19.8 percent) were known to have used psychotropic medications within 90 days prior to suicide.” However, this is likely to be much higher as almost 21 percent of both the “Ever Taken Psychotropic Medication” and the “Use of Psychotropic Medication last 90 days” questions were answered with “Data Unavailable.” Potentially up to 50 percent of those committing suicide had at some point taken psychiatric drugs and up to nearly 46 percent had taken them within 90 days.6

Psychotropic: A term coined in the late 1940s by Ralph Waldo Gerard, an American behavioral scientist and physiologist to medically describe medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior—from the Greek, “mind-turning.”

  • The majority (55 percent) of service members who died by suicide during 2008-2010 had never deployed and 84 percent had no documented combat experiences. In the 2012 DoD Suicide Event report on suicide, 52.2 percent of completed suicides had not been deployed in the recent wars and 56.5 percent of suicide attempts had no reported history of deployment.
  • The suicide rate increased by more than 150 percent in the Army and more than 50 percent in the Marine Corps between 2001 to 2009. From 2008 to 2010, military suicides were nearly double the number of suicides for the general U.S. population, with the military averaging 20.49 suicides per 100,000 people, compared to a general rate of 12.07 suicides per 100,000 people.10
  • There are hundreds of “sudden deaths” among veterans that have been prescribed massive cocktails of psychotropic1 drugs, which a leading neurologist says are “probable sudden cardiac deaths.” Yet the practice of prescribing seven or more drugs documented to cause cardiac problems, stroke, violent behavior and suicide (to name but a few of the adverse effects) is still prevalent.


  • FORT HOOD GUNMAN IVAN LOPEZ, 34, was taking Ambien, a sleep agent, and other psychiatric drugs for depression and anxiety when he shot dead three colleagues and injured 16 others before killing himself on April 2, 2014.11
  • WASHINGTON NAVY YARD SHOOTER AARON ALEXIS, 34, had been prescribed Trazodone killed 12 people and wounded 8, before being killed by police on Sept. 16, 2013.12
  • SOLDIER PFC. DAVID LAWRENCE, 20, and MARINE LANCE CPL. DELANO HOLMES were both taking Trazodone and other psychiatric medications when they killed a Taliban commander in his prison cell and an Iraqi soldier respectively.


  • It is important to understand that the mental health system for our Armed Forces and veterans often involves the use of psychotropic and neuroleptic2 drugs. Between 2001 and 2009, orders for psychiatric drugs for the military increased seven-fold.14 In 2010, the Army Times reported that one in six service members were taking some form of psychiatric drug.15
  • A National Institutes of Health website warns consumers to report if while taking Trazodone—one of the drugs prescribed the Navy Yard shooter—they are “thinking about harming or killing yourself,” experience “extreme worry; agitation; panic attacks…aggressive behavior; irritability; acting without thinking; severe restlessness; and frenzied abnormal excitement….”
  • Psychologists have blamed the surge in random acts of violence among U.S. military on the heavy use of prescribed drugs. “We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now …And I don’t believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence,” states Bart Billings, a former military psychologist and combat stress expert.
  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MedWatch system that collects adverse drug reports revealed that between 2004 and 2012, there were 14,773 reports of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,531 (10.4 percent) reports of homicidal ideation/homicide, 3,287 (22.3 percent) reports of mania and 8,219 (55.6 percent) reports of aggression.
  • Dr. David Healy, a psychiatrist and a former secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology estimates that 90 percent of school shooters were users of antidepressants. These same medications are prescribed to at least 6 percent of our servicemen and women.

Supporting Information

“We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now… The current increase in suicides and homicides is no coincidence.”

-Dr. Bart Billings, Fmr. Col. & Army Psychologist

This PDF has 34 pages of horrifying information, charts and statistics KNOWN to the VA, Congress and the “empathy experts” who are drugging our soldiers and destroying families.



How U.S. Corporations Pay “ZERO” Tax / Legal Loopholes


Many U.S. corporations use offshore tax havens and other accounting gimmicks to avoid paying as much as $90 billion a year in federal income taxes. A large loophole at the heart of U.S. tax law enables corporations to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits until they are brought home. Known as “deferral,” it provides a huge incentive to keep profits offshore as long as possible. Many corporations choose never to bring the profits home and never pay U.S. taxes on them.

Deferral gives corporations enormous incentives to use accounting tricks to make it appear that profits earned here were generated in a tax haven. Profits are funneled through subsidiaries, often shell companies with few em­ployees and little real business activity. Effectively, firms launder U.S. profits to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Loopholes used to shift U.S. profits to tax havens

  • U.S. firms can set up a subsidiary offshore, channel billions of dollars of profit through it and make the subsidiary “disappear” for U.S. tax purposes simply by “checking a box” on an IRS form.
  • Corporations can sell the right to patents and licenses at a low price to an offshore subsidiary, which then “licenses” back to the U.S. parent at a steep price the right to sell its products in America. The goal of this “transfer pricing” is to make it appear that the company earns profits in tax havens but not in the U.S.
  • Wall Street banks, credit card companies and other corporations with large financial units can easily move U.S. profits offshore using a loophole known as the “active financing exception.”
  • A U.S. corporation can do an “inversion” by buying a foreign firm and then claiming that the new, merged company is foreign. This lets it reincorporate in a country, often a tax haven, with a much lower tax rate. The process takes place on paper — the company doesn’t move its headquarters offshore and its ownership is mostly unchanged — but it continues to enjoy the privileges of operating here while paying low tax rates in the foreign country.



How Much Would Apple Owe in U.S. Taxes If It Brought Its Money Home?

A staggering amount of money is legally not getting paid to Uncle Sam.

Daniel B. Kline / The Motley Fool, Oct 13, 2015

American companies keep an enormous amount of cash overseas as a not-at-all-subtle way to avoid tax liability at home. 

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) leads all other multinational corporations in employing this practice, holding $181.1 billion in offshore accounts, according to a recent report released by Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy group. The iPhone maker is not alone in doing this, according to the report. Most of America’s largest corporations maintain subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. At least 358 companies, nearly 72% of the Fortune 500, operated subsidiaries in tax haven jurisdictions as of the end of 2014.

Apple has booked $181.1 billion offshore — more than any other company. It would owe $59.2 billion in U.S. taxes if these profits were not officially held offshore for tax purposes. A 2013 Senate investigation found that Apple has structured two Irish subsidiaries to be tax residents of neither the United States, where they are managed and controlled, nor Ireland, where they are incorporated. This arrangement ensures that they pay no tax to any government on the lion’s share of their offshore profits.


Eugenics in Psychiatry and Psychology/ A Contemporary Issue

From the website: “Saybrook University was established to challenge the idea that human beings needed to be broken down into parts and isolated from the rest of the world to be understood. Instead, our founders declared that human beings are complex, and to understand them, one must understand the interconnectivity of everything that they experience. Committed to helping students achieve their full potential, our community is deeply rooted in this humanistic tradition.”

My highlights in bold; comments in green. 

Eugenics and Psychiatry: A Brief Overview of the History

In my casual observations in conversation with colleagues, I find that very few mental health professionals are aware of the historical link between psychiatry and eugenics. I was not aware of this history until relatively recently, when I read Robert Whitaker’s groundbreaking and brilliant text, Mad in America. When I read that section of the book, I was utterly devastated and filled with righteous anger. How could this have happened? How could it be that medicine, with its benevolent intentions, could be used so easily in the service of dehumanization and oppression? Eventually, I wrote my own account of this history in the book Drugging Our Children: How Profiteers are Pushing Antipsychotics on Our Youngest, and What We Can Do To Stop It. In my chapter in this text, I make the case that the over-medicating of our children is part of a longer history of abuses by psychiatry, and it is a biologically reductive approach to dealing with human suffering.
The history of eugenics is a story we all need to know and understand, or else face the penalty of dooming ourselves to repeating it once again. But first things first: What exactly is eugenics? Eugenics was a movement that began in the late 1800’s. It was influenced by the ideas of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin, as well as by selective breeding in the farming of plants and animals. At that time—the dawn of the Industrial Age—populations within urban areas were swelling at breakneck speed, and it became increasingly difficult to feed these populations. It took government intervention and strategic planning to find ways to innovate farming in order to be able to feed the growing and hungry masses. Selective breeding of crops and farm animals allowed farmers to maximize the potential of the land, so that it could feed many more people than had previously been conceived. Selective breeding was so successful, many powers-that-be began to raise the question: if selective breeding can be beneficial with crops and farm animals, why not apply this new technology to shape the genetic future of the human species? This was the birth of eugenics. Those who began to study eugenics took it that the human population can be separated into two genetic classes—the eugenic, or those who were deemed to have “fit” genes that should be perpetuated into the future, and the cacogenic, or those who were condemned as having ill-fit genes that were believed to be toxic to the future health of our species.
Given that rich, white, Anglo-Saxon males were the ones with wealth, power, and influence, it was predictable that, of course, they deemed themselves to be the ones who were “fittest,” and anyone who threatened their power were conveniently situated on the cacogenic side of the eugenic divide. (Actually, many non-Anglo Saxon males saw themselves to be superior models and jumped into Eugenic activity) Those deemed cacogenic at this time included blacks, immigrants, criminals, the poor, the mad, the disabled, the mentally retarded, those with drug and alcohol addiction, and gays and lesbians, among others. The eugenic movement viewed individuals in these social classes (females are and were considered to be cacogenic by default – see The Bible and other foundational religious texts) as persons who were victimized by disease that must be cured by eliminating these people from the population, whether through segregation, sterilization, or extermination. (And still are)
Few people will be ignorant of the fact that the eugenics project came to its fullest realization with the Final Solution of Hitler and the Nazis in WWII Germany. What many do not realize, however, is that it was in fact America that led the international movement toward eugenics, and it was only because of America’s example of putting eugenics successfully into practice that Hitler was able to persuade the Germans that their own eugenics project was the way to go. The end product of eugenics in Nazi Germany was the death of somewhere between 11 and 17 million human beings—6 million Jews (a quarter of them children under 15), about 270,000 gypsies, 3.3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million non-Jewish Poles, 250,000 disabled, 15,000 homosexuals, and many others. Those who were targeted first were those who were considered to be mentally unfit—the mad and the mentally retarded. These unfortunate individuals were corralled into rooms, and succumbed to exhaust fumes (the tail pipes of trucks had been connected by hoses to vents in the room). The result was the first mass killings by the Nazis. How could this happen?
In America, the eugenics movement was funded by big money (and still is! – and by average Americans who invest in bio-tech companies): Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and the widow of Edward Harriman. At this time, for example, Victoria Woodhull stated, “imbeciles, criminals, paupers, and the otherwise unfit…must not be bred,” and supported the forced sterilization of American citizens. (Control over reproduction of “unfit” humans is being promoted today as genetic repair of defective fetuses and selective engineering of “designer” fetuses, sold as the “right of parents” to select for “perfect children”. Hence the crazed search for arrays of  genes linked to Autism – no proof of cause is necessary; just bogus science that legitimizes a vast array of “defects” bundled into the Autism grab bag of socio-developmental disorders)
Charles Davenport, a Harvard-trained biologist, was appointed head of the Eugenics Record Office on Long Island, and Davenport and his team of heavily funded researchers began to investigate and maintain files on family lines in the general population who they considered to have defective genes. Meanwhile, money and influence was used to manipulate politicians and judges in order to make eugenics legal and to put it into practice. (It is, de facto, legal today, due to legislation and protection of industries such as Big Pharma and vast research funding by governments around the world. )
Connecticut has the dubious distinction of being the first state to ban marriage among those deemed “unfit.” By 1914, more than 20 states had followed in the footsteps of Connecticut, and by 1933, every single state in the union had fallen into line. At this time, those deemed to be disabled or unfit were segregated into populations in order to prevent them from reproducing in the general population. These “asylums” were later rationalized to be “treatment” centers rather than the concentration camps they were originally intended to be. Between 1907 and 1927, the United States had victimized over 8,000 people with eugenic sterilization so that they could never again reproduce.
xCalifornia took the evil of involuntarily sterilization to the level of an art form. Faced with the problem that involuntarily sterilization is a form of medical intervention that is intended to harm—that is, intended to destroy the ability to procreate—it was in violation of the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm.” To remedy this problem, California medical doctors quickly rationalized their behavior by claiming their eugenics project was actually a form of treatment that would ‘cure’ the patient of his or her mental illness. (But then, it was discovered by the “helping, caring, fixing industry” that incredible profits could be made by “increasing” the number of “defectives” by  mass diagnosis, an almost infinite supply of psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and chronic subjection of the American population to ever-expanding theories and applications of “mental health” therapies. Promote addictions … bingo!) In the case of Buck v. Bell, the “right” of California to sterilize its own citizens was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision in 1927.The American eugenics project, with the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court and supported by the huge pockets of the robber barons, inspired Europe nations to initiate their own eugenics programs. Soon, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland were sterilizing citizens the elite deemed to be “unfit” according to their classist, xenophobic, sexist, and racist standards. It was only later that Hitler came to power and used these movements to initiate Germany’s own eugenics program, which took the American eugenics project to its logical conclusion with the extermination of those deemed “unfit.” No public outcry against the Nazi extermination of the disabled could be heard. In fact, American publications from the New England Journal of Medicine to The New York Times sang Hitler’s praises as “progressive” for his “humane” extermination of “unfortunates.” Reading these articles in American academic journals and in a publication such as The New York Times, I became nauseated and could barely read on. Yet, one can go to these publications and read for him or herself how easily and skillfully hatred can be rationalized and disguised within the false benevolence of a medical discourse.

Has psychiatry today fully exorcised the demons of it’s past? I think not. Children in poverty, especially those on public welfare and in foster care, are much more likely to be drugged with harmful antipsychotic drugs. I see this kind of psychiatric abuse as an extension of the eugenics project, and it needs to stop. Psychiatry is also still used to perpetuate racism. Today, we still see that black men are misdiagnosed with schizophrenia five times more often than white people. It is easier to label a person with madness and force his compliance with antipsychotic drugs than to endure the difficult job of listening to a man who lived with the darkness of a lifetime of victimization by racism. Until we see such patterns disappear from psychiatry practice, I will remain unconvinced that psychiatry has fully escaped the weight of its shameful eugenic legacy.

— Brent Dean Robbins

Read more stories by Brent Dean Robbins

Keep up with our community – follow us on Facebook and Twitter