Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Journalist Reveals Tactics Brainwashing Industry Uses to Manipulate the Public

Our reality is carefully constructed by powerful corporate, political and special interest sources in order to covertly sway public opinion. Blatant lies are often televised regarding terrorism, food, war, health, etc. They are fashioned to sway public opinion and condition viewers to accept what have become destructive societal norms.
The practice of manipulating and controlling public opinion with distorted media messages has become so common that there is a whole industry formed around this. The entire role of this brainwashing industry is to figure out how to spin information to journalists, similar to the lobbying of government. It is never really clear just how much truth the journalists receive because the news industry has become complacent. The messages that it presents are shaped by corporate powers who often spend millions on advertising with the six conglomerates that own 90% of the media: General Electric (GE), News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. Yet, these corporations function under many different brands, such as Fox, ABC, CNN, Comcast, Wall Street Journal, etc, giving people the perception of choice.
“As Tavistock’s researchers showed, it was important that the victims of mass brainwashing not be aware that their environment was being controlled; there should thus be a vast number of sources for information, whose messages could be varied slightly, so as to mask the sense of external control.” ~ Specialist of mass brainwashing, L. Wolfe
New Brainwashing Tactics Called ‘Astroturf’
With alternative media on the rise, the propaganda machine continues to expand. Below is a video of Sharyl Attkisson, investigative reporter with CBS, during which she explains how “astroturf,” or fake grassroots movements, are used to spin information not only to influence journalists but to sway public opinion.
“Astroturf is a perversion of grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start facebook and twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.” ~ Sharyl Attkisson, Investigative Reporter
How do you separate fact from fiction? Sharyl Attkisson finishes her talk with some insights on how to identify signs of propaganda and astroturf.
Here is a summary of astroturf tactics. Once you’re aware of them, you will notice just how popular they have truly become:
  • Creating of Wikipedia pages, monitored by corporations.
  • Creating a social media presence, including Facebook and Twitter accounts, run by paid professionals.
  • Secretly funding non-profit organizations to create third-party support and web presence.
  • Search engine optimizing web pages such as blogs and third-party sites that support a specific agenda.
  • Financing industry research that is deceitfully presented as independent opinion.
  • Funding experts working on unrelated projects, while in reality creating paid consultants.
These methods are used to give people the impression that there is widespread support for an agenda, when, in reality, one may not exist. Astroturf tactics are also used to discredit or criticize those that disagree with certain agendas, using stereotypical names such as conspiracy theorist or quack. When in fact when someone dares to reveal the truth or questions the ‘official’ story, it should spark a deeper curiosity and encourage further scrutiny of the information.

Please share this.

Borderland Homicides Show Mexico's Gun Control Has Failed

January 18, 2016
We often  hear about homicide rates in Mexico and how they are among the highest in the world. While that is true for some parts of Mexico, much of Mexico — where nearly 80 percent of the population lives — has much lower rates than what are often quoted in the media. 
Most of the high-homicide areas in Mexico are found along the US border, and to a certain extent reflect the work of drug cartels working to keep drug trafficking channels open to the US.
And yet, right across the border in the US, homicide rates are remarkable low. In fact, homicide rates along the US side of the border are significantly below the US average. 
Why is this? 
Homicide Rates in Mexico, By State
First, to get a better understanding of these phenomena, let's look at homicide rates in Mexico by state. 
While not as decentralized as the US, Mexico has a weak federal system like the United States with 31 states and one federal district (somewhat like the District of Columbia) that is Mexico City. 
Using OECD data (for 2013), I mapped the Mexican states by homicide rate: 
Source: OECD, map by Ryan McMaken
Clearly, homicides are not evenly distributed across Mexico, and some areas are lopsidedly affected. Those familiar with the Mexican Drug War will note that this pattern does indeed appear to reflect trends in cartel activity and the Drug War. Here is map to help you identify each state:
Source: Mexconnect
Most Mexicans live in states with homicide rates well below those found among the ten states with the worst rates. Indeed, the total population living outside these areas constitutes nearly 80 percent of Mexico's 117 million people (as of the 2010 census). Population is concentrated around Mexico State, Pueblo State, and other states in the southern and eastern parts of the country. However, even in these parts of the country, homicide rates remains well above the US average. 
Also of note is the fact that the states with the lowest percentages of indigenous Mexican populations also tend to have the highest homicide rates. Note, for example, that among heavily indigenous states in the far south and in the Yucatan, homicide rates are quie low by national standards. Chihuahua, by contrast, which historically has tended to have the largest population of non indigenous (i.e., "white") Mexicans (proportionally speaking) has the highest homicide rate. 
And finally, we note that northern Mexico, including the high-homicide states discussed here, tend to have higher per capital income levels than the rest of the country. 
The old assumptions about how the poor and non-whites cause higher homicide rates require a closer look in the case of Mexico. 
Big Differences on Different Sides of the Border
Let's now turn our attention to the problematic north. 
It's not an accident that some of the highest homicide rates are found along the border. Mexican drug cartels have an incentive to ensure they maintain control of drug supplies moving norther to where the demand is (in the United States.) 
However, those drugs still need to be moved on the northern side of the border. So, do homicide rates continue onto the northern side? It turns out they don't. Using the same color coding (and the same data source) as the homicide map above, the border states (two states deep) on both sides look like this:
Source: OECD. Map by Ryan McMaken
On the other hand, Chihuahua and Texas are very big places. Perhaps if we take a more detailed look at the counties right on the border, we'll get a better feel for how things look at the border. 
Thanks to Omar Garcia Ponce and Hannah Postel at the Center for Global Development, the work's already been done for me. Here is a map of the border at the county/municipality level: 
Source: Center for Global Development
The general scenario remains the same.  In fact, the borderland on the US side of the border have fewer homicides than the US overall.  The authors note: 
The map [above] illustrates the striking disparity between homicide rates on each side of the border. In 2012 (the most recent year available for all locations), Mexican border municipalities experienced 34.5 murders for every 100,000 people.  By contrast, the homicide rate in US border counties was only 1.4, far below the US national average (4.7), and a tiny fraction of that experienced by their Southern neighbors. 
While almost half of the Mexican municipalities along the border experienced more than 40 murders per 100,000 people in 2012 (176 in Tamaulipas’ Ciudad Mier), the highest homicide rate in the US border counties was 12.9 (Yuma, AZ). The next most violent county experienced only 5.4 murders per 100,000 people. Notably, some of the safest locations in the United States are contiguous to many of the most dangerous places in Mexico. Most striking is the contrast between Ciudad Juárez and El Paso, two large cities that constitute a binational metropolitan area. Once called “the murder capital of the world,” Mexico’s Ciudad Juárez is only 300 feet from El Paso, “America’s safest city.” In 2012, Ciudad Juárez had 58 homicides per 100,000 people, while El Paso experienced fewer than one (0.6).
So why is there such an immense difference here? 
Restrictive Gun Laws in Mexico
The pre-packaged retort to this phenomena often repeated in the media is that the US causes the high homicide rates in Mexico by exporting guns to Mexico. We're told that criminals go into the US, buy guns legally in Texas (for example) and then sell the guns illegally to cartels in Mexico. 
Dave Kopel has shown that this claim isn't true. But, even if it were true, it wouldn't explain much by itself since we're left asking ourselves why criminals don' just do the same thing to the same homicidal effect in the United States. If it's so fruitful for violent criminals to buy guns in the US and sell them to organized crime rings, why aren't those criminals doing the same thing in the US? 
Well, the answer is the criminals probably are are well armed in the US, and have a lot of guns just like criminals in Mexico do. The difference in actual crimes carried out, however, likely lies in the fact that law abiding Mexicans have been disarmed, while law abiding Americans have not. 
Gun laws are very restrictive in Mexico, as The Atlantic notes
Mexico can hardly be described as a heavily armed society. With around 2.5 million registered gun owners and at least 13 million more illegal arms in circulation, the country has a ratio of just 15 guns for every 100 people, well below the global average. Unlike in the U.S., civilian possession in Mexico is considered a privilege, not a right and is tightly regulated under federal law since the 1970s. Extensive background checks are required of all purchasers, and there are heavy penalties and even imprisonment for non-compliance. Astonishingly, there is just one legal gun shop in the country, compared to more than 54,000 federally licensed firearm dealers and thousands of pawnshops and gun shows scattered across the U.S.
In other words, in Mexico, there is an immense asymmetry in gun ownership between violent criminals and law-abiding citizens. Criminals have abundant access to the means of violent coercion, and the will to use it. Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, have, practically speaking, no access. Meanwhile, local officials can be bought by the criminals, which means that private citizens will then find themselves facing two heavily armed groups who are free to behave maliciously toward the general population with little fear of reprisals. 
The Atlantic author notes that in Mexico, there are about 15 guns per 100 persons, which is likely referencing the data released by the Small Arms Survey. The same survey estimates that, by contrast, there are from 88 to 100 guns per 100  persons in the United States. The US far outpaces even gun-friendly Switzerland which has about 45 guns per 100 persons. 
In response to this lopsided situation that favors the cartels, some Mexicans have formed their own militia groups, but these are considered only quasi-legal, and they are certainly rare compared to the number of armed cartel members. 
In the US, by contrast, violent criminals can guess that a not-insignificant percentage of Americans are armed on the street, and far more are armed in the home. 
Possible Other Factors
Now, I'm not going to claim that gun control is the only factor at play here. There are so many cultural factors at work, it's impossible to single out this one issue as the only important one. Gun control advocates will credit gun control for low homicides, and blame everything else for high homicides. The truth is far more complex. 
Deeply ingrained issues related to government corruption, and the chaotic effect of the Drug War are clearly important factors.  However, the differences between Northern Mexico and Southern Texas or Southern Arizona are not as immense as some might think. For example, in Chihuahua, across the river from El Paso, the people share a nearly identical geography, and a very similar ethnic makeup. Even economically, northern Mexico is closer to the US than is southern Mexico, while a majority of Chihuahuans are of European descent. And, of course, it would be risible to suggest that the US is free of political corruption. However, all of these issues are exacerbated by the fact that the Mexican's state's stringent gun controls greatly enhance the coercive power of cartels and government agents at the expense of ordinary citizens. 
And there is no denying that when one crosses the border from Chihuahua to Texas, some of the biggest differences one encounters are legal and political in nature. 
Among these differences is the fact that south of the border only government agents and criminals are allowed meaningful access to firearms, while norther of the border, criminals and ordinary citizens share similar levels of access. 
What we are witnessing in northern Mexico then, is a tragic mixture of failed Drug War policies mixed with a government refusal to allow Mexicans to arm themselves. Yes, there are many factors at work. Take out some of them — whether drug war, ethnic conflict, or poverty — and the situation would likely be improved. 
But, when we add gun control into the mix, things are far worse than these ever need have been. Moreover, if one's position is that the fault lies with poverty and corruption, then the pro-gun-control position is nothing more than the position that the same regime responsible for this corruption and poverty should be granted even more absolute power over the population it abuses. 
It is instructive that, on the northern side of the border, meanwhile, there is still a drug war, there is a lot of ethnic diversity, and the US border areas have some of the highest poverty rates in the United States. And yet, homicide rates are far, far below what they are on the southern side. Indeed, right along the border, they're among the lowest rates we see anywhere in the world. 
What About the Canada-US Border?
Do we see similar issues along the Canadian-US border? 
As I noted in this article, American states near the northern US border tend to have low homicide rates with states like Idaho, Oregon, New Hampshire, and Maine reporting remarkably low homicide rates that are similar too or even lower than Canadian homicide rates. 
Using the same color coding as the previous maps (and the same data source), we see that, with the exception of Michigan (i.e., Detroit) the US-Canada border is marked by homicide rates all below 5 per 100,000:
Source: OECD. Map by Ryan McMaken
Of course, the situation in the Canadian border is immensely different from the situation on the Mexican border in terms of ethnicity, income levels, and climate. Crossing the northern border, however, brings nowhere near the sorts of changes in crime that are encountered on the southern side. 
Nevertheless, part of this might be attributed to the fact that Canada is far more gun-friendly than Mexico. There is certainly more than one gun store in Canada (to say the least), and it is estimated by the Small Arms Survey that Canada has twice as many guns per capita as Mexico, with 30 per 100 persons. 
Mexican Politicians (and American Politicians) Blame Everyone Else 
While it refuses to admit the abject failure of its gun control program, the Mexican state instead attempts to shift the blame to Americans and has attempted to impose international gun control measures on the US. 
For Mexican politicians, it's easier to shift the blame than to recognize the fact that neighboring Americans right across the border enjoy far lower homicide rates along side relatively easy access to firearms. (Even California looks like a gun-owner's paradise compared to Mexico.) 
The Mexican state (and many Mexicans) are unfortunately impervious to these facts, and, many Mexicans still believe that Mexicans will be safer if the Mexican regime tightens its grip even more on firearms, in spite of the spectacular failure of gun control in that country. 
Note: The views expressed on are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Studies of identical twins show homosexuality is acquired, not genetic

Gay Pride Parade, Miami Beach, 2013
Gay Pride Parade, Miami Beach, 2013
For no scientific reason, we’ve all been brainwashed into believing that homosexuality is not by choice, that homosexuals are born that way.
But eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the United States and Scandinavia during the last two decades all have arrived at the same conclusion: homosexuality primarily and overwhelmingly (90%) is an acquired disposition, instead of genetic.
The findings of those studies are presented in Chapter 10, “Twin Studies: the strongest evidence,” of Neil E. Whitehead, Ph.D., My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the scientific evidence (Third edition, Oct. 2013). (You can download the book, free, in PDF format here; or buy a copy here.)
Dr. Neil Whitehead is the author of over 140 published scientific papers. His Ph.D. is in biochemistry, 1971, New Zealand. He was employed as a scientist with the New Zealand government for 24 years, at the United Nations for 4 years, and more recently as a scientific research consultant to Japanese universities on the effects of radiation exposure.
Before I present the findings in Dr. Whitehead’s Chapter 10, “”Twin Studies: the strongest evidence,” we first need to know the importance of studying identical twins.


Identical or monozygotic twins occur when a single egg is fertilized to form one zygote (hence, “monozygotic”) which then divides into two separate embryos that grow and develop into identical twins. Being formed from the same zygote, identical twins therefore have identical genes or DNA. Furthermore, being in the same womb, the twins also share identical pre-natal biological conditions.
As a result of having the same genes and prenatal conditions, identical twins are perfect subjects for scientific study to determine whether a disease, disposition or personality attribute is caused by nature (genes) or nurture (acquired). If homosexuality is caused by genetics and/or prenatal conditions in the womb, then identical twins will always be identical for same sex attraction. That is, if one identical twin is homosexual, the co-twin should also be homosexual. In other words, the same sex attraction (SSA) concordance should be 100%. 
(In contrast, fraternal or dizygotic twins usually occur when two eggs are separately fertilized by two different sperm cells, but are implanted in the uterus wall at the same time. The two eggs or ova form two zygotes, hence the term “dizygotic twins”. Fraternal twins have different DNA and really are two ordinary siblings who happen to be born at the same time.)

Identical twins and homosexuality

Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. We now have very large twin registers in many countries, one of the largest in use is in Australia with more than 33,000 pairs of twins on the books, all of whom are prepared to assist in general research. A team of Australian researchers used that twin register and, in 2000, published their findings as:
  • J. M. Baily, M. P. Dunne, and N. G. Martin, “Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78:524-536.
  • S. L. Jones and M. A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality. The use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2000).
The Australian identical twins study found that for self-declared lesbians and “gays,” the pairwise concordance is 14% and 11% respectively. Five later and very large studies found very similar results.
A same sex attraction (SSA) concordance of 11% means that when one of a twin pair from a general twin registry is homosexual, his co-twin is homosexual one time in nine, or 11% of the time, which is not very much.
Note: Don’t confuse the 11-14% SSA concordance in studies of identical twins with the 2-3% incidence of homosexuality in the general population. 11% SSA concordance among identical twins does NOT mean that homosexuality was found in 11% of identical twins; it means if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, there’s an 11% chance that the other twin is also homosexual.
Since DNA and prenatal conditions account for 11% SSA concordance, that means the percentage due to genes or DNA is even smaller, less than 11%. Furthermore, identical twins usually also grew up in the same family environment. All of which means that “neither genes nor upbringing is very important” as determinants of homosexuality. Instead, something(s) else that was not shared by identical twins accounts for the SSA.
Put simply and bluntly, homosexuals are not born that way. (In fact, no homosexual gene has been found or is expected to be. See Chapter 9 of Whitehead’s book.) 
Nor do people become homosexual because of upbringing. Fuller studies, which include fraternal twins, show that for SSA the effect of upbringing is low and even less than that of genes. Results from twin studies for very many traits show family influence is less than genetic influence. In other words, parents are usually not directly involved in making a son or daughter homosexual, either genetically or through parenting.
Dr. Whitehead writes:
This degree of concordance [11%] now has the backing of half a dozen major twin studies so is very unlikely to change. So the following conclusion will not change in the future either: The predominant cause of SSA both in men and women is individual post-natal random reactions to biological and environmental factors.

Random events and homosexuality

Unusual random events, e.g., some early sexual experience such as pornography or molestation, can have extraordinarily powerful influences by impressing themselves on our memory, and affect our responses and behavior for years. If an event or feeling has been mulled over numerous times for years, it is important, possibly formative, and may even be a mind habit.
Whitehead writes, “There is a wrong but popular impression that SSA development is a great mystery. But in many ways it’s no more mysterious than the development of heterosexuality.” Many homosexual men and women, recalling incidents which they believe were instrumental in the development of their SSA, recount clear early memories of one particular thing done or said in families that deeply influenced their later choices. Otis and Skinner in a non-twin study identified some of them by sampling a group of SSA men and women who said the factors in the figure below had at least some influence on their orientation, such as positive same-sex experiences.
Otis & Skinner study on factors influencing SSA
So what are the random factors experienced by one identical twin but not another which play a greater role (89%) than DNA and prenatal conditions in developing same sex attraction? Here are some examples:
  • Sexual abuse (same sex for men, opposite sex for women).
  • Exposure to “gay” porn (mostly for men).
  • Parental preference.
  • Rejection by a parent.
  • Bad experience with or rejection by opposite sex.
  • Gender-atypical physical feature(s), e.g., slight body built (for men); obesity, physical unattractiveness or unfemininity (for women).
  • Fetishes.
  • Middle age (for women): note the Hollywood actresses who, in middle age, have come out as lesbians, e.g., Kelly McGillis (Top Gun) and Meredith Baxter (Family Ties).
  • Parental encouragement to be gender atypical, e.g., dressing little boys in girl’s clothes.
  • Single parent family (no male role model for boys).
  • Cultural approval/disapproval.
The Australian identical-twins study was of adult twins. A large ongoing study of tens of thousands of adolescent students in the United States found even lower SSA concordances in identical adolescent twins of only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study. Moreover, not only is SSA concordance less in adolescents, it is also more malleable — adolescents with SSA generally change their attractions from year to year.


Given the scientific findings that:
  1. Homosexuality overwhelmingly is not inborn or genetic, but is acquired as a result of random experiences (and reaction to those experiences), which include pornography, broken homes, and cultural approval/disapproval;
  2. Sexual orientation in adolescence is very malleable.
And given the transformation of American culture and society into one of broken, single-mother homes; where pornography (including gay and tranny porn) is widely available online; where homosexuality and sexually deviant behaviors increasingly are not just tolerated, but accepted and celebrated; and where Christianity is on the wane, we can expect more young people to identify themselves as homosexual and transsexual. Already, 1 in 2 of young people in the UK identify themselves as not 100% heterosexual. That is America’s dismal future.
H/t FOTM Facebook reader Dianne Allyn-Fowler
See also

Please share this.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Sunday, January 3, 2016

3 Mainstream Media Journalists Tell the Truth About Tell-Lie-Vision

INSANITY: Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
What’s so sad, is how many times mainstream media executives and news figures have been busted for not having so much as a single solitary ounce of journalistic integrity, but yet if you ask someone about current events, almost without thinking, they’ll regurgitate the talking points from the previous night.
Sooooo… they know they’re being lied to, but listen anyway??? Come on… Has America fallen THAT far? Immediately below are several links to posts I’ve done on the corrupt media, followed by three honest journalists coming clean for the record about just how dirty the “news” business is.
Do you want to see undeniable proof the media is corrupt as can be? How is it POSSIBLE no one in the mainstream media is reporting the Roughly 150 Armed Militia Members Who Have Seized a Federal Building In Oregon? Google it. I assure you it’s MAJOR news in Oregon. The media blackout is eerily similar to when New Orleans had a Mass Shooting a Few Weeks Ago Where Were 300 Shot At, 17 Wounded, and the Media Was Silent Totally Silent There Too. Why?
Team Obama
Arjun Walia from Collective Evolution writes:
The world is changing so fast, and many people, at least in the developed world, are starting to see through corporately owned mainstream media.
They’ve been caught red handed ‘faking’ and lying about major global events on multiple occasions, and now, some of their employees are leaving their jobs and telling the truth about something that dominates a large portion of mainstream media. 
That being said, it’s clear that not every single thing we see on mainstream western television is a lie, but it seems that much of it is or at least has corporate and political bias’ behind it, especially when it comes to major global events like war and terrorism.
It’s unfortunate that our world has been plagued by political agendas, and that the infiltration of media has become out of control. Further, it’s disturbing to think that only a handful of corporations run and control mainstream media.
Ever since Operation Mockingbird, a CIA-based initiative to control mainstream media, more and more people are expressing their concern that what we see in the media is nothing short of brainwashing, and a number of ‘whistleblowers’ who actually worked in the industry have come out and said the exact same thing.
Below is a list of three of the most recent examples.
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte is a top German journalist and editor and has been for more than two decades. He recently went on the record stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also mentioning that noncompliance would result in him losing his job. 
He recently made an appearance on RT news Stating that:
“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”
Here is the full interview:

Sharyl Attkisson
Below is a great TEDx talk from veteran investigative journalist and former CBS NEWS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. 
In it, she explains how “astroturf,” or fake grassroots movements, funded by political, corporate, or other special interests, ars very effectively manipulating and distorting mainstream media messages, whether it be political or corporate.


Amber Lyon
“I just fear that the public is continuing to be fed propaganda that unassuming Americans don’t realize their being fed.”
Amber Lyon is a three time Emmy award winning journalist at CNN. She has gone on record stating that the mainstream media outlets are routinely paid by the US government as well as foreign governments to selectively report and distort information on certain events.
She has also stated that the United States government has editorial control over mainstream media content.
This Is Why Alternative Media Is So Important
It’s sad to think about the fact that the main source of information and ‘truth’ about our world, and what’s happening on it, is a television screen with with news from corporations with multiple agendas who dictate government policy. 
In some cases, what western media says is the complete opposite of what other countries report. We’ve seen this recently with Russia and the United States concerning ISIS, or Europe and the United States concerning GMO food, and we see it with many other topics as well.
Independent investigative journalists, and again, alternative media, are what people seem to be attracted to now. We can see it in the numbers, as alternative media outlets are now receiving hundreds of millions of website views. 
We are all naturally curious about our planet, and it’s good to see more people recognizing that it’s time to turn of our TV, and do some research for ourselves.

Evidence that the Main Stream Media is fabricating news for propaganda reasons:

Liberal or Stupid


The Last Great Stand

Please share this.