A boy"s creativity and expression has gotten him kicked out of school after he drew a teenage mutant ninja turtle holding two swords.
The post School Suspends 13-Year-old for Drawing Stick Figure Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Holding Swords appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
This article was originally published by Joe Alton, MD at DoomAndBloom.net
Dr. Alton is the co-author of The Survival Medicine Handbook, an essential guide for when medical help is NOT on the way.
In the Parkland high school shooting in South Florida, just a few miles from my home, we saw the extremes of human fortitude in the persons of Coach Aaron Feis and Deputy Scot Peterson. Peterson, a trained security professional, stayed outside while a shooting was in progress in the area he was hired to defend. Feis, a man not charged with the safety of others, protected them with his body at the expense of his own life.
I have thought about the idea of courage often; my writings on disaster preparedness presuppose that a certain amount is necessary to be resilient in the face of adversity. Yet, can a person really know what they will do when faced with a decision that can cost them their life?
Some just naturally run towards the sound of gunfire, while others naturally run in the other direction. The Department of Homeland Security recommends going the other way in their “Run, Hide, Fight” triad for active shooter events. There are those, however, who will run towards danger. Many of these individuals are or were in the military, law enforcement, and fire/emergency services.
Examples might be hitting the beach on D-day, running into the World Trade Center on 9/11, or perhaps the nurse who ran into the building to help victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. In many of these instances, they knew they were in danger, but went above and beyond.
Rebecca Anderson, RN, died attempting to rescue victims of the Oklahoma City bombing
Courage takes other forms as well. If you were, for example, the first African-American student in an all-white school district during the civil rights era or the first woman cadet in a military academy, you’ll never have to prove your bravery and determination to me in any other way.
You might think courage is an inborn virtue, constant over a lifetime. I’m not sure about that. I, personally, was a fearful little boy, then became a (stupidly) fearless teenager. I eventually morphed into an average adult. Now, in my golden years, I may have more of a tendency to head towards the sound of gunfire; after all, what have I got to lose at this point? Sit me in front of a doctor telling me that I have cancer, however, and that might be a very different story.
Then there’s the fortitude it takes to re-invent yourself. I don’t consider myself to be particularly courageous. After I retired from the active practice of medicine, I was tempted to take up golf. It was something I had tried years before but was, frankly, terrible at. Instead, I decided, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, to write a blog about preparedness. That led to writing books, podcasts, a YouTube channel, and an entirely different career all about teaching others to survive natural or man-made disasters.
It’s hard to teach courage, but you can foster motivation in people. If people are taught the importance of something, they might be more apt to defend it. Loving something deeply also gives you the motivation to be brave in its defense. I can’t think of something more important than the lives of our young people. Coach Feis realized this, and acted accordingly.
Is courage contagious? Fear certainly is. If 50 people around you drop to the floor at the sound of gunfire, you might do the same. If those same people run towards the sound of gunfire, you might, too, although it puts you at risk. You might consider this foolhardiness rather than courage (Homeland Security does), but, where a gunman is concerned, you’re more likely to stop the killing by doing something other than laying on the floor in plain sight.
Many founding fathers lost their entire fortune and some their lives by their decision to support the patriot cause
Speaking of fear, courage is not the absence of it, but. rather, the overcoming of it. There is physical courage and there is moral courage. Our founding fathers were men of wealth and privilege, and it would have been very easy to support remaining a colony of England. But they realized the importance of freedom, and put their fates and fortunes on the line to bring forth a new nation.
Activism is a form of courage, but courage is not just the act of speaking up; sometimes, shutting up and listening to opposing viewpoints takes fortitude as well. If more people would sit down and listen to each other, we might come more easily to agreement on a lot of today’s controversies. This takes more courage than keeping a closed mind.
If we are to be resilient in the face of adversity, it is courage, above all other virtues, that will make it possible. If we are to survive as a society, it will be because of the fortitude and strength of our citizens to pick up the flag, so to speak, and move forward. That goes for active shooter incidents and it goes for every obstacle you face in life.
Joe and Amy Alton are the authors of the 3 category #1 Amazon Bestseller “The Survival Medicine Handbook“. See their articles in Backwoods Home, Survival Quarterly, and other great magazines. For over 900 articles on medical preparedness in wilderness, disaster, or other austere settings, go to their website at www.doomandbloom.net. The opinions voiced by Joe Alton, M.D., and Amy Alton, A.R.N.P. are their own and are not meant to take the place of seeking medical help from a qualified healthcare provider. All email content sent by the Altons are copyright DoomandBloom llc, 2017, all rights reserved.
Twitter: @preppershow
Facebook: drbonesand nurseamy
Facebook Group: Survival Medicine Group
Youtube: DrBonesNurseAmy channel
iTunes:Survival Medicine Hour iTunes Link
American Survival Radio on GCNLive.com, KPJC 1220 AM KRFE 580 AM KFAR 660A
This article was originally published by Daisy Luther at The Organic Prepper
Selco interviewed by Daisy Luther
Are you prepared for the extreme violence that is likely to come your way if the SHTF? No matter what your plan is, it’s entirely probable that at some point, you’ll be the victim of violence or have to perpetrate violence to survive. As always, Selco is our go-to guy on SHTF reality checks and this thought-provoking interview will shake you to your core.
If you don’t know Selco, he’s from Bosnia and he lived through a year in a city that was blockaded with no utilities, no deliveries of supplies, and no services. In his interviews, he shares what the scenarios the rest of us theorize about were REALLY like. He mentioned to me recently that most folks aren’t prepared for the violence that is part and parcel of a collapse, which brings us to today’s interview.
How prevalent was violence when the SHTF in Bosnia?
It was wartime and chaos, from all conflicts in those years in the Balkan region Bosnian conflict was most brutal because of multiple reasons, historical, political and other.
To simplify the explanation why violence was common and very brutal, you need to picture a situation where you are “bombarded” with huge amount of information (propaganda) which instills in you very strong feelings of fear and hate.
Out of fear and hate, violence grows easy and fast, and over the very short period of time you see how people around you (including you) do things that you could not imagine before.
I can say that violence was almost an everyday thing in the whole spectrum of different activities because it was a fight for survival.
Again, whenever (and wherever) you put people in a region without enough resources, you can expect violence.
We were living a normal life, and then suddenly we were thrown in a way of living where if you could not “negotiate” something with someone, you solve the problem by launching a rocket from an RPG through the window of his living room.
Hate stripped down the layers of humanity and suddenly it was “normal” to level an apartment building with people inside with shells from a tank or form private prisons with imprisoned civilians for slave work or sex slaves.
Nothing that I saw or read before could have prepared me for the level of violence and blindness to it, for the lives of kids, elders, civilians, and the innocent.
Again, the thing that is important for readers is that we were a modern society one day, and then in few weeks it turned into carnage.
Do not make the mistake of saying “it cannot happen here” because I made that mistake too.
Do not underestimate power of propaganda, fear, hate, and the lowest human instincts, no matter how modern and good your society is right now and how deeply you believe that “it can not happen here”.
You’ve mentioned warlords and gangs in several of your articles. Were they responsible for the majority of the violence or was it hungry families?
Fighting of the armies through the whole period of war brings violence in terms of constant shelling from a distance from different kind of weapons.
For example a few multiple rocket launchers (VBR) could bring in 30 seconds the destruction in an area of 3-4 apartment buildings, and being there in that moment and surviving it gives you a completely new view on life.
Snipers were a constant threat and over time you simply grow a way of living that you constant scan area in front of you where your next steps gonna be. Are you gonna be visible and from where? Etc.
Most brutal violence was actually lawlessness and complete lack of order between different factions and militias, so in some periods there were militias or gangs who simply ruled the cities or part of the city where they were absolutely masters of everything in terms of deciding of taking someone’s life.
In lawlessness, you as one person could be really small and not interesting, or join some bigger group of people to be stronger, some family or militia or gang.
An example of a gang would be group of people of some 300 or 500 people who “officially” were a unit or militia and operate for some faction, but in reality they operate mostly for themselves.
That included owning part of the black market, having prison (for forced labor or ransom), attacking people and houses for resources, smuggling people from dangerous areas.
Violence from those kinds of group was the most immediate violence, the most visible in terms of SHTF talking.
If those people came on your door you could obey, fight, or negotiate, but mostly you could not not ask for help from any kind of authority, because there was no real authority.
In any society, no matter where you are living, there are a great number of people who are waiting for the SHTF to go out and do violent things. Small time criminals or simply violent persons who are not openly violent because system is there to punish them for that. It is like that.
Some gang leaders that I knew were actually completely sick people with a strange type of charisma that makes people follow them, weird situations that can happen only in a real collapse.
They are people who just waited for their time to rise.
Those kinds of people together with criminal organization that are already there in any city in the world will be the backbone of SHTF gangs.
Who were the most likely victims?
A very simple answer would be that the most likely victims were people who had interesting things without enough defense.
But it was not always that simple.
For example one of the first houses that got raided in my neighborhood, right at the beginning of collapse while there was still some kind of order, was a rich family’s home.
They had a nice house with bars on the windows, a pretty good setup for defense, and they had enough people inside so they could give pretty good resistance to the mob.
But they got raided simply because they were known that they are rich, so they were attacked with enough force to be overwhelmed.
It was not only about how much manpower you had and how well-organized defense of your home was, it was also about how juicy a target you were.
If you are faced with 150 angry people attacking your home because they are sure you have good stuff inside your chances are low, no matter how good and tough you are.
People who were alone were a pretty easy target and old people without support of family or friends.
It was not always about killing someone or violence. For example, if you were alone and without resources but you had something else valuable like some kind of skill or knowledge you could easily be “recruited” for some faction or group, not by your will of course.
What were some ways to prevent yourself from becoming a victim of violence? How do you recommend that people prepare themselves for the possibility of violence?
It can be done in steps, or in layers.
Do not be interesting (or attract attention) when the SHTF.
This means a lot of things, for this article I can give a few examples with shortened explanations because it is a huge topic:
Think about what survival is!
Survival is about staying alive, it is not about being comfortable at the expense of losing your life.
I have seen many times people lose their lives simply because they were too attached to their belongings (house, car, land, goods…) so they simply did not want to leave something and run in a particular moment.
Everything can be earned and bought again except life.
Forget about statements like “I will defend it with my life” or “over my dead body” or similar because the real SHTF is usually not heroic or noble. It is hard and brutal. When you are gone you are gone and there might be nobody to take care of your family just because you have been stubborn or trusted in movies when it came to violence.
To rephrase it: Be ready to leave your home in a split second if that means you and your family will survive, no matter how many good things you have stored there.
Be mentally ready for violence
In a way, it is impossible to be ready for violence, especially widespread violence when the SHTF, but you can minimize shock when that happens with some things.
If you are not familiar with what violence is, you can try to get yourself close” to it today (in normal times). It can be done, for example, by doing some voluntary work for example in a local hospital, ER or similar… or simply by working with homeless people.
Sounds maybe strange but activities like this can get you a bit of a feeling of what it is all about, not to mention that you can learn some practical and useful skills for SHTF.
Have means and skills (physically) to defend – or to do violence
No matter how old or young you are, your gender or religion I assure you that you are capable of doing violence. It is only a matter of the situation and how far you are going to be pushed.
It is not just “some people are capable of violence.” Everybody is capable. Not everybody enjoys doing it or is willing to do it so easily.
In today (normal times) you can learn some violence skills and you should do it, again no matter if you are a woman or old or young.
You should own a weapon and know how to use it. You should practice with it, or have at least some basic knowledge about hand-to-hand combat.
The worst case scenario is to have a weapon that you try for the first time when SHTF.
Be familiar with your means for defense, let your family members know what they need to do in case of attack of your home, have plan, and go through it.
Only through practice will you minimize chances for mistakes.
Use common sense
I know lot of survivalists almost dream about how they are going to use weapons against bad guys when SHTF, and that they will be something like super heroes from movies, saving innocents and killing villains.
Truth is that in a real collapse, a lot of things are kind of blurred and you are not sure who the bad guys are. Good guys turn out to be lunatic gang members who want to bring food to their kids.
There are no super heroes when SHTF, and if some of them show up they end up dead quickly.
There is only you and your skills and mindset and what you prepared.
Use violence as a last resort because of the simple fact that by using violence you are risking of getting killed or hurt. Remember when SHTF there is maybe no doctor or hospital to take care of your wound.
It is a time when even a small cut can eventually kill you through infection and lack of proper care.
I’m a single mom with a household full of girls. In an SHTF situation, what would our best strategies be to remain safe?
Just like I have mentioned before, strategy is always same for any part of survival, and shooting from the rifle is pretty similar no matter are you man or woman.
Being single mom with household full of girls on first look make you as a ideal target in some situations, but we are talking here in prepper terms so there is no reason not to be perfectly well prepared as a single mom with girls.
But yes I admit it is not perfect situation, even if you are prepared well, some things are sure, you need to connect with other people even more.
House with couple of girls will always look like easy prey for some people.
It is like that.
Were people in the city safer than people in the country? Can you tell us more about rural living during this time?
In my case definitely no.
In the essence it always come to the resources and people.
City meant more people less resources, country (rural) meant less people more resources, and because that level of violence simply was lower. That was most important reason.
There are few more reasons why it was much better in the country.
People in the country (rural settings) were much more “connected to ground” they were more tough if you like, they grew their own food, had cattle, lived more simple life prior SHTF and when everything collapsed they had less problems getting use to it.
Yes they also did not have electricity and phones, running water or connection to other places but they adapted easier to the new life because they had more useful skills then people in the city.
Life was harder for them too than prior to the collapse, but they had means to get resources: land, woods, river…
Another thing is that people in small rural communities “in the country” were more connected to each other, people knew their neighborhood and some things were easier to organize, like community security watch, help in case of diseases and similar.
What types of weapons did people have for self-defense?
It was different political system prior the collapse where it was not so usual to own a weapon legally. And to own one illegally could mean a lot of troubles.
Right prior to SHTF, it became possible to buy different weapons on the black market but still, a majority of people did not own weapons.
When it all collapsed, it was possible to get a weapon through trade.
Because of the military doctrine here prior to the collapse, we used “East Bloc” weapons. A favorite was AK-47 in all different kind of editions, or older weapons like M-48 rifle, SKS rifle, 22 and similar.
People used what they had, so in one period you would be lucky if you had any kind of pistol and knife.
Later through the different channels weapon become more available so people had them more. A lot of that was actually junk that some warlords somehow “imported”.
Weapons 50-60 years old without proper ammunition, or not in operating condition. A lot of people simply did not have a clue how to use any kind of weapon so a lot of accidental deaths happened.
I remember people storming abandoned army barracks that was mostly looted, but they found in one building a lot of RPGs while other part of the same building was burning.
Two guys were trying to figure out a single-use RPG, and while they were messing with it clearly not knowing how that thing worked, they accidentally armed it and launched a rocket that flew through the crowd, not hurting anyone and exploding in wall 100 meters from where they stood.
They were smiling, clearly happy because they thought they figured out how that thing worked.
What weapons do you suggest to have for SHTF?
It is a never-ending discussion and a favorite prepper topic, and I must say that whole discussion is overrated.
I have used them in a real situation, and tried and tested lot of different kind of weapons and what works for me may simply not work for you.
For example, here for me good choice is AK-47 rifle, maybe for you wherever you are it is very bad choice.
Good advice is : you need to have a weapon that most people have around you because of multiple reasons: spare parts, repairing, ammunition availability, possibility that you can pick that rifle from other people and you know how to use it.
What caliber and similar is a matter of discussion again. I am talking from the point of owning a rifle.
Another thing is that you need to know how that weapon works. Luckily, most of my readers live in an area where gun laws are great comparing to region where I am.
You have much more choices when it comes to owning a weapon and practicing with it. Use that.
And do not forget that using weapon in a real life situation is not like shooting at beer bottles with your friends after a barbecue.
In real life you might be in a situation to use a weapon while you are tired, dirty, and hungry and while someone is screaming next to you.
It is going to be maybe when you are not ready to do that, maybe in pitch dark, maybe after you have been awake for 48 hours.
At least think about that.
When should you use violence?
Contrary to some popular beliefs in the prepper community, the point is to use violence only as a last solution.
The reason is as I mentioned already, the risk that you can be hurt or killed too, but also once you do violence you change your own rules, or push it more forward, and it is easy to get lost in violence.
There are consequences to that, and you are not going to be the same person ever again.
Violence is a tool, not a toy. You need to know how to use it as best as possible, but also to avoid using it when it is not necessary.
It is a good idea to set up a clear set of rules (mentally too) when you are gonna use violence and to try to stick to it.
For example you will use weapon if someone tries to break your home and attack you, and you need to be ready to do that without hesitation.
What else should we know about post-collapse violence?
Think with your head and research.
One thing that is absolutely important when it comes to understanding how violent it is going to be and what can you expect in your own case of SHTF, is to understand how much media can influence people in making their decisions about violence.
In my case, the media built up situation where people feared so much from other people that they actually hated them. They hated them so much that they actually strip them down from humanity.
In a real-life example, it works in a way that people killed other people, including kids and women, because they hated them so much because media told them.
It may look ridiculous and not possible to you, and you might again think “that can not happen here” but please trust your own resources, look for independent information, not mainstream media, in order to get the right information about what is really happening in the beginning of collapse.
Do not be pulled into “popular opinion” just because the “man from TV” (whoever he might be) told you so.
It is easier today. Because of the internet, you have much more choices for correct information than in my time. But still be careful, you might find yourself rioting together with 500 people just because you trusted some media.
More from Selco
More information about Selco
In his online works, he gives an inside view of the reality of survival under the harshest conditions. He reviews what works and what doesn’t, tells you the hard lessons he learned, and shares how he prepares today.
He never stopped learning about survival and preparedness since the war. Regardless what happens, chances are you will never experience extreme situations like Selco did. But you have the chance to learn from him and how he faced death for months.
Real survival is not romantic or idealistic. It is brutal, hard and unfair. Let Selco take you into that world.
Read more of Selco’s articles here: https://shtfschool.com/
And take advantage of a deep and profound insight into his knowledge and advice by signing up for the outstanding and unrivaled online course. More details here: https://shtfschool.com/
Please feel free to share any information from this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper and the following bio.
Daisy Luther is the author of The Pantry Primer: A Prepper’s Guide To Whole Food on a Half Price Budget. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca
Authored by Douglas Murray via The Gatestone Institute,
Whenever Britain suffers a terrorist attack -- and it has suffered four Islamist attacks this year alone -- the British public responds the same way.
Twelve years ago, when four suicide bombers detonated homemade bombs on the London underground and on a red-top bus in central London, there was much talk of "Blitz spirit". After 7/7, the media erupted with boasts of wartime echoes. Some people who lived in London noticed a rather different atmosphere. Of course people "got on with their lives" (what else could they do?) but in the days and weeks after the attacks it was not really "business as usual". Especially not after another four suicide bombers went onto the tube a fortnight later, on July 21, and attempted to repeat the exercise. Fortunately, on that occasion the bombs failed to detonate. But during the period that ensued, it was certainly easier than usual to get a seat on the London Underground.
Of course, political leaders relish the opportunity to accentuate and exaggerate these echoes. If the British public are the citizens of London in the Blitz, then the politicians are Winston Churchill. After attacks like the 2013 daytime slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of London, then-Prime Minister David Cameron stressed from the steps of Downing Street that "One of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives. And that is what we shall all do." These themes are thought to play deep to the spirit of the British people.
But the more this conspicuous, self-conscious egging-on of such attitudes is stressed, the thinner it seems to get. In March, after Khalid Masood ploughed a car across Westminster Bridge, mowing down locals and tourists, and crashed the car and stabbed policeman Keith Palmer to death inside the gates of the Palace of Westminster, one prominent British journalist took to the pages of the New York Times to pour out the clichés.
"By Thursday morning, London was, if not quite back to normal, then certainly back in business. As I traveled through the south of the city, up to Chelsea and later over to King"s Cross, Londoners really were going about their lives as on any other day.
"This behavior reflects something deeper than conscious defiance, I think. It would simply not occur to the 8.6 million citizens of this megalopolis to allow one man to send them into hiding. As they say in the East End, you"re having a laugh, aren"t you?"
One wonders when the author last went into an East End pub to have a pint, and whether he honestly believes such honest cockneys still reside there? Nevertheless, he went to boast of the "stoicism" and "ancestral pride" that still exists there and to insist that, "The only way to proceed is -- in the much-loved British slogan -- to keep calm and carry on." Quite why this spirit is meant to reside in the bones of a city in which most of its current residents (according to the last census) have arrived in the decades since the Second World War is never clear.
Similar clichés spilled out after the suicide bombing at the Manchester Arena in May. They came out yet again after the London Bridge attack in June. Yet one of the most striking images from that night was of drinkers in Borough Market, where the terrorists finished their assault, being marched out of the Market under police escort with their hands on their heads. The British public at that point, at any rate, looked not like stoical, pugnacious heroes, but like a defeated army being marched into captivity. Still the clichés continued. The day after the attack, in her address to the nation, Prime Minister Theresa May assured the public that "Our response must be as it has always been when we have been confronted by violence. We must come together, we must pull together."
 One of the most striking images from the June 3, 2017 Borough Market terror attack was of drinkers being marched out of the Market under police escort with their hands on their heads. The British public at that point looked not like stoical, pugnacious heroes, but like a defeated army being marched into captivity. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images) |
So it is interesting to consider, beneath all the talk of business as usual, and Blitz spirit, and keeping calm and carrying on, what, in fact, are the British public actually feeling? Last month provided a sobering demonstration.
Early in the evening on Friday, November 24 there were reports of shots having been fired at Oxford Circus station. A crowd stampede occurred, with people fleeing in terror down Oxford Street and other parts of one of London"s busiest shopping areas. Terrified crowds barricaded themselves into local shops. A celebrity singer and television presenter called Olly Murs tweeted to his millions of followers that he was in Selfridges department store. "F**k everyone get out of Selfridges now gun shots!! I"m inside." That was his first unwise tweet, followed up shortly after with, "Really not sure what"s happened! I"m in the back office... but people screaming and running towards exits!"
The police announced that they were responding to events as though they were a terrorist incident. Social media and some early national media reports said that not only gunshots had been heard but that a vehicle had ploughed into pedestrians on Oxford Street and that there were bodies and blood everywhere.
Within an hour, however, all this turned out to be nonsense. Not only had there been no vehicular attack -- there had been no gunmen. Reports that the incident may have been sparked by a gang fight rather than a terrorist attack were themselves later quashed. The next day two men who thought they might have been responsible for the panic voluntarily came into a police station and were released without charge. The only casualties from the incident were 16 people injured, one seriously, as a cause of the mass stampede out of Oxford Circus station and through the neighbouring area.
Incidents like this one in London last month easily flow by in the news cycle, and are easily forgotten. They will not be referred to in the speeches of any politician and they immediately fell away from even the "News in Brief" sections of the nation"s media. But they are in fact extremely telling. They suggest that rather than being this persistently stoical, unbending and resilient people, the citizens of London have absorbed the lessons of the terror attacks of the last year and the terror attacks across Europe that have occurred in the years preceding them, in Paris and elsewhere. Contrary to all our public statements, we have become terrorised, just as the terrorists want. So much so that a minor altercation on an average evening can lead to a mass panic, a crowd stampede, and terrified public figures bleating to their followers about wholly imagined horrors. It is a glimpse into the soul of a city. And like all such ugly glimpses, we will turn away from looking at it, rather than consider it and wondering what it truly suggests.
The “fireman prophet,” who claims to have predicted the outcome of the 2016 election in 2011 says that president Donald Trump has angels assigned to him, which will also protect his family, and the recent impeachment vote was destined to fail.
Mark Taylor, known as the fireman prophet and co-author of The Trump Prophecies, says impeachment attempts on President Donald Trump will be futile.
In November of 2016, the world witnessed the impossible. Nearly every household in America was tuned in to the election feeds, and every update pointed to a loss for the Republican Party. But when the map of the states flipped red in the final hour, there were a select few who weren’t surprised. They had always known Trump was going to win. He was chosen for such a time as this. The prophecy had said so.
This prophet, this reserved man of God, was retired firefighter Mark Taylor. The word given by the Holy Spirit was delivered on April 28, 2011 in the middle of the most debilitating sickness a man could ever experience. –The Trump Prophecies book description
Taylor said that in 2011, God told him that then-businessman Donald Trump would be president and despite his many enemies, God would still protect him. “They will say things about this man, the enemy, but it will not affect him and they will say it rolls off of him like a duck. For even as the feathers of a duck protect it, so shall my feathers protect this next president.” – Mark Taylor 2011 The Trump Prophecies
Taylor says that the recent failed impeachment vote is evidence that God protects Trump. On Wednesday, 58 Democrats in Congress voted to try and impeach President Trump, but the House overwhelmingly voted to kill the resolution as most Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the move. Representative Al Green, D-Texas, brought the resolution to a vote, accusing Trump, among other things, of being bigoted and a racist. After his resolution was read aloud, the House voted 364-58 to table the resolution.
But Taylor says he knew this would happen, and there should be no reason to fear. Taylor said months ago, “Rest assured, they may try these things but none of that’s going to succeed because this man has been anointed and appointed by God. He’s not going anywhere so I want to put that out there for the people because there’s a lot of fear out there. There’s no reason to be walking in fear right now,” he continued. “What I want to encourage people to do is to stay engaged in the fight. This is not a time to lay down the weapons of your warfare.” Taylor says that Trump is not going anywhere.
And Taylor continues to see signs from God in the everyday occurrences of party politics in America. Taylor said, “Interesting thing about today’s impeachment vote – it was by a 306 margin; Donald Trump won the election by 306 electoral college votes. You think that’s a sign? Yes.”
Mary Colbert, Taylor’s co-author says, “Mark prophesied before he [Trump] was elected, they will try to impeach him but it will not work, so God already gave us a headline warning that they’re really going to try to do this. That is not going to happen. He [Trump] has angels assigned to him and his family. You try to harm this man, God help you!” Colbert added.
Police descended on an elementary school after an innocent little boy who is mute and has Down Syndrome was accused of being a terrorist.
In a recent incident in the United States, yet another unarmed man was shot dead by police after opening his front door in response to their knock. The police were going to serve an arrest warrant on a domestic violence suspect – the man’s neighbour – but went to the wrong address. See ‘Police kill innocent man while serving warrant at wrong address’.
For those who follow news in the United States, the routine killing of innocent civilians by the police has become a national crisis despite concerted attempts by political and legal authorities and the corporate media to obscure what is happening. See ‘Killed by Police’ and ‘The Counted: People killed by police in the US’.
So far this year, US police have killed 1,044 people. In contrast, from 1990 to 2016, police in England and Wales killed just 62 people. See ‘Fatal police shootings’.
Of course, these murders by the police are just the tip of the iceberg of police violence as police continue to demonstrate that the freedoms ‘guaranteed’ by the Fourth Amendment have been eviscerated. See ‘What Country Is This? Forced Blood Draws, Cavity Searches and Colonoscopies’.
So why are the police so violent? you might ask. Well, several scholars have offered answers to this question and you can read a little about what they say in these articles reviewing recent books on the subject. See ‘The Fraternal Order of Police Must Go’ and ‘Our Ever-Deadlier Police State’.
While there is much in these works with which I agree – such as the racism in US policing and the corruption of the legal system which is used to violently manage oppressed peoples in the name of ‘justice’ while leaving the individuals, banks and corporations on Wall Street unaccountable for their endless, ongoing and grotesque crimes against society, the economy and the environment – I would like to pose a deeper question: Why are police in the USA so terrified? This is the important question because only people who are terrified resort to violence, even in the context of policing. Let me explain why this is the case and how it has occurred in the police context in the USA.
Violence does not arise ‘out of nowhere’. And, sadly, its origin can be traced to what is euphemistically called the ‘socialization’ of children but which is more accurately labeled ‘terrorization’. You might think that this sounds extreme but if you spend some time considering the phenomenal violence – ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ – that we adults inflict on children during the ordinary course of the day – see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’ – while deluding ourselves that we are preparing them to become just, decent and powerful citizens, then you might be willing to reconsider your concept of what it means to nurture children. Tragically, we are so far from any meaningful understanding of this notion, that it is not even possible to generate a widespread social discussion about how we might go about it.
So, having terrorized children into submission so that they unthinkingly and passively accept their preordained role in life – to act as a cog in a giant and destructive enterprise which they are terrorized into not questioning and over which they have no control – each of them takes their place in the global ‘economy’ wherever they can find a set of tasks that feels least painful. The idea of seeking their true path in order to search out their own unique destiny never even occurs to most of them and so they lead ‘shadow lives’ endlessly suppressing their awareness of the life that might have been.
Some of these individuals end up as recruits at a police training facility, where they are further terrorized into believing an elite-sponsored ideology that precludes genuine appreciation of the diversity of people in the community they will later police (that is, terrorize) in the name of ‘law and order’. After all, elite social control is more readily maintained when people, including the police, live in fear.
Police training further terrorizes the individuals involved and militarizes policing by encouraging recruits ‘to adopt a “warrior” mentality and think of the people they are supposed to serve as enemies’; the equipment they use, such as battering rams, flashbang grenades and Armoured Personnel Carriers, evoke a sense of war. See ‘War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing’.
But it doesn’t end with terrorization during childhood and then police training. Police practice functions within a long-standing cultural framework which has both wider social dimensions and narrower, localized ones. And this cultural framework has been changing, more quickly in recent years too. Unfortunately, more than ever before, this framework is increasingly driven by fear and older, delusional social expectations that police are there to maintain public safety or defend the community from criminal violence have given way to militarized assumptions, language and procedures that regard virtually everyone (and certainly indigenous people and people of color) as both dangerous and guilty until proven otherwise and treat the family home and car as targets to be ‘neutralized’ with military-style tactics and weapons. And this trend has been accelerated under Donald Trump. See ‘Trump to lift military gear ban for local police’.
By triggering fear and using military-style tactics and weapons, however, the very essence of the relationship between police and civilians is more rapidly, completely and detrimentally transformed in accord with elite interests. It equates law-enforcement with counter-terrorism and community safety with social control.
Fundamentally, of course, this plays its part in ensuring minimal effective resistance to the broader elite agenda to secure militarized control of the world’s populations and resources for elite benefit.
This transformation in the relationship between police and civilians has been accelerated by training US police in the use of military tactics that the Israeli military employs against the occupied Palestinians. See ‘Israel trains US law-enforcement in counter-terrorism’.
But consider the implications of this.
As Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, has noted in discussing this phenomenon: US police are learning paramilitary and counterinsurgency tactics from the Israeli military, border patrol and intelligence services, which enforce military law.
‘If American police and sheriffs consider they’re in occupation of neighborhoods like Ferguson and East Harlem, this training is extremely appropriate – they’re learning how to suppress a people, deny their rights and use force to hold down a subject population’. See ‘US Police Get Antiterror Training In Israel’.
Moreover, the most tangible evidence that the militarized training is having an impact on US policing is that both Israel and the US are using identical equipment against demonstrators, according to a 2013 report by the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem and photographs of such equipment taken at three demonstrations in the USA. ‘Tear gas grenades, “triple chaser” gas canisters and stun grenades made by the American companies Combined Systems Inc. and Defense Technology Corp. were used in all three U.S. incidents, as well as by Israeli security forces and military units.’ See ‘US Police Get Antiterror Training In Israel’.
Given the sheer terror that drives Israeli military policy towards occupied and militarily undefended Palestine, it is little wonder that this fear is transmitted as part of any training of US police. All knowledge and technology is embedded with emotion, and fear is utterly pervasive in any military activity. Especially when it is directed in defense of unjust ends.
So what can we do?
If you are interested in working to reduce police fear and violence, you will get plenty of ideas in the document ‘A Toolkit for Promoting Justice In Policing’ which is summarized here: ‘15 Things Your City Can Do Right Now to End Police Brutality’.
If you want to organise a nonviolent action while reducing police fear to minimize the risk of police violence, there is a comprehehensive list of guidelines here: ‘Nonviolent Action: Minimizing the Risk of Violent Repression’.
If you want to work towards ending the underlying fear that drives police (and other) violence, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’. In essence, if you want powerful individuals who are capable of resisting elite social control, including that implemented through police violence, then don’t expect children terrorized into obedience by parents, teachers and religious figures to later magically have this power.
And if you are inclined to resist violence in other contexts, consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’, signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ and/or using the strategic framework explained in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy for your peace, environmental or social justice campaign.
Why are the police so terrified? Essentially because they were terrorized as children and then terrorized during police training to violently defend elite interests against the rest of us. Elite control depends on us being too terrified to defend ourselves against their violence.
If humans are to survive this elite-driven onslaught, we need people courageous enough to resist police violence and other elite-driven violence strategically. Can we count on you?
The post Why are Police in the USA so Terrified? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
Police fear mongering about drug-laced Halloween candy is back — in spite of the utter lack of evidence, this myth continues, here"s why.
Authored by Drieu Godefridi via The Gatestone Institute,
Terrorism is booming in Europe - even though the European Union statistics say it is not. The EU"s statistics on terrorism, simply put, confuse the issue. They are a fairy-tale.
Since 9/11, in report after report, experts, ministers and public authorities have been saying the same thing: that in Europe (meaning the EU), Islamic terrorism is merely a marginal aberration. Nothing to be afraid of, and if you show too much interest in the matter you are probably on the far-right, aren"t you! Do you want to persecute the Muslims and make them the Jews of today"s Europe?
As experts always do when they want to shut down a debate, they turn to statistics, preferably European statistics. Since July 1, 1999 — the date of its inception — Europol (European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation) has regularly published an assessment of terrorism in the EU.
 Europol headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. (Image source: OSeveno/Wikimedia Commons) |
If you read Europol"s last ten EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports (TE-SAT), you will find, year after year, the number of "failed, foiled or successfully executed" terror attacks and the subsequent number of victims - all you supposedly need to assess the true nature of terrorism in the EU.
For the number of terror attacks in Europe during the last ten years, here is a chart based on Europol"s data:
 Number of terror or terrorist attacks in the EU since 2007 (Data: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports; chart D. Godefridi) |
The first surprise is that according to Europol, the trend is clearly downward: far fewer terror attacks in Europe in 2016 than ten years ago!
Does that seem a bit counter-intuitive? But, hey, those are the official statistics.
Then there are the number of fatalities:
 People killed by terror attacks in the EU since 2007 (Data: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports; chart D. Godefridi) |
This second chart looks much more in line with the feelings of the common man, don"t you think? Approximately 150 dead in the EU from terror attacks in 2015 and 2016, compared to zero in 2007, or 4 in 2014. (That is what is so endearing about statistics: you can manipulate many things, such as the psychological and emotional damage or the consequences of a "foiled attack" -- but not the number of dead bodies).
If you superimpose the two preceding charts, there is, obviously, zero correlation between the number of attacks and the number of dead. Even if there are fewer attacks, more people are being killed. In 2007, there were 583 attacks but zero people killed. In 2016, there were 142 attacks with 142 killed.
 Terror attacks and people killed by terror attacks in the EU since 2007 (Data: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports; chart D. Godefridi) |
Where is the wolf? The problem resides in the European definition of terrorism. Look at the TE-SAT report of 2009:
"What the term "terrorist offences" includes is indicated in Article 1 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA), which all member states have implemented in their national legislation. This Framework Decision specifies that terrorist offences are intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation when —
- committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or
- unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or
- seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation".
On this legal basis, Europol distinguishes between different categories of terror attacks; jihadist terrorism; ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism; left-wing and anarchist terrorism; right-wing terrorism; and finally, "single issue terrorism" (such as animal rights).
There is nothing wrong with these definitions except that one thing has gotten lost: terror. We have known, ever since ancient Rome"s system of law, the importance of accurate definitions; and before that, in ancient Greece, of correct hypotheses. If an attack is not intended to terrorize the public, presumably it should not qualify either as terrorism or as a terrorist attack.
Here is the EU magic: the second part of EU definition — "unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act" — whatever act — authorizes one to qualify as "terrorism" countless deeds that are certainly criminal but do not actually terrorize anyone.
That is why for years, the number of Islamic terror attacks has looked so ridiculously small and the other categories so impressively large. In 2007, of the 583 reported attacks, 517 were claimed or attributed to separatist groups in Spain and France. In 2012, Europol reported:
"In 2011, ETA [Basque separatists] committed one terrorist attack in France (Valliere, Creuse). Two ETA members opened fire against the Gendarmerie while trying to escape from a police checkpoint."
Criminal, no doubt! But where is terrorism? Furthermore:
"In France, 62 completed attacks and 13 attempted attacks were reported. All these attacks were carried out by Corsican terrorist groups. Their main target, however, remains the tourism sector. Holiday homes and restaurants are often targeted."
Corsican nationalists want more autonomy for their island. These "nationalists," however, never kill anyone, and they almost never hurt anyone except themselves; and when they burn a paillote (a small restaurant in the form of a hut on the beach) owned by some Frenchman from the continent, you never know if it is to preserve the beauty of Corsican nature, to take over his business, or because the kitchen was dirty. To qualify all of those acts indiscriminately as terrorism, and to classify them in the same category as the Islamist in Marseille who shouted "Allahu akbar" before slitting the throat of a girl and eviscerating her cousin, is morally repugnant. That atrocity in Marseille received worldwide press coverage and was indeed a terror attack in the purest sense of the word.
In short, the EU definition of terrorism, wittingly or unwittingly, confuses the issue. It needs to be revised. One can imagine a new category, such as "political violence," to designate acts that are neither intended to terrorize the public nor that actually do so, but are nonetheless political and violent by nature, such as public political riots, so common, in France. Or the definition of terrorism in American law (18 U.S. Code § 2331), under which no act can be qualified as terrorist if there is no terror intended.1
As for actual terrorism in the EU, it is in fact a simple matter. Here are the facts:
The trend appears the same in 2017. The rest is EU sophistry.
Like America, Britain is unfit and unsafe to live in – both countries police states, serving privileged interests exclusively, allied in waging wars OF terror in multiple theaters, along with abolishing fundamental homeland freedoms.
The latest civil rights abuse came from hardline home secretary Amber Rudd.
She’s spearheading a Tory effort to criminalize readership of so-called extremist content online – punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
The same holds for anyone publishing content Tories call extremist, especially about Britain’s military, intelligence services and police that could be considered related to preparing terrorist acts.
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” Rudd blustered, adding:
“There is currently a gap in the law around material (that) is viewed or streamed from the Internet without being permanently downloaded.”
“This is an increasingly common means by which material is accessed online for criminal purposes and is a particularly prevalent means of viewing extremist material such as videos and web pages.”
A Home Office analysis showed thousands of online ISIS tweets and other material over the past year.
Unmentioned was US and UK support for the terrorist group, recruiting, arming, funding, training and directing its fighters, using them as imperial foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
The way to end extremist online content from ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups is by no longer supporting them, combating their fighters instead of using them.
Most important is ending US-led imperial wars in multiple theaters. ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups were created to serve as imperial ground forces, aided by Pentagon-led terror-bombing.
Changes Rudd proposed aim to strengthen Britain’s 2000 Terrorism Act. It authorizes civil liberties-destroying police powers, including repressive stop-and-searches ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.
It criminalizes being a member of, supporting, or wearing clothing arousing suspicion of involvement with a proscribed group. Dozens named are nearly all Muslim ones.
Current UK law applies only to downloaded and saved extremist material. Proposed changes criminalize reading it online.
Commenting on the proposed measure, Law Professor Jonathan Turley noted that “civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state.”
Tories aren’t “satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet.”
“As always, officials are basically telling the public to ‘trust us, we’re the government.’ “ Criminalizing readership of online content amounts to “an anti-civil liberties campaign.”
A previous article discussed Prime Minister Theresa May wanting greater government control of the Internet.
If readership of material Tories call unacceptable is criminalized, what’s next?
Thought control? Criminalizing legitimate criticism of government policies? Public protests against government policies? Banning free expression on any topics online or in public spaces altogether?
Turley quoted from Orwell’s 1984 as follows:
“We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.”
“The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.”
“They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.”
“We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.”
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
America, Britain and other Western nations are heading toward instituting full-blown tyranny.
Perhaps another state-sponsored 9/11-type incident will assure it.
Submitted by Mike Miles, journalist, writer and book author
Foreign Affairs Magazine Advances Domestic Terrorism To Remove Alternative Media
Is Foreign Affairs magazine advancing “domestic terrorism” because it could help remove alternative media, and even jail editors and writers or worse. The recent article is entitled “Should We Treat Domestic Terrorists the Way We Treat ISIS? What Works—and What Doesn"t.” It begins as follows:
The mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night has again raised fears about terrorism. There’s much we don’t yet know. The Islamic State (ISIS) has claimed the attack, but the FBI claims that there is no international terrorism link. The attacker, Stephen Paddock, was 64 years old and white, fitting a stereotype of a right-wing terrorist more than a jihadist one. And he may just be a crazy nut. But regardless of Paddock’s particular pathology, the situation highlights how the United States treats similar forms of violence differently depending on the nature of the perpetrator.
Many commentators have already demanded that we make a case for domestic terrorism including such prominent Youtubers as Philip DeFranco. He runs a website of some six million and offers mildly libertarian commentary. But perhaps he doesn’t understand that he may eventually become a victim of what he wants to invoke. There are many such well-meaning people who quite possibly misunderstand what is happening
How about PropOrNot? This outfit lists around websites “friendly” to Russia and in total includes many of the major alternative websites in the country. Those who run the website say they believe these sites provide propaganda for Russia.
A recent reading of PropOrNot seems to reveal that the site may have reduced some of the finger-pointing. It says that it does not “censor.” However it continues to list websites nonetheless. The Washington Post drew information from PropOrNot long ago when it was trying to paint alternative websites as Russian sympathizers.
Interestingly, the recent shooting in Las Vegas didn’t make much sense to some people because neither the shooter nor people shot fit into known patterns of terrorism – or so we are told. But what if the real reason to shoot so many people was at least in part to create support for domestic terrorism?
It is surely “conspiratorial” to ask such a question and certainly it must seem far-fetched. On the other hand some commentators have pointed out that there may have been at least two shooters on two separate floors.
The main point here is that the determination to assault the alternative media seems to have taken a big step forward with this article in Foreign Affairs magazine. No new legislation may be needed, according to the article. The FBI simply needs to go after people who are supposedly questionable. Sooner or later this could include the alternative media.
Here’s a quote from the end of the article that back-peddles from some of its more Draconian observations about what the FBI could easily do once people supposedly began to make a fuss about “terrorism” on America’s shores:
… Legislation should factor in counterterrorism measures we don’t want as well as ones we do. … The language should be tightly worded and subject to regular legislative oversight—the definition of a foreign terrorist organization is broad, and any domestic legislation should focus heavily on the threat or use of violence and be regularly reviewed to ensure that changes in group behavior are reflected.
And another quote:
The right-wing threat in particular is comparable to that of jihadist violence at home, and similar resources should be allocated to addressing it. The FBI and DHS should create larger offices dedicated to domestic groups and otherwise develop their intelligence presence.
Will the FBI really be subject to “legislative oversight” and be “regularly reviewed.” The people suggesting this supposed advancement are, at the top, possibly some of the most powerful and wealthy people on the planet. This project may not be bound by constraints any more than the current investigation into Trump is being adequately constrained. And it may be happening sooner rather than later.
Of course maybe Congress has dropped legislative authority to create a well-funded group of reporters that will “expose” the alternative media in the US and perhaps abroad. On the other hand, the move to concentrate on domestic terrorism and then to heighten the battle against the alternative media seems like it could be advancing in earnest. It is certainly possible that the alternative media read by tens of millions is ready to repel the FBI and other forces that could be trying to remove it. But what if it is not?
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The UK’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, is the latest bureaucrat to highlight the increased global trend of governments going completely insane.
Her latest plan is to threaten the British population with up to 15 years in prison for the crime of watching “terrorist material.” Yes, you read that right.
The Guardian reports:
People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.
A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.
The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.
According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
The UK is clearly embracing pre-crime here, since it’s clear someone watching terrorist propaganda in the privacy of their own home does not harm anyone else.
Thus, this is a victimless crime, and as I’ve maintained on many occasions, I do not believe such a thing exists. If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.
What the UK is arguing here is that watching “terrorist material” increases the likelihood of someone committing a violent terrorist attack in the future. So you’re actually being punished for what you might potentially do in the future.
This is pre-crime and it’s totally insane.
Beyond that, we can pretty much guarantee that the definition of “terrorist material” will expand over time to whatever politicians don’t want the rabble exposed to.
But it gets worse still. Here’s what Rudd had to say about her government’s demented crusade against technology itself.
Rudd also caused some consternation at the fringe meeting by criticising the tech industry for their “patronising” attitude that “sneered” at politicians who did not always get it right.
She claimed it was not necessary for her to understand how end-to-end encryption worked to know that it was helping criminals.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so incredibly sad.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
There’s something I’ve always found mesmerizing about watching animals in the wild.
They have the most incredible instincts, honed from countless generations of survival against constant threats.
Animals have a keen sense of danger. They know immediately when something doesn’t feel right, and they act on it without hesitation.
I saw an incredible example of this last year when I was visiting a remote wildlife reservation in Zimbabwe.
It was late in the afternoon on a hot summer day, and my friends and I were ensconced in a hidden observation bunker situated on the edge of a water hole.
The animals all began to arrive, one species at a time, to cool off before nightfall. First the elephants. Then Rhinos. Zebras. Giraffes. Baboons.
It was a playful mood; all the animals seemed to be enjoying the water, when without warning, there was a stillness. The gazelles froze. The zebras’ ears perked.
Something wasn’t right. A smell. A sound. Something.
So they got the hell out of there.
We found out later that a ravenous pack of hyenas was on the prowl nearby, so the animals’ instincts were spot-on.
Deep, deeeep down, human beings have the same highly refined instincts.
Our long-lost ancestors struggled against every imaginable danger. And those lessons are hard-coded in our DNA.
We sense threats. We can feel it when something’s wrong.
The difference between our species and animals in the wild, though, is that we humans have way too many external influences that muck it all up.
Case in point: last week was obviously a tough one for anyone with any sense of humanity.
Acts of terrorism are scary.
And hearing about completely innocent people on a popular pedestrian promenade getting mowed down like bowling pins by some madman is definitely going to cause some discomfort.
But down here in Latin America at least, there was ensuring wall-to-wall news coverage for the next several days in a way I hadn’t seen since 9/11.
It’s all we saw. Terrorism. Terrorism. Terrorism.
This really amps up the fear factor for something that is already difficult to stomach.
So it’s easy to understand why I keep hearing people say things like, “We’re living through the most dangerous times in human history.”
It’s easy to lose perspective. But on the balance we have it pretty good.
13th century Europeans faced a far greater threat with the approaching Mongol hoard.
A century later they faced an even more terrible fate with the onset of the Bubonic Plague, which ultimately wiped out around 30% of Europe’s population.
Even in more recent times, the threat of nuclear annihilation between East and West posed a constant threat.
Yes, acts of terrorism are appalling. But taken in historical and mathematical context the danger is actually quite low.
The Cato Institute published some data recently showing that the chances of dying in a terror attack are around 1 in 3 million.
Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of being crushed to death by a vending machine.
But we don’t demand that our governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers cannot possibly afford in order to protect us from vending machines.
That’s because deep down we sense that vending machines don’t truly pose a threat.
But with terrorism our senses are heavily manipulated until we believe that the threat is far greater than what the statistics show.
The real irony is that the manipulation works both ways.
Just as we are manipulated into being terrified of certain risks that pose no real statistical threat, we are manipulated into ignoring other risks that are far more likely.
I would raise financial markets as an obvious example.
The stock market in the United States is at an all-time high, with valuation metrics that have rarely been higher in more than 100 years of data.
Bond markets around the world have literally never been more expensive… EVER.
In order to return to levels that are more in-line with long-term historical averages, stock and bond markets would both have to suffer steep losses.
But instead of encouraging investors to independently assess these financial risks, mainstream media often dismisses such assertions as pessimistic bugaboo.
Or another obvious long-term risk– that Social Security is going to run out of money.
I write about this one frequently. The Social Security Trustees, including the Treasury Secretary of the United States, state very clearly in their annual report that Social Security’s major trust funds “will be depleted in 2034.”
Yet despite the totally predictable, unavoidable, widespread consequences to Americans’ primary source of retirement income, the public is manipulated into ignoring this threat as well.
Instead of the truth, we continue to hear the same tired mantra– “Social Security is just fine,” despite every shred of objective evidence to the contrary.
We’re also told to believe ridiculous axioms like “the US government’s debt doesn’t matter,” even though they have $20+ trillion of it and spend like drunken sailors.
But no. The experts tell us that this is not a risk worth concerning ourselves with. Angry brown people want to kill us. Focus on that instead.
Human beings have a 1 in 3,000,000 chance of suffering from a terror attack.
Yet there is currently a 100% chance that Social Security runs out of money in 2034.
Only one of these manages to find its way into the news.
Not to mention, if properly informed, people can actually DO SOMETHING about the latter. There’s plenty of time for intelligent people to prepare.
