Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Psy Ops for Everyman. PsyOps. Sabotage A Government. Nate Rudy Gets a Handbook. CIA Guerrilla Warfare

 Psy Ops for Everyman. PsyOps.

Enjoy A CIA Guerrilla Warfare Handbook

How-To Manual for Sabotaging a Government
Guerrilla Warfare Goes Mainstream

Everyman Nate Rudy Asclater has joined the NRA and now finds a manual in his mail, from what looks like a gaming site, but he is concerned if it really just is for fun because it is intended for gun owners.  The booklet is a reprint of the CIA manual that it used in training of its operatives to sabotage the Sandinista government back in Nicaragua. How to be a guerrilla, how to succeed at being a guerrilla.  Nate Rudy is confused. He wants to feel that he is part of an important inner circle, and is proud that he is on this list. But the concept of undermining governments and its echoes in the news, are scary for him. So he calls his son, Nate Rudy, Jr. who is not a gun owner.

Join Nate Rudy and his son, Nate Rudy, Jr., as they discuss what Dad the Gun Owner can choose to do.

Nate Rudy Gets a Handbook
  • Nate Rudy Asclater is holding his cell phone, trying to reach his son, Nate Rudy Jr.
Ring!  Ring!  (time passes) (click)
(message on answering device)

His daughter in law, Nellie Joy, is there, he things, but does not answer.

Nellie Joy, I know you are there. Pick up. And don't you hang up that phone after you do. I just want to talk to Nate Rudy, Jr. about something all us Asclaters need to know. I got this letter because I am a gun owner, and I know Nate Rudy isn't one, but I also got a big packet of paper that asks me to "get very familiar" with what is in it, and "discuss it" with family and friends.  You're family and I am getting very confused here.  Nellie Joy?  You hear?  (silence) Guess I'll have to send him a note. Maybe one of the emails he taught me to use .... (tappety tap)

  • Email from Nate Rudy Sr. to Nathaniel Rudy Asclater, Jr. Little Nate Rudy. From Nathaniel Rudy Asclater, guess that makes me Sr. I'm no Senior citizen!  Have to ask about that.
Ok, Nate Big to Nate Little.

This is important, Junior.  Gotta talk.

Go to this place on your computer, (copy, paste) ://  It's from somebody called Combat Arms. Yes, I got that right. And I did what you said, to check who they are, and up comes a video game thing; but I'm calling you anyway.  And in a little box at the top, it says who this is going to, and a message.  Here it is, a small piece of that whole package, I swear to God that this is what it says. You can see that manual itself and it's easier to read in other places, like (copy, paste) ://

"Combat Arms urges gun owners in the United States to become very familiar with the contents of this manual and to discuss it among your family and friends. Liberty knows no peace." 

That sounds a little off to me.  So I look at what's in the manual.  I got manuals at work, and they tell me how to do things.  This here manual is from the CIA and appears, yes, it does, to be a how-to for how the CIA people can sabotage another government.  You, and I'm at the beginning, at a part called "Armed Propaganda" -- sounds weird -- by sidling up to the peasant.

Peasant?  Sounds middle ages here. They can't mean ordinary working people like me and call them pearants. But they do that with their weapons hanging out there;  and they make nice (but they've got those guns out there) and get the people to trust them because they're helping them with this and that around the house and the field, and there goes the ball game. Mess up their meetings, figure out who really understands what is up, help the ones who Know what They Know,, and phffft with the rest.

You gotta read it. Why did I get this stuff?  I joined the NRA, yes, I did because I am a patriotic American and there is this Second Amendment that the radicals and extremists want to change.  No way.  No change.  I want my liberty and having a gun to do with what I want where I want is my liberty. But we've been through that.  This is different.

Call me.  No Starbucks this time. I want my Bud.  At Happy's.


  • Reply email from Junior to his Dad, Nate Rudy Asclater Sr.
Dad, this is me.  You got problems.  That is a manual that tells people, thanks to the CIA researching it and doing it somewhere in South America against a government and its supporters there called the Sandanistas (don't bother remembering).  They wanted to sabotage that government and they figured out how you do it.  It is something called public domain, so I can quote all I like from it, and I want you to stay away from any people like that.  Stay away.  You might make a list of what you have seen happening that looks like this, and send it to me, but you keep out of it other than that.  You hear me?

So, here are the steps to sabotaging a government, bringing it down, how you do it.  This letter you got was addressed to all gun owners.

They probably didn't have an address list for gun owners, though, because there isn't any registering place for gun owners, but these things get out.  If that NRA lets any of these objectives out in their zillions of education programs, and talk while doing police and other training, and they do police training; and kids' adventure camps; then they have a problem, but we can't get at that.  I got Nellie Joy and little Nate Rudy II to think of.

So:  I'll go over it and pull out some quotes for you from it, doing the cut and paste thing I showed you.  I;ll send it as an attachment.

You have to go back to the place on the site to see the whole thing, but this is a kind of highlight.

Pull up :// and you can see where each quote comes from, to see what went before and after. That can make a difference.  You decide.

I'll send it by regular mail also because it got kind of big.

PS.  Fiddled around with some oils and a mirror a few months ago. Thought you'd like my self-portrait ha.


  • Subsequent email Nate Rudy Jr. to his Dad, with Attachment of quotes put here in a big block quote with some comments; and the quotes are from the CIA manual, sent as well as Regular Mail. 

HI, Dad, here it is.  Some nuggets on psy ops, that's psychological operations, in guerrilla warfare, as the CIA used it to train their people to do that against the Government there at the time.  We are the peasants, Dad.  We are the peasants.  Just because you got the letter as a gun owner, you are still a peasant.  Its the higher ups pulling the strings.  You and me, and Nellie Joy, and Mom, and little Nate Rudy II, we are the peasants.  Don't think we're not.  This guns business is getting like a religion to you. That worries me. You don't question it.

Cuts and pastes from public domain document, 
CIA Manual, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare 
at ://  

Yes, I know there are lots of computer games on combat, like Combat Arms, and they share lots of tactics with each other just for the game.  But using this book for that?  With that message to gun owners? 

Still could be a hoax. But I'm worried about you getting on lists that you may not want. Talk to me. Start looking up these people and the guns people get a little scary. I get weird websites that want information about me before I can get in. 

Or am I making too much of this.Probably weird.  I'm not worried about the public side of the NRA because they're pretty stodgy, and would never teach skills for overturning a government -- but who knows who gets their training through them, then go on their own, real militia, guerrilla groups.  Nice arrangement. Get the training in the American Apple Pie site, and then there you go.

We do get edgy these days, on the outside, because there is so much money in that NRA they can do what they want. Life.

Ok.  Follow along on your computer. These are little bites. I won't even use quotes for each separate one, because that takes too long, and I'll leave in the links to other places that they put in. And I put in some comments there, too. This is pretty rough, just to get you going.
From the CIA Manual

Guerrilla warfare is essentially a political war.

The target, then, is the minds of the population, all the population: our troops, the enemy troops and the civilian population. 

The purpose of this book is to introduce the guerrilla student to the psychological operations techniques that will be of immediate and practical value to him in guerrilla warfare.

Group discussions raise the spirit and improve the unity of thought of the guerrilla squads and exercise social pressure on the weak members to carry out a better role in future training or in combative action.

This means that every guerrilla will be persuasive in his face-to-face communication - propagandist - combatant - in his contact with the people; he should be able to give 5 or 10 logical reasons why, for example, a peasant should give him cloth, needle and thread to mend his clothes. When the guerrilla behaves in this manner, enemy propaganda will never succeed in making him an enemy in the eyes of the people.

This means that a guerrilla armed unit in a rural town will not give the impression that arms are their strength over the peasants, but rather that they are the strength of the peasants against the Sandinista government of repression. This is achieved through a close identification with the people, as follows: hanging up weapons and working together with them on their crops, in construction, in the harvesting of grains, in fishing, etc.; explanations to young men about basic weapons, e.g. giving them an unloaded weapon and letting them touch it, see it, etc.; describing in a rudimentary manner its operation; describing with simple slogans how weapons will serve the people to win their freedom; demanding the requests by the people for hospitals and education, reducing taxes, etc.

Control of Meetings and Mass Assemblies

Disrupt, disrupt.

All these acts have as their goal the creation of an identification of the people with the weapons and the guerrillas who carry them, so that the population feels that the weapons are, indirectly, their weapon to protect them and help them in the struggle against a regime of oppression.

Support of Contacts with Their Roots in Reality
(their bold)
(This means, Dad, that only a few people can be expected to see the Deep Reality that they see,  that think like they do - their reality is the only one.  Watch out for the idea of Deep Reality - people who believe that only they have the Deep Reality are more trouble than you would believe because they just won't ever ever see anything different no matter what and who they get out of the way)

Implicit and Explicit Terror
(their bold)

(Zinger here, Dad  -- this is about open carry, I think)(the bold places in the headers are theirs)

Implicit terror always accompanies weapons, since the people are internally "aware" that they can be used against them, but as long as explicit coercion is avoided, positive attitudes can be achieved with respect to the presence of armed guerrillas within the population.

Armed Propaganda Teams

Armed Propaganda Teams (EPA) are formed through a careful selection of persuasive and highly motivated guerrillas who move about within the population, encouraging the people to support the guerrillas and put up resistance against the enemy.  It combines a high degree of political awareness and the "armed" propaganda ability of the guerrillas toward a planned, programmed, and controlled effort.

Development and Control of the 'Front' Organizations

The development and control of "front" (or facade) organizations is carried out through subjective internal control at group meetings of "inside cadres," and the calculations of the time for the fusion of these combined efforts to be applied to the masses. Ha- the NRA itself?  Don't go there.

Established citizens -- doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, etc., -- will be recruited initially as "Social Crusaders" in typically "innocuous" movements in the area of operations. When their "involvement" with the clandestine organization is revealed to them, this supplies the psychological pressure to use them as "inside cadres" in groups to which they already belong or of which they can be members.

Then they will receive instruction in techniques of persuasion over control of target groups to support our democratic revolution, through a gradual and skillful process. A cell control system isolates individuals from one another, and at the appropriate moment, their influence is used for the fusion of groups in a united national front.

The control of mass meetings in support of guerrilla warfare is carried out internally through a covert commando element, bodyguards, messengers, shock forces (initiators of incidents), placard carriers (also used for making signals), shouters of slogans, everything under the control of the outside commando element.

When the cadres are placed or recruited in organizations such as labor unions, youth groups, agrarian organizations or professional associations, they will begin to manipulate the objectives of the groups. The psychological apparatus of our movement through inside cadres prepares a mental attitude which at the crucial moment can be turned into a fury of justified violence.

Through a small group of guerrillas infiltrated within the masses this can be carried out; they will have the mission of agitating by giving the impression that there are many of them and that they have a large popular backing. Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a demonstration can be created in which 10,000-20,000 persons take part.

The combatant-propagandist guerrilla is the result of a continuous program of indoctrination and motivation. They will have the mission of showing the people how great and fair our movement is in the eyes of all Nicaraguans and the world. Identifying themselves with our people, they will increase the sympathy towards our movement, which will result in greater support of the population for the freedom commandos, taking away support for the regime in power.

The tactical effort in guerrilla warfare is directed at the weaknesses of the enemy and at destroying their military resistance capacity, and should be parallel to a psychological effort to weaken and destroy their socio-political capacity at the same time. In guerrilla warfare, more than in any other type of military effort, the psychological activities should be simultaneous with the military ones, in order to achieve the objectives desired.

A guerrilla armed force always involves implicit terror because the population, without saying it aloud, feels terror that the weapons may be used against them. However, if the terror does not become explicit, positive results can be expected.

(their bold) Guerrilla Weapons are the Strength of the People over an Illegal Government

(so I guess if they show a president wasn't born here, then the government is illegal and people can get out their weapons.  Scary, Dad, scary.)

(this from a Philippine guerrilla) "The population is always impressed by weapons, not by the terror that they cause, but rather by a sensation of strength/force. We must appear before the people, giving them support with our weapons; that will give them the message of the struggle."

(lots on methods to use)

  (their bold) Selective Use of Violence for Propagandistic Effects

It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, mesta judges, police and State Security officials, CDS chiefs, etc. For psychological purposes it is necessary to take extreme precautions, and it is absolutely necessary to gather together the population affected, so that they will be present, take part in the act, and formulate accusations against the oppressor.

The person who will replace the target should be chosen carefully, based on:
  • Degree of violence necessary to carry out the change.
  • Degree of violence acceptable to the population affected.
  • Degree of violence possible without causing damage or danger to other individuals in the area of the target.
  • Degree of reprisal predictable by the enemy on the population affected or other individuals in the area of the target. 
The mission to replace the individual should be followed by:
  • Extensive explanation within the population affected of the reason why it was necessary for the good of the people.
  • Explain that Sandinista retaliation is unjust, indiscriminate, and above all, a justification for the execution of this mission.
  • Carefully test the reaction of the people toward the mission, as well as control this reaction, making sure that the population's reaction is beneficial towards the Freedom Commandos. 

Ok, Dad.  There you go.  There are a lot of words here, and lots of big ones; but if you print this out, then when we meet (yes, at Happy's) we can mark it up.

Your son,

Nate Rudy Asclater Jr.

PS.  Here's Nellie Joy, ha ha

I still wish you hadn't put little Nate on your Christmas card.  Just not right. Nellie Joy did say, though, when I got her off the ceiling, here, that he did look kind of cute with those buck antlers and all.  That's the problem.  Mix the cute and the fun with stuff that has a really bad message, and people just fall in line. Open carry. Sounds so "transparent".  Implicit terror in it, says the Manual, and that's how they use it. Use you.


Nate Jr.

P.S.  Free speech means they can set you up.  Don't forget that. Here's something about that. It's serious stuff. We'll talk. Mark up the parts that you want to talk about, if any of it. Or skip it.

Voters at Risk.  Free Speech.  Its Limits. Democracy's Pitfall -- how to tell efforts at truth from efforts to sell.

Free speech is not an entitlement. Noone is entitled to do it any time, in any way.  Free speech depends on context, purpose of a proceeding.

Free speech is misrepresented as an entitlement. Where the purpose of the proceeding is justice, there is no free speech.  Truth is the goal, through cross examination, credibility analysis, motivation of the speaker, hearsay, etc.  Where the purpose of the proceeding is national policy, free speech should be similarly subject to truth as a standard.  Truth does not stand alone, a matter of persuasion.  It emerges after full debate, discussion, transparency, credibility analysis, motivation.

Courtrooms: restriction of free speech serves justice in application of basic rules of evidence. when important things are being decided, matter. Media is indeed complicit, on the big scale. They control what is put out there, and how it is said, what is omitted, downplayed, body-language of the rolling eyes.

Commercial speech:  requires regulation if consumer interests are to be served. There are limits to "free speech" -- regulations to protect the consumer against abuse by sellers. Ideally -- sellers, including banking, to provide truth in labeling, contents, effects, side-effects, no misrepresentation.

Special interests seek to defeat promotion of "truth" and press persuasion instead, is that so? Now special interest media ownership controls the debate by
a) the topics it chooses to cover, including advertising
b) how it does it, and when, and
c) how much time and noise is given to it.  Because individuals and corporations with special interests control the debate in those ways, they can control the voters' verdict. If they can keep information away from the jury, spin it enough, the jury draws conclusions without even realizing what is going on.

Democracy's pitfall:  Complicit media.  How to recalibrate Big Media controls of time, manner and spin when all can be bought:

Needed:  Robust financial support for public interest media, even a resurgent form of fairness doctrine, to better ensure full, objective information as part of political Free Speech:  
Ensure reliability in the debate function of free speech

Examine the Role of Evidence in a court setting; and its Protections in the interest of a well-informed jury coming to a verdict on life and rights, important matters.
  • Misguided free speech arguments.  That we can hear anything any time. That we can say anything any time. There are times when we do not have free speech, for good reason.  Important things are to be decided, and they can't take the risk that people will go off on emotion.
  • Free speech does not control what the jury hears.  
  • Free speech is tested against reliability, as determined by a judge as arbiter decides each time one side objects to what the other is offering into evidence. Examine the role of  "Free Speech" in a non-court, election setting. 
  • There are no Protections in the interest of a well-informed electorate coming to a decision on life and rights, important matters. Free speech allows almost anything to be said regardless of reliability.  Needed:  consumer protection in political speech.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Duty to Prevent Further Harm: Murder - Inflammatory Speech

Aggregate Inflammatory Rhetoric.

Who Has A Duty To Prevent Further Harm by Moderating Murder Rhetoric, 
Once a Dangerous Pattern of Violence is Reasonably Known:

Does murder rhetoric, over time, in the aggregate, foster a climate of permission, the long-term conditioning of a population to accept the violence as a norm. Remote in time. How far back does causation reach, where the concept is the aggregate of factors create the climate allowing easier acting out, even if a shooter did not specifically hear any specific talk, or see a violent visual. How can that be used by those who seek to shape behavior, see see Tactical Realities at ://

Is there a meme process, odd-sounding as it is, where cultural ideas spring memory to memory. How to educate a population about that?

Are the workings of memes, and long-term conditioning techniques, the new "secret knowledge" of politicos and think tanks? Are meme-advisors to politicos culpable? There's an interesting one. Go Rovin'.


I.  Is someone culpable for fostering the replication of a known violent cultural meme? 
Negligent fostering of climate of permission for violence?

Probably not; but in the aggregate, all who contribute are.

Giffords.  Loughner.  Who spurred Loughner on.  If no individual can be connected, and it appears to be all in his own head, what about memes that people initiate and foster in the culture that make fertile fields for terrible acting out.

Memes:  transmission of ideas across a culture, without necessarily an actual contact. Opportunity for Persuasion Arts 101.

Persuasion science. Use labs and focus groups to learn how to probe the psyche, foster responses wanted. Long used commercially, to sell things; and in religion, the group belief system; now politically, to sell ideology. Is there now a "dark arts" or "secret knowledge" of how to make people and groups do what somebody or some other group wants. Do think tanks, for example, hired or developed by certain groups to fashion strategy for group persuasion,  use meme "science" for political persuasion: the indirect, the seed-planting, the spam-waving, talk-show weighting, with an idea, put out questions to all the different media focused on it, get it in the wind, but keep it deniable. And avoid analysis of merit. Opinions on it before the facts get out. See Big Persuasion: Democracy's Pitfall, Media Complicit

This may be a new area for American discussion, but not new to science. In the study of genes, of cultural ideas, there is replication in different individuals, the copy-factor, and it does not require direct contact. This area of a duty to prevent further harm is different from a duty to rescue, which is a duty apparently if the watcher had a hand in putting or keeping the one in bad shape, and now watching it play out; or if the watcher is in a position to prevent the further harm,even if not negligently or intentionally causing it to begin with. See Natural Pragmatism: Duties to Rescue and/or Prevent Further Harm.  So individuals can be culpable for allowing further harm; does that apply to cultural matters -- does a government that had a hand in allowing inequities and bad situations, get to stand by and not mitigate just because it is "government" and not "individuals".  Go, law students, go.
  • So, look at two grounds of association available between a shooter and a victim, a direct contact; and no direct contact but a speaker letting loose. Which speaker goes free. The speakers or makers of visuals, where the shooter has not had contact with them, but acts according to the meme fostered?  Again, new.  But the ground of culpability is old.  Or must we always find the speakers of inflammatory rhetoric, murder hyperbole, under the circumstances of our national case, whose talk is proven to have been heard and acted upon by a shooter. 
In the usual situation, mere time passing can exculpate one speaker from being blamed for effects so much later.  But here the national pattern of violence against public figures or persons with whom one ideologically disagrees (a Dr. Tiller, for example) where violent terms had been long in the discourse;  is an ongoing one, not established by one event, but by many over time. Pattern. Violence in the aggregate. That makes the speakers as subject to analysis as any other factor, with remoteness or any actual contact, just another element.

A suggested list of sources for the discussion:

  • The duty to prevent further harm can pass from the original maker of the vehicle defect, to a driver who later is in the best position to prevent further harm.  The concept here is who is in a position to prevent further harm, even if the person did not cause the initial problem.  Once a bad thing is known, the duty to prevent further harm can move about.  See ://  Here, we know we have vulnerable people in the audiences and in the populations exposed to ideas of violent acting out, assassination as the Glock way.  Knowing that what the words say may well be taken literally, or used to fulfill a fantasy, or get "in the wind" as a meme does (this takes some individual looking up because the idea of viral ideas replicating is not as familiar, just think of genes changing on their own, in similar ways, and not having contact), means be careful.  Don't stoke it.
  • Foreseeability as an element. See ://  What is foreseeable about the volatility of a heterogeneous population, all mental states, all levels of sophistication in analysis, when exposed to murder language over and over again in the public forum.  Is it foreseeable that some of those people will act out what they hear.  Sure.  It has happened many times over.  And they will act out even without a specific directive -- lots of lone wolves out there in our assassination-attack patterns. Not members of groups.  But the ideas are reinforced by questions, by polls, just focusing on a possibility can make it "real" --  and where were you born?  How do you know?  Memes.  Put the issue out there often enough, even as a question, and people will believe there is something to it. Is that so? Foreseeable.
  • Foreseeability is complex. Does the harm at risk have to be substantial, a big deal, before we hold someone culpable for failing to mitigate. Does language qualify as a causation; when is it not reasonable to hold a great harm caused by mere words; and could moderating language have mitigated.  This will take cataloguing the language and the acts that came afterward, words used in public life like killer to describe legislation, bullet justice, targets, baby-killer to describe someone's ideology, leading or not leading to someone killing the one termed "killer", gun remedies, murder, assassination suggestions; and ongoing with a new term -- "blood libel" -- more murder language -- now being thrown back like a taunt at the public discussing roles of speakers in the violence of the country.  Using blood libel as a stage two escalation against those who question stage one, which was the visual and verbal gunshot targeting of specific political candidates in politics. For the variables, see a text on torts, and look up the variables at // No easy answers, so appreciate a judge weighing so many variables.

II. Applying all this to culpability for speech: 

Weigh Factors:  to Assess Whether a Speaker Knew or Should Have Known the Risk 
of the Murder Rhetoric, the Targeting of Specific Individuals

Was there:

1.  Awareness of a violent climate in the country; its duration (make a list); any increased instance of acting out violence in communications through visual and aural means -- grisly posters, target posters, guns, speeches, language

2.  Awareness of the broad spectrum of abilities, mental stability, stresses on a large population, ethnic and economic clashes of interest, fear of loss of position, status if others succeed economically and rise out of their "place", fear of new and different cultures, etc.

3.  Awareness of increased capacity for "instant" communications among different groups, lone wolves tapping in or not. Whether directly (tweet me); or by meme.

4.  Did the speaker consult with communications "secret knowledge" people, the admen, the PR ones, the Persuasion Elites, who know by now how to sell anything (Edward Bernays is a good one a century ago to start with, to get familiar with the field of persuasion)

And was the effectiveness of using the Meme discussed, and how to use it?  Was the politico or talk show person coached to just ask questions to plant seeds, plant emails, plant articles, letters to editors, all that contribute to a growing meme out there that something has basis, has merit, without having to address "merit" to get it off the ground?  Were polls manufactured, "Most Americans think Tuesday is Washday."  Put that on the talk shows, and watch the water use go up on Tuesday. The chat starts, the wind blows, the idea flows, head after head pops up with it.

Stay with that meme idea:

Yes, the emerging awareness of "memes" -- ideas that replicate without contact, see Richard Dawkins who coined the idea, at Memes, the New Replicators at :// (showing a chapter of Dawkins' book).  Meet the new science of Memetics, and never hear a catchy tune, have a phrase come to mind that you have never "heard" before, but find it is on the internet lots of places, from lots of unrelated Brains. You thought you were original! Fools, mortals. Apply the concept to genes, as the site says -- to ways of making pots -- similarly cropping up in disparate groups -- to wearing a pink hair streak, the ideas just bound about.

None of this takes away from the guilt or adds to the innocence of the actor. Separate concepts.  No actor gets off the hook because of a speaker, absent a clear Directive, etc.  We are not talking about that.

III. Where next:  How to quantify a Violent Climate Formula

Take a diverse nation under stress from a variety of angles, none easy to resolve (no fast inbox to outbox).  Add the following quantities, to assess knowledge of a speaker, or what the speaker should have known if knowledge is denied, as to the following factors out there adding to incendiariness of the broad heterogeneous population that is us:

+ increased fear, especially of "otherness",  fear of change that is also feared to mean loss of status as superior, loss of money, loss of job, loss of identity, while, if unstopped, others could improve their positions

+ increased instances of violent acting out in the population (ethnic, political ideology conflicts, for example)

+ increased instances of violence in speech and labeling of legislation by public figures

+ increased instant communications, tweets and memes running about, and including chosen focus of airwaves away from "news" and on to gossip and anger about who is doing and saying what

+ increasingly diverse population including growing ethnic groups, recognition of other sexual and ideological orientations, and those Home on Derange, or border, or just whatever

+ virtually unhindered access to the tools of violence; so the choice to do it is easier

=  climate fostering acting out and somebody does.

Culpable speaker. How much, what form, TBD.  But culpable to some degree. How else to lower the fahrenheits, except by addressing the stokers. This area of a duty to prevent further harm is distinguished from another duty, that is not a duty -- to rescue.  See that at Plain Meaning, Third Party Legal Duty of Rescue

IV.  For next time

Next steps.  Somebody help the nation.  Hire some research assistants, those of you in law firms, and firm up the field of duty to prevent harm. Narrow and distinguish and clarify the culpability, if any, of speakers' roles when their (are they dreams coming true? only in Disney) words are taken literally and the shooters we know are out there shoot; or become memes by which that behavior is reasonably expected, given the population. See Vetting Roots. Killer? Change the Name, Mr. Speaker.  Is self-restraint silly?

Find out:  What consultants and think tanks foster meme-spreading and not objective discussion of merits, as a way of persuasion, like another propaganda technique.  All of them.  All. Need:  WikiSnoops in the Think Tanks. Techniques of persuasion:  hiding in plain view, see Tactical Realities at ://

Identify who is advising a prominent former public servant
  • to "defend" against the assessment that she used murder rhetoric 
  • that contributed in some way to a person (on derange? not known yet) acting it out; 
  • not with information about the shooter (nobody has much) 
  • and not with information about how often she said or did what (somebody make a list, because frequency would be important)
  • but by deny, deny the effect and
  • just repeating herself -- hollering back with more murder rhetoric, "Blood libel", she touts (had she ever heard of that before accessing Glenn's think tank and the effective use of Rhetorical Beckisms?) after consulting with Glenn Beck in emails that say she decries violence, see those designed for publishing entities, and then ask what happened in phone calls.  "Blood libel!"  That is an insult to history. Who on any deity's, or combination of deities', green brown yellow blue and black earth, ever suggested to her that, as PR and a gotcha meme, she use an old Christian faked ground of anti-Semitism in the middle ages, to analogize in any way to herself angry because some people think her murder language and visuals added to a national killer climate, and from a very bully (cowy) pulpit in the north. See://  PR, memes, the experts.
  • I'm not a witch.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Teams in Washington. Team Swaddle, Team Herding Cats. Adult Swaddling Comes of Age.

WikiDC Quick Looks at the Teams in Washington: 
Haiku Playbook for the Super Saucer Games 
Televised Everywhere That a Nice Sportsy Pub Hasn't Gone Bankrupt.

The Big Game Approaches.
Who's on the field?

Team Swaddle
Coming in now, Team Swaddle
All wrapped up
Newly on top of the heap, is that right.
They like it in the Concrete Retro Bunker.
Everybody tight in there?
Yessiree, Safety in Old-Think.
Look Backward, Diva. Who said that? *

Loyalty oaths screeds
Ritual rigid fear flail.
Swaddle me. Go sleep.

Mutter topic heard
Redstands. You! Get back 
Behind your own Wall.

Team Herding Cats.
And now, here comes Team Herding Cats.
They look a little under water,
There in the Submerged Bunker.
 Up, Periscope!
A Little Ancient Wisdom needed.
Aah. Who? Rah!
That was a small cheer from the Zarathustran-curious mini-minority.

Means to bounty? Share.
Open mind facts health choices

Mutter topic: heard
Bluestands. Hostiles' agenda!.
Burn all the bridges!


And what is your prediction, 
O Bought and Paid For SportscastRater on the Animal Channel?

Intones the Wise Won:.
All the people shall be tooled.
Except the Toolers.

Mutter topic: heard
Skybox. Keep that Nader out. **
Media chooses.

By the time we give
By the questions gone unasked
Media decides.

*  Curious? Zoroaster. Who? Predates your religion, probably, unless you are Zoroastrian. Sing: It's a dual world after all.

Smack-downs in daily life. Choose. Daeva or Ahura. How to know which is which. Ask an ancient source. Have we progressed? Flip the sides? Whose coin. See What does Zarathustra see. Divas both sides?

** Ralph Nader, letter to editor, New York Times Tuesday January 4, 2011.

Ralph Nader knows. Fair game or rigged. Ask not who won an election, ask instead who set up the people's choices, and how. How to fog the glasses:  Media manual. See ://