9/11 Truth: Why Do Good People
Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?
By Frances T. Shure
April 03, 2015 "ICH"
& Engineers for 9/11 Truth" -
AE9/11 Truth Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A.,
L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our
time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?” The
resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of
both academic research and clinical observations.
BRUCE LEVINE: THE ABUSE SYNDROME
A dynamic that may help explain the “nothing we can do about
it” reaction to the evidence that refutes the official 9/11 account is the
“abuse syndrome,” as described by clinical psychologist Bruce E. Levine. To
maintain control, abusive spouses, bosses, and governments shove lies, physical
and emotional abuse, and injustice in their victims’ faces. When the victims
continue to be afraid to exit from these relationships or fail to fight back,
they get weaker, they feel humiliated by their passivity, they feel broken, and
they feel shame.1
Our true nature does not harbor feelings of shame. Originating
from trauma, shame is characterized by self-hatred and a fundamental sense that
we are unworthy and unlovable.
Eventually, victims in a relationship marked by trauma can
develop a deep-seated fear that they cannot survive without the abuser in their
lives. This belief increases their feelings of helplessness.
An even more extreme form of this dynamic involves victims of
captivity, who may become attached to their captors, and may even defend them.
Known as the “Stockholm syndrome,” this relationship can also apply to children
who are, psychologically and physically, de facto captives to abusive parents.2
PATRICK CARNES: BETRAYAL BONDING
Psychologist and sexual-addictions counselor Patrick J. Carnes
gives us a further understanding of the abuse syndrome by introducing the
concept of “betrayal bonding” or, alternately, “trauma bonding.” He has found
that these dysfunctional bonds originate when those who are betrayed (usually
children) bond with someone who is destructive to their well-being, resulting in
a template for future “insane loyalties.”3
Normally, we think of abusive relationships as applying to
individuals — typically children abused by their parents or wives battered by
their violent husbands — but other authors, including Levine, recognize that the
abuse syndrome can also apply to groups or to entire societies.
JAMES TRACY: BATTERED CITIZEN SYNDROME
For example, James F. Tracy, associate professor of media
studies at Florida Atlantic University, has applied the four stages that
domestic abuse victims traverse to collective abuse, and he has coined the
phrase “battered citizen syndrome” to define this new, broader category. Tracy
emphasizes that abuse of citizens by governments has reached the point of a
“grave societal malady.” Battered citizens, Tracy says, traverse these same four
stages (if they in fact manage to free themselves from their government’s
abusive actions). Specifically, battered citizens will:
- deny that there is political violence toward citizens by
their governments, when such violence obviously exists;
- experience guilt and low self-esteem from believing that
somehow they are to blame for the political violence; or experience fear for
having been fingered as potential terrorists by the government, which
induces them to rationalize or tolerate officials’ destruction of civil
- reach eventual “enlightenment,” realizing that they are
not to blame for the ill-treatment, yet they may still try to work with the
abusive government; and finally
- show responsibility for leaving the abusive relationship
by working to establish new modes of governance.4
In other words, whether we are children, spouses, or citizens,
we have a deep need to trust our parents, spouses, and our government. When we
are abused physically or emotionally in these relationships, we try to keep that
trust intact by rationalizing the abuser’s actions and blaming ourselves. When
we acquiesce in this way, however, we feel disempowered, which in turn causes
our anger and frustration to build. If we have the courage to think for
ourselves, we realize that we do not deserve this abuse — even though we still
may try to work with the abusers. As we gain further courage, we fight
back, if we are physically able, or we leave the abusive relationship. Through
this process, we regain our integrity, self-respect, and sense of empowerment.
EDWARD BERNAYS: THE ENGINEERING OF CONSENT
Another example of citizen-battering — through the calculated
manipulation of public opinion by governments, as well as by corporations — was
instigated by Sigmund Freud’s Austrian-born American nephew, Edward L. Bernays.
influenced by Freud, Bernays was convinced that human beings are innately driven
by monstrous, irrational, inner desires and fears, which civilization is meant
As is true for many of us, Bernays was a complicated fellow
who, while sincerely wanting democracy to flourish, also believed that the
common citizen was, frankly, too stupid to be trusted with democracy.
His utopian vision was a democratic society in which the
dangerous libidinal energies lurking just below the surface of every human could
be harnessed and channeled by the corporate elite for economic benefit. The mass
production of goods would fulfill the constant craving of the inherently
irrational drives of the masses. This cultural dynamic would ensure ongoing mass
production as well as sating the dangerous animal instincts that threatened to
tear society apart.
In other words, Bernays believed that to form an orderly and
prosperous society — the “American way of life” that he so valued — the masses
would need to be scientifically manipulated by an elite class of citizens — by
an “invisible government” who understood these dangerous forces.
According to Bernays, this manipulation would be based upon
findings made in such fields as sociology, social psychology, and anthropology,
and would be accomplished through covert techniques of opinion-molding, which he
called the “engineering of consent.” In this strategy, advertising is employed
to show the masses the self-images to which they should aspire and the products
they would need to purchase in order to satisfy these self-images. Thus the
science of public relations, more properly known as “propaganda,” was born,
birthed in large part by Bernays and nourished and developed by corporations to
sell their products, and by public relations companies to sell presidential
candidates and foreign policy.5
As Bernays wrote,
[Researchers of mass psychology] established that the
group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and
is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis
of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose:
If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not
possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without
their knowing about it? . . . . If you can influence the leaders, either
with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the
group which they sway.6
This strategy of first influencing the opinion leaders of a
society was also discovered by anthropologists as a way to introduce and
establish new ideas into a society (see Part
2: Diffusion of Innovations). Bernays made liberal use of these “third party
authorities” to sell his clients’ cases. Among his successful propaganda
campaigns: Trusted physicians pronounced bacon and eggs the best breakfast,
dentists promoted fluoridation of water as safe and beneficial, and fetching
young models lighting up “torches of freedom” broke the taboo against women
Americans, who at one time saw themselves as citizens with
civic duties, were manipulated by Bernays’ propaganda techniques into thinking
of themselves as consumers whose self-esteem was validated by the products they
bought. Politicians who employed public relations experts skilled at “spin”
found that, as candidates in an election, they merely had to make whatever
promises would appeal to their constituency — whether they intended to follow
through with those promises or not. This is obviously the culture we inherit
In addition to working with corporations and high-profile
individuals, Bernays worked with the U.S. government and the CIA to implement
foreign policy decisions. For example, he joined with other social scientists to
influence public opinion toward supporting American participation in World War
I. He also worked in concert with the U.S. government and the United Fruit
Company to facilitate the overthrow of the democratically elected president of
Guatemala, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, by branding him a communist — a claim that was
dutifully published without critique by major U.S. media.8
In the 1960s, protestors throughout the U.S. launched a
backlash against this manipulation of the public, which they viewed as a way to
keep the public sated by purchasing products, while the government did what it
wanted — which, at the time, included implementing the destructive foreign
policy in Vietnam.9
Many citizens now understand that the strategy of unlimited
growth of mass-produced goods is not sustainable for our planet. They also
realize that a so-called democracy run by an elite whose members successfully
manipulate the public is no longer a democracy — a fact that did not seem to
dawn on the brilliant Edward Bernays.
His business as a public relations counselor in New York City
thrived from 1919 until 1963, and he was even named as one of the 100 most
influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine. During his
highly successful career, the horrors of World War II, including the
concentration camps, strengthened his belief in the innate, monstrous drives
just under the surface of the human façade, as well as his belief in the
necessity of having an elite class that would control the urges of the masses.
Nevertheless, in a classic case of bitter irony — and what should have been a
wake-up call to rethink his arrogant certainty about manipulating others — his
brilliant insights on engineering public opinion were turned against his Jewish
brethren in Nazi Germany. Bernays recounted in his autobiography, Biography
of an Idea, a dinner conversation at his home in 1933:
Karl von Weigand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst
newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany,
was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi
power. Goebbels had shown Weigand his propaganda library, the best Weigand had
ever seen. Goebbels, said Weigand, was using my [Bernay’s] book Crystallizing
Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of
Germany. This shocked me. . . . Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was
no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.10
How far will today’s spinmeisters take us into Bernays’
“engineering of consent” — into a matrix of lies — as they prey on our natural
human fears? If the false-flag event of September 11, 2001, is any indication,
and if the official propaganda about what happened on that fateful day is any
indication, the official propagandists will take us as far as we let them.
According to whistleblower Barbara Honegger, former CIA Director William Casey
candidly remarked in early February 1981: “We’ll know our disinformation program
is a success when everything the American public believes is false.”11
Ultimately, spin, lies, and abuse
lead us down a road toward mutual destruction, not to the prosperity and freedom
that Edward Bernays envisioned. Ethical psychology professionals, including this
writer, strongly believe that our profession should not be used to
control, manipulate, exploit, abuse, or torture human beings. Unfortunately,
others in my profession disagree, as is evidenced by certain members of the
American Psychological Association who aided and abetted torture of detainees
Psychologists with scruples
maintain that the ultimate goals of our profession are to help people understand
themselves, to heal and reclaim the natural goodness with which we were born,
and to become free, compassionate, and wise individuals.
DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF: WHY WE LISTEN TO WHAT “THEY” SAY
Douglas Rushkoff, professor of virtual culture at New York
University, gives us another example of societal abuse in the marketplace.
Rushkoff reveals that influence techniques promoted by Dale Carnegie (How to
Win Friends and Influence People) and refined by the CIA for its
noncoercive interrogations, were adapted and upgraded by a variety of industries
for their marketing and sales practices. In his detailed and fascinating
exposé, Coercion: Why We Listen to What “They” Say, Rushkoff
demonstrates that whether through interrogation in a windowless room by a CIA
agent or through seemingly benign manipulations by a bed salesman, the process
is essentially the same.
First, establish good rapport and trust (for example, employ
the “good cop vs. bad cop” strategy). Then, using the tricks of the trade,
disorient the subject by disrupting his familiar emotional associations.
Confusion naturally follows. The CIA manual explains:
When this aim is achieved, resistance is seriously impaired.
There is an interval — which may be extremely brief — of suspended animation, a
kind of psychological shock or paralysis . . . that explodes the world that is
familiar to the subject as well as his image of himself within that world.
Experienced interrogators recognize this effect when it appears and know that at
this moment the source is far more open to suggestion.13
At this moment of disorientation, Rushkoff notes, the subject
is ripe for manipulation. He enters a regressed state, which immediately leads
to transferring authority to the interrogator or to the sales person, who the
subject now regards as a parental figure. Compliance with that “parental”
authority naturally follows, whether this involves divulging information or
buying an unneeded $3,000 bed.
KEVIN BARRETT: A MOMENT OF DISSOCIATION
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a scholar of Islam and literature, and
co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth, postulates
that this process applies directly to the attacks of September 11, 2001 — an
event he believes was designed to infantilize the public through psychological
shock or paralysis. “We experienced a moment of dissociation,” he says, “which
is why we can still recall where we were and what we were doing when we learned
of the attack . . . . We desperately needed a parent figure to tell us how to
make sense of the madness.”14
THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
When we fail to confront oppression and abuse, whether
individual or societal, whether overt or subtle, we suppress the unwelcome fact
that our trust has been abused and betrayed. We feel miserable because, in
essence, we are compromising our true self by denying what we know to be true
and what we know to be right. When we do not reclaim our inherent power to stand
up to oppression and abuse, we become depressed and ashamed, emotions we seek to
escape by watching too much mind-numbing TV, overeating, or misusing substances
— these excesses sending us into deeper depression and shame.
he had studied the evidence that refutes the official account of 9/11, a friend
of mine declared, “My solution to this 9/11 issue is to do more drugs.” Sadly,
he was not joking.
Those who are inclined to abuse others usually pick on people
who appear weak. As the victim succumbs to the abuse, the dynamic escalates,
with more abuse hurled at the victim, who then sinks deeper into passivity and
shame. Violent abuse normally happens at this point.
After this explosion of violence, the repentant abuser may, in
what is termed the “honeymoon phase,” offer apologies and gifts to the victim.
The victim then feels hope, erroneously believing that the abuser is actually
amending his ways. But tension once again builds, leading to another round of
EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAUMA AT ROOT OF REACTIONS
Why do some people fall victim to this vicious cycle of
violence, while others, at the mere suggestion or faintest whiff of abuse,
decisively stand up for themselves and challenge the would-be abuser?
The pattern of reacting to abuse with passivity and shame most
likely began with the early treatment we received from our parents or other
authority figures — or this pattern may even have begun from conception through
our birth experience. For example, beginning with conception, did our parents
want us?15 Was our birth violent or non-violent?16 As infants and young
children, did our parents look at us with disgust or with adoration? Or were
they so distracted that they hardly looked at us at all? Did they hold and touch
us consistently with love? Was their touch invasive or punishing?17 Or did they
hardly touch us except when necessary? Did they respond to our natural needs in
a timely way? Were our expressions of emotion received with anger, with
controlling and shaming messages, or with loving recognition, acceptance, and
support, along with appropriate structure? Were we lovingly and securely
attached to our parents?18 Did teachers, priests, ministers, uncles, aunts,
older siblings and cousins, or other authority figures abuse us emotionally or
The answers to these questions usually determine our level of
self-esteem and self-confidence as well as how inner-directed or outer-directed
we become as adults. The answers can also strongly indicate whether we become
violent or peaceful as adults, and on a collective level, whether we live in —
and contribute to — a violent or a peaceful society.19
Both passiveness in the face of abuse (as experienced by the
victim) and violence in the face of passiveness (as committed by the abuser — and
this includes the perpetrators of 9/11) are behaviors that stem from abuse
received in infancy and childhood. If we truly want a nonviolent society,
therefore, a prerequisite will be a vast improvement in how we treat our
children, from conception through birth, and from natural childrearing through
compassionate and enlightened education.20
According to Bruce Levine, the psychology profession, rather
than acknowledging the abuse syndrome and helping clients heal and exit toxic
relationships, has moved increasingly in the direction of pathologizing and
medicating those who question authorities as well as those who feel oppressed
and thus become depressed. In other words, some practitioners of this profession
add insult to injury.
Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not
comply with authority are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated
with psychiatric drugs that make them less pained about their boredom,
resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and
In addition, writes Levine:
By the mid-1980s, psychiatry was beginning to become
annexed by pharmaceutical companies and forming what we now have—a
“psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex.” Increasingly marginalized
was the idea that treatment that consisted of manipulating and medicating
alienated people to adjust to this crazy rat race and thus maintain the
status quo was a political act — a problematic one for people who cared
about democracy.22 (Emphasis added)
example, in my own experience, a young psychology student called me from Denmark
just to “talk.” His university’s psychologist had decided he was paranoid since,
after much research, he had decided that 9/11 was a false-flag operation. He had
found my name through the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out,
and was so heartened and relieved by the “Seeking Understanding” segment that he
decided to take this DVD to his psychologist to demonstrate to her that he was
not mentally unstable. What a challenge for this young man that this
psychologist was so quick to label him with a diagnosis, rather than
open-mindedly researching the issue herself!
Levine suggests that the psychology profession needs to move
in the direction of “liberation psychology,” a concept popularized by Ignacio
Martin-Baró, a social psychologist and priest in El Salvador who recognized a
“psychology of oppression” in which the downtrodden of a society fatalistically
believe they are powerless to alter their circumstances. Consequently, they
become resigned and apathetic to their situation. Sadly, Martin-Baró was
assassinated in 1989 — by a U.S.-trained Salvadoran death squad — for speaking
out on behalf of the oppressed.23
Rather than pathologize and medicate “anti-authoritarians
[who] question the legitimacy of an authority before taking it seriously,”
psychology professionals should support clients with a “shot of morale” that
encourages them to do their own critical thinking and to become active and
creative in their own unique ways.24Psychotherapists also need to be capable of
providing opportunities for healing earlier traumas of omission and commission
in order to interrupt old behavioral patterns.25
THE 9/11 ELEPHANT IN OUR LIVING ROOM
As activists, or simply as concerned citizens, we must not
succumb to the pessimistic belief that “we’ll never know the truth of 9/11, so
let’s just move forward as best we can and forget about this terrible subject.”
With an issue as taboo and disturbing as 9/11, it is tempting to want to avoid
the whole matter — to avoid acknowledging the 9/11 elephant in our national
living room — and to work on other concerns for which we think there is a better
chance of success.
Even though one could argue that a full, fair, and objective
investigation with subpoena power in the U.S. is unlikely to occur in the near
future, I propose that we take a longer view of this challenging issue with
which we 9/11 activists have become entangled.
First, a little history is in order, so we can understand
where our movement stands. To date, the corporate-owned media have conspicuously
ignored the evidence that refutes the official storyline of 9/11. There are,
however, a few notable exceptions: David Ray Griffin, a political writer and
professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, appeared on C-SPAN in
2005 and 2006.26 And on August 1, 2014, C-SPAN finally interviewed Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s Richard Gage, AIA, on Washington
Journal.27 For the most part, though, the glances that the compromised
mainstream media have given 9/11 skeptics are contemptuous and slanderous [see here, here,
Likewise, to date, with rare exception, members of Congress
treat the 9/11 controversy like a hot potato, apparently more fearful of losing
their jobs than interested in the integrity of our country. The aforementionedWashington
Journal program is filled with federal legislators [here, here,
who dodge citizens’ queries about Building 7 as if the questioners were carriers
of a dangerous infectious disease.29
Yet despite these serious handicaps, the 9/11 Truth Movement
has been stunningly successful in (1) documenting mountains of evidence that
could inform a possible future national or international investigation and (2)
raising awareness around the world regarding the realities of 9/11 as well as of
other false-flag operations and deceptions by governments.30
Even if there is not a real investigation anytime soon, why is
it still important that as many people as possible know the truth of
Well, for one thing, how in the world can we make sound,
rational decisions when we don’t have accurate information upon which to base
these decisions? When we grasp the reality of the attacks of 9/11, as well as
the reality of other State Crimes Against Democracy (see Part
13), it’s highly unlikely that, for example, we will be as easily
manipulated to support unnecessary wars — or to encourage our sons and daughters
to fight in them. Having access to accurate information in such cases can be a
Additionally, becoming more aware of such hidden realities can
be empowering individually and collectively, as it helps to shift the balance of
power from deceitful authorities to wiser citizens who are capable of seeing
through the machinations of the deep state.
Author and political activist Arundhati Roy has eloquently
expressed that empowerment: “The trouble is that once you see it, you can’t
unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as
political an act as speaking out. There’s no innocence. Either way, you’re
Accordingly, once we see 9/11 as a false-flag operation,
understand the existence of the deep state, and learn of other State Crimes
Against Democracy, our vision shifts. We can’t unsee it. It is as though
blinders have been removed, giving us a much, much wider perspective on
This eye-opening process is frightening at first to many of
us. As one friend said, “I’m afraid I won’t be able to trust anyone anymore!”
This fear is not easily overcome by those who have been sheltered from world
events, blinded by false propaganda, or so abused that they can’t handle one
more betrayal. But at some point, many of us do get beyond our fear,
and we discover that we are actually empowered. We are then led to others who
are equally awake.
As we gradually become more aware of accurate information
about many different areas of concern — such as the need for real financial
reform — and learn how to use rational discernment in each of these areas, we
become able to make more conscious decisions, and to live more consciously. We
increasingly find that we can trust ourselves, we feel freer, and we lose our
fear “of not being able to trust anyone anymore.”
on the other hand, we continue “looking forward”32 while remaining silent about
the 9/11 elephant in our American living room, we will take her with us into our
future,inviting future false-flag operations and other forms of abuse
inflicted by government authorities and the powerful, behind-the-scenes deep
state. It would appear that many of these figures are likely true sociopaths,
lacking a conscience or any sense of connection to the rest of life — a topic we
will discuss in Part 20: Those Who Lack Conscience and Empathy.
So, even though the “looking forward” slogan prevented prosecution of state
crimes, we must move forward in uncovering the truth about the 9/11 issue, no
matter what others may say. If we can persevere confidently and compassionately,
for the most part, rather than with fear and excessive urgency, we may inspire
others to follow suit. Indeed, when we heed our intuition — what might be
variously called our “our deep, inner sense of rightness,” “our inner truth” or
“the still, small voice within” — the resulting peace we feel and intelligent
actions we take could motivate others to free themselves from the abuse syndrome
and the resulting passivity and shame.
might say I am over-analyzing. After all, when we know the power of the
corporate and elite forces we face, isn’t it normal to feel helpless and
apathetic? Isn’t it being realistic not to do anything to expose these
forces, not to try to take them to justice? Wouldn’t such actions be,
at the very least, a waste of time, causing us to neglect those “real” issues so
in need of attention? And, besides, aren’t people who focus on ferreting out the
truth about 9/11 really just “Debbie Downers?”33 Aren’t they simply cynical and
obsessed with negative information, and unable to see the good in our world?
I have heard all of these defensive and pathologizing remarks
from those who do not want to acknowledge and deal with this elephant; and even
if they have seen the elephant, they neglect to acknowledge the activists whose
courageous and tireless work makes the unspeakable speakable. But that is the
nature of this difficult activist path, the nature of a path that requires
breaking through both the internal and external taboo barriers surrounding 9/11
— or any paradigm-changing issue.
I propose that we look at these defensive rationalizations
from another angle: If 9/11 is a false-flag operation, as proposed by
skeptics of the official account — that is, if certain persons in
powerful positions conspired to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, as evidence
strongly indicates — would it be rational not to do anything? Do we
think that the perpetrators would altruistically reform themselves if all of us
kept silent? Wouldn’t we be hoping against hope that similar treacheries would
never occur again — or, if they did, that our family and close friends would
somehow be spared?
We each must decide for ourselves.
From my standpoint, living my life based on such
rationalization and false hope would be living from fear and resignation, and
deep within, I would carry the anxiety and self-disrespect of knowing that I was
living a lie.
In this segment, we have explored the abuse syndrome, which
may cause its victims to react to challenging situations — such as hearing the
evidence that refutes the official account of 9/11 — with powerlessness, shame,
or apathy. There is another kind of response to such information that can lead
to the victims biologically shutting down their awareness. This automatic
process is known as dissociation, which we will explore in the next segment in
AE 9/11 Truth Editor’s note: To be continued in the next
issue with Part 16: Dissociation. Electronic sources in the footnotes have been
archived. If they can no longer be found by a search on the Internet, readers
desiring a copy may contact Frances Shure for a copy here.
Continued with Part 16: Dissasociation
1 Bruce E. Levine, Get Up, Stand
Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite(Chelsea
Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, VT, 2011).
The term “Stockholm syndrome” derives
from a 1973 Swedish bank robbery in which hostages became emotionally attached
to their bank-robber captors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome.
Bruce E. Levine “Are Americans a
Broken People? Why We’ve Stopped Fighting Back Against the Forces of
Oppression,” AlterNet, December 11, 2009. Seehttp://www.alternet.org/story/144529/are_americans_a_broken_people_why_we%27ve_stopped_fighting_back_against_the_forces_of_oppression.
3 Patrick J. Carnes, The Betrayal
Bond: Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships (Deerfield Beach, FL:
Health Communications, Inc., 1997).
4 James F. Tracy, “Human
Consciousness and the “Battered Citizen Syndrome”: The Psychological Impacts of
War Propaganda and State-sponsored Terrorism.” See http://www.globalresearch.ca/human-consciousness-and-the-battered-citizen-syndrome-the-psychological-impacts-of-war-propaganda-and-state-sponsored-terrorism/5407954.
For the four psychological stages of
the battered woman syndrome, seehttp://www.domesticviolenceinfo.ca/article/psychology-of-the-battered-woman-syndrome—264.asp.
5 See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Edward_Bernays.
Joe McGinniss, The Selling of the
President: The Classical Account of the Packaging of the President (Penguin
6 Edward Bernays, Propaganda (Ig
Publishing, 1928) 71 – 73.
7 See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Edward_Bernays.
9 For more of this fascinating
history, see the four-part DVD The Century of the Self by filmmaker
Adam Curtis, first broadcast on BBC TV in 2002.
10 Quote found at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Edward_Bernays.
11 In a personal e-mail communication
to me, Barbara Honegger confirmed that she was the source of this quote, having
been in attendance as the then-White House Policy Analyst at the February 1981
meeting in the White House Roosevelt Room with President Reagan and his new
cabinet secretaries and agency heads. New CIA Director William Casey spoke these
words in response to a question the President put to all of the cabinet
secretaries and agency heads: “What are your main goals for your department or
agency?” Having worked with radio show host Mae Brussell upon returning to
California from the White House, Honegger was also the source for Brussell’s
second-hand report about Casey’s words. Honegger also said she recalls Casey
saying “. . . program is a success . . .,” rather than “. . . program is
complete.” For further detail on Honegger’s account of this quote, see http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2015/01/15/did-cia-director-william-casey-really-say-well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-american-public-believes-is-false.
12 Roy Eidelson, “Cast Into the
Depths: Perilous Waters for the American Psychological Association” (Truthout,
January 12, 2015). See http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28497-cast-into-the-depths-perilous-waters-for-the-apa.
13 Douglas Rushkoff, Coercion:
Why We Listen to What “They” Say (Riverhead Books, New York, NY 1999) p.
Original source cited in footnote of
Rushkoff, Coercion: Central Intelligence Agency, “Kubark
Counterintelligence Interrogation” manual, CIA classified publication, July
1963, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 1997, and distributed
on the Internet. Seehttp://www.uscrow.org/downloads/Survival%20Public%20Domain/Kubark_Counterintelligence_Interrogation_torture_manual1963.pdf.
14 Kevin Barrett, “Apocalypse
of Coercion: Why We Listen to What ‘They’ Say About 9/11.” Seehttp://mujca.com/apocalypse.htm.
15 Henry David Philip (Contributor), Born
Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion (Avicenum: Prague, 1988;
later published by Springer: New York and EDAMEX in Mexico City). See a review
Thomas R. Verny, M.D., with John
Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child (Dell Publishing, 1981).
This remarkable classic reports on research showing that what happens to us from
conception through birth shapes our personalities, ambitions, and our emotional
and physical health.
Thomas R. Verny, M.D. with Pamela
Weinraub, Pre-Parenting: Nurturing Your Child from Conception (New
York: Simon & Schuster).
16 Thomas R. Verny, M.D., “Birth and
Violence.” See https://birthpsychology.com/free-article/birth-and-violence#.VLMhzCc3NXA.
chapter 5. Especially note the much greater risk for committing violent crime by
18 years of age when there is a combination of birth complication with maternal
rejection, pp. 81 – 82.
17 Ashley Montagu, Touching: The
Human Significance of the Skin (New York: Harper and Row, Third ed., 1986).
This is the classic for understanding the importance of loving touch to mental
and physical health.
18 Marshall H. Klaus, M.D., John H.
Kennell, M.D., and Phyllis H. Klaus, C.S.W., M.F.C.C., Bonding: Building the
Foundations of Secure Attachment and Independence (Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Inc., 1995).
19 James W. Prescott, Ph.D., “Body
Pleasure and the Origins of Violence,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
November 1975, 10–20. See http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html.
James W. Prescott, “Prevention or
Therapy and the Politics of Trust: Inspiring a New Human Agenda,”Psychotherapy
and Politics International 3, no. 3 (2005) 194–211. See http://violence.de/prescott/politics-trust.pdf
See further research of James W.
Prescott, at http://violence.de, and purchase
the DVD Rock-A-Bye Baby (a Time Life Video production), which documents
the research of Prescott and others, athttps://ttfuture.org/academy/james-w-prescott/overview. There
is also a three-part YouTube series:
Part 1 of 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRI8VKApgsU
Part 2 or 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6sKo-OKAuE
Part 3 of 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jurRryx2a8I
Note from this writer: Watching these
brain-damaged baby monkeys is difficult for anyone with a modicum of sensitivity
toward the suffering of other beings. It is lamentable that our culture believes
sacrificing the well-being of non-human innocents is necessary for scientific
progress. I hope and believe that when we find the will to discover truths
without such sacrifice, we will do so.
I also know James Prescott
personally, and am aware that he passionately wants to stop human suffering at
its origins. His groundbreaking research demonstrates that the deprivation of
infant and adolescent needs results in violent societies, whereas the
satisfaction of these needs results in nonviolent societies — an astounding
discovery that should be made public.
Robin Grille, Parenting for a
Peaceful World (Longueville Media, New South Wales, Australia, 2015) This
view it..”>firstname.lastname@example.org. North
American distributor: The Natural Child project,
www.naturalchild.org or 877-593-1547.
This important work documents the history of how child-rearing practices have
forged the destiny of nations and cultures.
Marcy Axness, Parenting for
Peace: Raising the Next Generation of Peacemakers (First Sentient
Publications ed. 2012).
20 Grille, Parenting for a Peaceful
21 Levine, “Are Americans a Broken
22 Bruce E. Levine, “How
Psychologists Subvert Democratic Movements,” Z Magazine, October 2012.
23 Levine, Get Up, Stand Up,
25 Traumas of omission come from our
unmet anaclitic needs, such as loving touch and unconditional love — needs that
necessarily must be met from another person outside of ourselves. Traumas of
commission are events that were done to us that were harmful, such as
birth trauma, sexual abuse, or corporal punishment.
26 “Book Discussion on 9/11 and
American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out” (2005) and “Book Discussion onThe
9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” (2006). See http://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=Videos&sort=Newest&personid%5B%5D=1014188.
27 “C-SPAN Interviews Determined
AE911Truth Founder: Richard Gage, AIA, Drives Home Explosive Evidence.” See http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/907-c-span-interviews-determined-ae911truth-founder.html.
28 Craig McKee, “CNN’s ‘Yellow
Journalism’ Rating Hits All-Time High: As Jake Tapper’s ‘The Lead’ Dips to a New
Low with ‘Coverage’ of AE911Truth’s 9/11 Museum Brochure.” Seehttp://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/884-cnns-yellow-journalism-rating-hits-all-time-high-.html.
“3 Towers, 2 Brochures, 1 Truth:
Controversy Brims at Grand Opening of 9/11 Museum — AE911Truth On-Site to Set
the Record Straight.” See http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/893-3-towers-2-brochures-1-truth.html.
Craig McKee, “Draw Your Line in the
Sand with a Letter to CNN: AE911Truth Slandered over 9/11 Museum Outreach —
Legal Action Considered.” See
29 See the three most recent
“Legislators” videos by Andy Steele of
Part 5: Legislators, Pundits & 9/11 Controlled Demolition Questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCLpELlZr9g.
Part 6: Legislators, Pundits & 9/11 Controlled Demolition Questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43ELbMo4D1o.
Part 7: Legislators, Pundits & 9/11 Controlled Demolition Questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6P6IcNKds.
30 International Poll: No Consensus
on Who Was Behind 9/11. Seehttp://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535.
31 Arundhati Roy, Power Politics (South
End Press, 2001). See http://fleurmach.com/2014/11/03/arundhati-roy-on-accountability.
32 This excerpt from President
Obama’s first prime-time news conference refers to his refusal to prosecute the
Bush Administration for the crimes of torture. The full quote by Obama reads:
“My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances
of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen,
but that, generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am
in looking backwards.”
To understand why “looking forward”
without prosecution leads to more of the same kind of crime:
— See this interview with Professor of History Alfred McCoy of the University of
— Read this article by Roy Eidelson,
“Rejecting the Obama-Cheney Alliance
Against Torture Prosecutions”:
33 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Downer.