Tuesday, December 29, 2015


"WHAT'S THE WHAT?" (By Brian McCarthy)

"What's the what? Where's the where?
Who's the who?
Does anybody care?

When's the when? Why's the why?
See the See.
The there is there.

So that's the that---The now is now.
Before was before.

Open the open.Close the close.
Run the race----see how it goes.

For today is today---No worry no fear.
Change will Change---The here is here."

 POEM: "WHAT'S THE WHAT?" (By Brian McCarthy)
 December 27 2015

Brian McCarthy - "The Most Famous Guy You've Never Heard Of---"

Website: youtube.com/user/mrbrianmccarthy

Visit his FaceBook Page:  https://www.facebook.com/britoven322

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The Delphi Perception

The Delphi Perception Management Technique

By AL Whitney © copyround 2015
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruption Society.com is acknowledged.
It is time to look at one of the “CONTROLLER’S” favored method of manipulating the public today: The Delphi Technique! The Delphi Technique is the creation of the nasty private think-tank founded by the Rockefellers, known as the RAND CORPORATION. [1]
Key in identifying the usage of the Delphi Technique is the word CONSENSUS
RAND has spread this deceptive strategy across the planet. It is currently and commonly used in academics, government institutions, private regional planning commissions, the military and non-profit organizations.
Two important and notable examples of the use of the Delphi Technique are:
Expert Consensus ReportIn fact, the National Academy of Sciences boasts their usage of the Delphi Technique in creating mumbo jumbo scientific reports by openly labeling these reports as: Expert Consensus Report. [See: Expert Consensus Reports are Scientific Mumbo-Jumbo]
Most community organizers and so-called government agency employees have been trained in the RAND Corporation’s Delphi Technique. It is taught to facilitators as a method of getting a group of people to believe they have made a group decision. If you have ever attended a meeting whereas those in charge of the meeting break the attendees into working groups or break-out sessions, who are then “tasked” to discuss a topic and bring the results back to the larger group, you have been Delphied! If when the meeting is over you are not scratching your head as to what just transpired, you are indeed a rare exception. The confusion experienced immediately post-meeting is an absolute sure sign that you were Delphied! The facilitators of the gathering generally proceed to report the outcome of this confusion as if a “consensus” of opinion had been reached by the participants. It is unlikely that their version of a “consensus” represents your opinions, thoughts, ideas or concerns. It is far more likely that their version of a “consensus” represents the goal of the facilitators who initiated the meeting in the first place. The outcome was predetermined. Your job was to sign in, fill a chair and allow them to cite you (either individually or as a group) as a supporter of their self-serving goal or agenda.
In fact, many times the goals of these organizers are associated with terms and conditions of grants that they have already signed contracts for. This is an extremely important point to remember as you think about this commonly used strategy of falsely attaining public approval.
My conclusion are a result of personally having been Delphied many times, which is how it became so obvious to me that this technique is being taught in all of our so-called institutions. I was Delphied at the following events:
  1. Medical School faculty retreat
  2. Regional planning commission public meetings
  3. Local land-use non-profit seeking public participation
  4. City government “visioning” workshops for the public (2 times)
  5. Non-profit Executive Director engaged in annual conference planning
  6. Independent organizer trying to get a large number of people to address a shared concern
The same feeling of post-meeting confusion followed all of these events. The post-meeting conversations that took place by attendees in the parking lot were all the same. We asked each other “What the bleep was all that about?” We all felt that the organizers stated purpose – that enticed us to the meeting in the first place – was just a pretense for an altogether different undisclosed agenda. And we were right.
While the general public remains unaware of these meetings and strategies, the outcomes will most likely directly impact their lives. Often the names of the participants (or participating groups) are then assigned to the outcome (as in the case of the IPCC) and used to enhance the initiating organization’s credibility and help sell their goal to others! Many times these goals become part of public policies that are implemented – again without the knowledge or consent of the general population.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a consensus is a “general agreement”. Specifically it means that a group of two or more people have consented to an idea, project, or plan. While one should be able to assume that more than 50% of those that participating in a Delphi program have fully understood the topic and have agreed to support a position or plan – that is not generally the case when the Delphi Technique is implemented.
It is easy to identify the inherent manipulation in the Delphi technique when you break the process down:
Step One
A single individual, a group of people, an organization or a corporate government agency establishes a goal – like the initiation of a new policy or the creation of a useful report.
Step Two
The initiators invite people (with or without expertise or knowledge of the issue) to a gathering for their input (like a think tank). The invitees generally include a very small group of experts and many non-experts who can be easily persuaded to support the ‘goal’.
Example: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included many non-scientists. I was introduced to one of them. While he was a nice fellow, he knew nothing about climatology . . . he was the owner of a solar panel company.
Step Three
The assigned moderators or facilitators define the goal to the group, generally in very broad terms.
Step Four
The facilitators seek group input
a) they break the group into smaller groups or topics for discussion lead by other facilitators
b) they administer surveys, polls or questionnaires to the group (using carefully ‘worded’ and limited questions).
Have you ever noticed that if you can control the questions, you control the dialogue? Questions like – should we even being considering this issue – are not permitted.
Step Five
The facilitators cherry-pick the results (input), format them, and present them as a group decision calling it a “consensus”. Thus – the results ALWAYS support the predetermined goal.
Step Six
The names (or number) of the participants or participating organizations are attached to the final report giving it the appearance of credibility; in spite of the fact that the participants are rarely allowed to review and/or approve of the final outcome.
Example: The wonderful documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle includes the testimony of a scientist who participated in the IPCC’s first consensus meeting and was so incensed by the the resulting report on Climate Change that he sued to have his name removed.
This Delphic Technique method of policy making can affect the lives of vast numbers of people – without their knowledge or approval. And, those responsible can escape accountability via a plausible deniability factor that has been intentionally built into the Delphi Technique.
By controlling the following factors, a group can be hand-picked and manipulated into seemingly supporting policies they don’t agree with or reports that they know to be blatantly false:
  • facilitator
  • invitees
  • questionnaires, polls or surveys
  • discussion
  • final report
All “consensus” results – including consensus scientific reports –  should be presumed false . . . based on the usage of the deceptive consensus process itself.
To help educate unsuspecting victims of the Delphi Technique, this brochure can be printed on card stock and trimmed to make 3 brochures per each 8 1/2 X 11 page. Sharing it with other attendees at Delphi events can help undermine this nasty and dishonest strategy of group manipulation.
[1]  Former RAND insider Alex Abella exposes this diabolic ‘think-tank’
[2] Insider admits that environmental orgs never reviewed CO2 global warming theory

For Complete Source and Articles of Major Concern Please Visit The AntiCorruption Society at this link:   http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/03/28/the-delphi-perception-management-technique/

This article explains how it was done.  The Delphi Perception has far reaching arms into the heart of each community.  Knowledge from the past helps us determine how best to face the future.  Here also is a link to how we can all help disarm the delphi technique. http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/03/30/we-can-all-help-disarm-the-delphi-technique/

Saturday, March 21, 2015

EMPATHY - These Kids have it right

EMPATHY - These Kids have it right

Can YOU remove your experiences and judgments and put yourself in others' feelings, thoughts and experiences? Can YOU truly listen with a desire to understand.....not always agree but understand.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

SSRI-Induced Akathisia

SSRI-Induced Akathisia's Link To Suicide and Violence

Washington, DC: Medical experts have long known that the side effect associated with the class of antidepressants known as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors most likely to drive people to suicide or violence against others is "akathisia".

Akathisia is but one in a long list of side effects that SSRI makers were able to keep hidden, as they settled thousands of lawsuits out of court, by obtaining court orders to seal documents produced in litigation. For instance, a 1984 Eli Lilly document showed akathisia occurred in at least 1% of patients long before Prozac was approved.

Akathisia suicidal victimIn a paper entitled, "Suicides and Homicides in Patients Taking Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft: Why They Keep Happening - And Why They Will Continue," Dr Jay Cohen points out that, as soon SSRI's arrived on the market in the late 1980s, reports of sudden, unexpected suicides and homicides by patients taking the drugs began to come in.

The DSM-IV acknowledges the association of akathisia with suicidality and states: "Akathisia may be associated with dysphoria, irritability, aggression, or suicide attempts."

According to Dr Cohen, SSRI's can create a combination of side effects that reduce impulse control and cause severe agitation or restlessness that may become intolerable. He says, impulsive behavior coupled with impaired cognitive functioning can be dangerous.

A 1998 article on akathisia associated with Prozac and its link to suicidal ideation in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, by Roger Lane, who was working for Pfizer at the time, states in part:

"It may be less of a question of patients experiencing fluoxetine-induced suicidal ideation than patients feeling that 'death is a welcome result' when the acutely discomforting symptoms of akathisia are experienced on top of already distressing disorders.

"Hamilton and Opler (1992) stated that the term 'suicidal ideation' to describe the apparent suicidality associated with akathisia was misleading, as the 'suicidal ideation' reported in patients receiving fluoxetine was a reaction to the side-effect of akathisia (i.e., unbearable discomfort and restlessness) and not true suicidal ideation as is typically described by depressed patients experiencing suicidal ideation."

Dr Joseph Glenmullen, author of "Prozac Backlash" and "The Antidepressant Solution," obtained a Lilly document dated November 13, 1990, from Claude Bouchy, a Lilly employee in Germany, to three executives at Lilly's Indianapolis headquarters, complaining about directions to change the identification of events as they are reported to doctors from "suicide attempt" to "overdose" and "suicidal ideation" to "depression".

"I do not think I could explain to the BGA, to a judge, to a reporter or even to my family," Mr Bouchy wrote, "why we would do this especially on the sensitive issue of suicide and suicide ideation."

Dr Glenmullen says akathisia makes people profoundly agitated, uncomfortable in their own skin and impulsive. It erodes judgment and can lower their threshold to become violent toward themselves or others, he states.

Dr Martin Teicher, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital researcher at the time, co-authored a paper with psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist Jonathan Cole on the link between Prozac and suicide back in 1990, which found that 3.5% of patients on Prozac either attempted or committed suicide due to severe agitation from akathisia.

In the paper, the authors discussed 6 cases of patients who became intensely preoccupied with suicide after taking Prozac. Dr Cole said, in an affidavit submitted in litigation on April 20, 2000, "Our purpose in writing this article was to alert the profession to an alarming, probable drug side effect which we had observed."

"There was a very clear association," he said, "not merely temporal, between the ingestion of Prozac and the patients' suicidality."

"I have also seen patients and reviewed cases," Dr Cole stated, "where an SSRI unmistakably precipitated a driven preoccupation with suicide."

"The SSRI drugs, as a class," he advised, "clearly have the potential to cause, and in reasonable medical probability or certainty do cause, akathisia in some patients."

"Although in 1997," Dr Cole notes, "practicing physicians undoubtedly varied in their level of sophistication and knowledge about the phenomenon, the potential to cause akathisia and its potential, in turn, to trigger suicidal behavior."

Additional evidence showing Lilly knew about the akathisia-induced suicide surfaced in an application for a patent for a second-generation Prozac pill which claimed that the new-and-improved Prozac would decrease the side effects of, "inner restlessness (akathisia), suicidal thoughts and self-mutilation."

Besides the concealment of this adverse effect by the drug companies, another major problem in getting the word out, according to Vince Boehm, who tracks all studies and research published on SSRI's, is that the FDA refuses to fully acknowledge the role of drug-induced akathisia in what he refers to as "this hideous equation."

"Akathisia is up to 6 times more likely to trigger a suicide," he states, "than any form of depression caused by life's circumstances alone."

"The minds inner turmoil is so intense that a person will do anything to escape it," he says.

"The Brits, the Aussies, Canada, and the European Union," he points out, "have all gone on record recognizing this phenomenon for all age groups."

Judging by internal FDA documents which have surfaced in litigation, Mr Boehm appears to be correct. For instance, in a September 11, 1990, memo, FDA scientist Dr David Graham found that Lilly's data on Prozac was insufficient to prove the drug was safe, stating: "Because of apparent large-scale underreporting, the firm's analysis cannot be considered as proving that fluoxetine and violent behavior are unrelated."

A more recent study in the September 2006 journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) has further verified the warnings made by many other experts, when it reported that, in addition to self-harm, SSRI's cause some patients to become violent and homicidal.

Dr David Healy, described as "one of the three most eminent academic clinical psychiatrists in the UK," professor David Menkes, from Cardiff University in Britain, and Andrew Herxheimer, from the Cochrane Centre, did the study to determine the risk of violent behavior in people taking SSRI's.

As part of their investigation, the researchers reviewed all available clinical data on SSRI's and summarized a series of "medico-legal" court cases involving patients who had became violent on SSRI's.

One case discussed dated back to 2001, when Dr Healy testified at a wrongful death trial in Wyoming, after a 60-year-old man on Paxil shot and killed his wife, daughter and infant granddaughter before turning the gun on himself in 1998.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the man's son-in-law after Dr Healy presented the jury with a summary of an unpublished company study that found incidents of serious aggression in 80 patients on Paxil, including 25 that involved homicide, and proved that the drug maker knew about the violence and suicide risks before the 1998 shootings.

Dr Healy points out a rechallenge study by Rothschild and Locke in McLean Hospital where the authors found Prozac-induced emergent suicidality associated with akathisia in several patients. In order to test whether suicidality was coincidental or associated with Prozac, they withdrew Prozac, then re-administered it, and in all three cases, the patients experienced the exact same effect. "All three patients developed severe akathisia during treatment with fluoxetine and stated that the development of the akathisia made them feel suicidal and that it had precipitated their prior suicide attempts."

However, even more alarming, one set of patients who became suicidal on Prozac were described as follows: "[n]one had a history of significant suicidal behavior; all described their distress as an intense and novel somatic-emotional state; all reported an urge to pace that paralleled the intensity of the distress; all experienced suicidal thoughts at the peak of their restless agitation; and all experienced a remission of their agitation, restlessness, pacing urge, and suicidality after the fluoxetine was discontinued."

Source:  Lawyers and Settlements.com 

Akathisia, or acathisia, is a syndrome characterized by unpleasant sensations of inner restlessness that manifests itself with an inability to sit still or remain motionless (hence the word's origin in Ancient Greek: from καθίζειν - kathízein - "to sit" with a privative a as prefix expressing negation or absence; literally meaning inability to sit). It can be a side effect of medications, or it can, to a lesser extent, be caused by Parkinson's disease and related syndromes,[1] and likely other neurological diseases. However, this may be due more to the drugs used in treatment such as sinemet (l-dopa) and less with the Parkinson's disease itself.[2] Another major cause is withdrawal from almost any physical addiction, for example, in benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome.[3] It was discovered that akathisia involves increased levels of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine, which is associated with mechanisms that regulate aggression, alertness, and arousal.[4] Though no further research has been done as of yet, it may also be involved with disrupted NMDA channels in the brain, which have both synergistic and regulatory effects on norepinephrine.


Akathisia may range in intensity from a sense of disquiet or anxiety, to severe discomfort, particularly in the knees. Patients typically pace for hours because the pressure on the knees reduces the discomfort somewhat; once their knees and legs become fatigued and they are unable to continue pacing, they sit or lie down, although this does not relieve the akathisia. At high doses or with potent drugs such as haloperidol (Haldol) or chlorpromazine (Thorazine/Largactil), the feeling can last all day from awakening to sleep. The anticholinergic procyclidine reduces neuroleptic-induced akathisia to a certain degree, in addition to preventing and sometimes eliminating the muscle stiffness that can occur alongside akathisia.

Some doctors report an anti-anxiety drug such as clonazepam helps to reduce the anxiety which occurs along with the akathisia.[citation needed]. When misdiagnosis occurs in antipsychotic neuroleptic-induced akathisia, more antipsychotic neuroleptics may be prescribed, potentially worsening the symptoms.[1] High-functioning patients have described the feeling as a sense of inner tension and torment or chemical torture. Many patients describe symptoms of neuropathic pain akin to fibromyalgia and restless legs syndrome.[5] Although these side effects disappear quickly and remarkably when the medication is stopped, tardive, or late-persisting akathisia may go on long after the offending drug is discontinued, sometimes for a period of years—unlike the related tardive dyskinesia, which can be permanent. Considering that this is rare, it must also be noted that it is not unheard of that patients are medicated or given higher doses without their knowledge.


Akathisia is most often seen as a side effect of antipsychotic medications, but has other causes as well:
The 2006 UK study by Healy, Herxheimer, and Menkes observed that akathisia is often miscoded in antidepressant clinical trials as "agitation, emotional lability, and hyperkinesis (overactivity)".[11] The study further points out that misdiagnosis of akathisia as simple motor restlessness occurs, but that this is more properly classed as dyskinesia. Healy, et al., further show links between antidepressant-induced akathisia and violence, including suicide, as akathisia can "exacerbate psychopathology." The study goes on to state that there is extensive clinical evidence correlating akathisia with SSRI use, showing that approximately ten times as many patients on SSRIs as those on placebos showed symptoms severe enough to drop out of a trial (5.0% compared to 0.5%).

Source and FULL Article at:  Wikipedia 

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

The Ludlow massacre, 1914

The Ludlow massacre, 1914

The history of the Ludlow Massacre of striking coal miners, which was one of the most brutal attacks on organised labour in North American history. It was the pinnacle of efforts by the National Guard and local strike-breakers under the command of the Rockefeller family to suppress a strike of twelve thousand workers.

Issues concerning labour had dogged the United States for many years preceding World War I and had resulted in widespread strike action, especially in the West of the country. Tensions rose to a melting point when a union activist was killed in late 1913 resulting in workers at the Rockefeller family owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation’s (CF+I) going on strike. Miners evacuated the coal camps on September 23rd in protest against low wages, poor working conditions and continued victimisation of union activists. This was to mark the beginning of what was to be a harsh seven months of continued brutality and repression at the hands of their bosses.

Miners of the CF+I were paid $1.68 a day and were forced to work in extremely harsh conditions, this was particularly true for the Colorado miners, where fatality rates were often double the national average. What little wages the miners earned were paid in scrip, which was redeemable only at the company store where prices were high.

Attempts of unionisation by the Colorado miners dated back to the first strike of 1883 in which they tried to join the Western Federation of Miners, in 1913 they were attempting to organise into the United Mine Workers of America. (They later joined the Industrial Workers of the World in 1927.)
Demands of the UMWA to the CF+I were as follows:
“…Recognition of the United Mineworkers of America as the bargaining agent for workers in coal mines throughout Colorado and northern New Mexico, an effective system of checkweighmen in all mines, compensation for digging coal at a ton-rate based on 2,000 pounds, semi-monthly payment of wages in lawful money, the abolition of scrip and the truck system, an end to discrimination against union members, and strict enforcement of state laws pertaining to operators’ obligations in supplying miners with timbers, rails, and other materials in underground working places.”
The demands of the union and the continuing strike action enraged the Rockefeller family, which through mine ownership effectively ruled the region. They evicted striking workers from their company owned homes leaving them (along with their families) to face the harsh Colorado winter months without shelter. Assisted by UMWA groups across the US, the strikers organised ‘tent cities’ close to canyon mouths which lead to coal camps (in an attempt to block strike-breakers replacing them) and continued their strike.

Through various agencies the company was able to hire men to take a more aggressive stance against the striking workers, armed guards were supplied to harass strikers and union organisers. An armoured car with a mounted machine gun was even built which was appropriately named the ‘Death Special’ by the company guards. As tensions escalated between CF+I and the strikers, miners dug protective pits beneath their tents to shield themselves and their families against random sniping and machine gun fire from the company guards. On October 17th the ‘Death Special’ was used to attack the Forbes tent colony resulting in the death of one miner. A young girl was shot in the face and another boy’s legs riddled with machine gun bullets also. Confrontations between striking miners and scab workers were also resulting in additional deaths. On October 28th the Governor of Colorado, Elias M Ammons called out the National Guard to take control of the situation.

The miners however, persevered. Union members and organisers were kidnapped and beaten, shots being fired into the camps from strike-breakers and the National Guardsmen were a constant occurrence and the harsh winter was taking its toll. Worried about the continuing cost of keeping the National Guard in the field, Governor Ammons accepted an offer from the Rockefeller family to put their men in National Guard uniforms.

On March 10th the body of a strike-breaker was found near railroad tracks near the Forbes tents and the National Guard’s General Chase ordered the colony to be destroyed. The strike was reaching a climax, and National Guardsmen were ordered to evict the remaining tent colonies around the mines, despite them being on private property leased by the UMWA.
Ludlow was the largest of the colonies, and on the morning of April 20th 1914, troops fired into the camp with machine guns, anyone who was seen moving in the camp was targeted. The miners fired back, and fighting raged for almost fourteen hours.

Red Cross workers sift through the wreckage of the strikers' camp after the attack
In the afternoon, a passing freight train stopped near the camp and allowed many miners and their families to escape to east to an area known as the ‘Black Hills’. After many hours of exchanging fire with the militiamen, the camps main organiser, Louis Tikas met with Lieutenant Linderfelt (the officer in charge of the National Guard assault on the Ludlow camp) to arrange a truce. Linderfelt hit Tikas with the butt of his rifle and soldiers fired several times into his back as he lay on the ground, killing him outright.

That evening, under cover of darkness, the militiamen entered the camp and set fire to tents, killing two women and eleven children who were sheltering from the shooting in a pit below a tent, thirteen other people were also shot dead during the fighting.

As news of the massacre spread, workers from around the country went on strike to show solidarity with the remaining miners on strike in Colorado and to express sympathy for those who had lost loved ones in Ludlow. Several cities in the state were taken over and occupied by miners and some National Guard units even laid down their arms and refused to fight.

However, the workers failed to obtain their demands along with union recognition and many were replaced with non-union workers. No National Guardsmen was ever prosecuted over the killings, even though sixty-six people had been killed by the time violence ended.

In 1918 a monument was erected to commemorate those who died during the strike. These individuals all died in the Ludlow Massacre, and are inscribed on the monument as follows:
Louis Tikas, age: 30 years
James Fyler, age: 43 years
John Bartolotti, age: 45 years
Charlie Costa, age: 31 years
Fedelina Costas, age: 27 years
Onafrio Costa, age: 4 years
Frank Rubino, age: 23 years
Patria Valdez, age: 37 years
Eulala Valdez, age: 8 years
Mary Valdez, age: 7 years
Elvira Valdez, age: 3 months
Joe Petrucci, age: 4 ½ years
Lucy Petrucci, age: 2 ½ years
Frank Petrucci, age: 4 months
William Snyder Jr, age: 11 years
Rodgerlo Pedregone, age: 6 years
Cloriva Pedregone, age: 4 year
By Sam Lowry, edited by libcom 

Source:  http://libcom.org/history/1914-the-ludlow-massacre