Friday, October 9, 2015

On Wall Street: Are Corporations Inherently Immoral?

by Jim Fetzer


Zbig, his daughter, Mika, and Joe
That Zbig Brzezinski is discussing the gross discrepancy between the rich and the poor, where he predicted some years ago that, because of the growing distance between the rich and powerful (who have become the “rich and shameless”) and the poor and powerless, the nation would confront a massive movement for more distributive justice, it occurred to me that what he has to say can only be adequately appreciated against a background of familiarity with moral theory and why there is a case to be made that corporations are inherently immoral. Brzezinski believes we are moving into a major era of social and political unrest, where the attitude of the multinational corporations, as the economist who discusses this with him explains, is that they don’t care about nations, morality, or anything apart from profit margins, which reflects their corruption to their very core.  As a former professor of philosophy who offered courses on the nature of morality, I want to explain how it affects our understanding of human relations and political developments.
The latest decision by the Supreme Court to open the floodgates of corporate funding for political advertising as a form of “free speech” represents one of the most contemptible decisions in the history of the court, which only matches — in the magnitude of its stupidity and inconsistency with the principles of the Constitution, which the justices are sworn to uphold — the decision to stop the recount of the vote in Florida, which gave the election of 2000 to George W. Bush. We have been reeling from the consequences of that decision — which not only subverted democratic procedures in the country but unleashed untold evils in the form of massive tax cuts for the rich, the loss of civil liberties, and wars of aggression involving violations of international law, the UN Charter, and even the Constitution itself. It was hard to image how the court could have done anything worse — until it gave us this decision.
The propensity of corporations, including our banks and mortgage institutions, to maximize benefits in the form of profits should lead us to expect that more corporate influence in political campaigns will not make matters better but almost certainly worse. Indeed, the thought has crossed more than one rational mind that, if corporations as prominent as AIG, Goldman-Sachs, and CitiBank, not to mention Halliburton, Raytheon, and other giants of the military-industrial complex, are now going to exert even more influence in political and economic affairs, then perhaps the only reason we haven’t heard of more cases of corruption of this kind in the past — apart from the occasional savings and loan scandal, for example — has been a function of ignorance, where we haven’t known because our nation’s press has failed to keep us informed.
What are Corporations?
The underlying reasons, however, may run deeper than that. One problem that has arisen within this context has been a matter of understanding what the word “corporation” should be understood to mean. The alternatives range from that of a nexus of contracts to a person, where the first reflects a function of corporations (to enter into contracts) and the second a legal fiction (since a business is not a person). One place to start to come to grips with this problem is the dictionary, which offers the following conception(s):
(D1) corporation = 1 a legal entity, consisting usually of a group of people who have a charter granting it perpetual life, that is invested with many of the legal powers given to individuals: a corporation may enter into contracts, by and sell property, etc. 2 a group of people, as the mayor and aldermen of an incorporated town, legally authorized to act as an individual. 3 any of the political and economic bodies forming a corporative state, each being composed of the employers and employees in a certain industry, profession, etc. 4 a large, prominent belly (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition 1988).
Imagine my surprise to discover that, contrary to my sincere belief that corporations are not persons, there are definitions, such as 4 above, according to which a mere part of a person can qualify as a corporation, especially since I had never before thought of myself from that point of view! The evidence in my case may be indisputable, but the sense at stake here is not 4 but rather 1, which identifies corporations with a group of people who are organized for the conduct of business by entering into contracts, which assigns the function (entering into contracts) with those who exercise it (the owners).
Our disparity in wealth is staggering
The owners of corporations are not necessarily the same as their officers or employees, of course, except in cases in which the officers or employees own stock in the company. A rather important distinction must therefore be drawn between “stockholders”, who are the owners of the company in the strict sense, and “stakeholders”, who are persons or other entities having interests that may be affected by its conduct of business, for better or for worse. That includes employees, customers, creditors, and suppliers as well as stockholders, not to mention the community, the environment, and the world.
Just to sharpen our focus and avoid misunderstanding, the conception of corporation that appears to matter within this context can be captured by the following definition:
(D2) corporation = a legal entity consisting of an arrangement of people and property (roles and assets) interacting together for the purpose of conducting business by a nexus of contracts.
Although this definition may appear to be neutral with regard to the question before us, it fails to take into account the historical context of the times. As Marjorie Kelly, The Divine Right of Capital (2001), has astutely observed, the standard conception of corporations–the prevailing paradigm within American society–accepts the crucial principle that “the only social responsibility of the corporation is to make a profit”,which was initially enunciated by a Nobel Laureate in Economics, Milton Friedman, which might be encapsulated by the slogan that, when it comes to corporations, “Greed is good!”
Lest we not recognize the importance of this principle, Kelly elaborates its meaning:
In corporate society, good is what is in the interest of stockholders. That is the primary criterion of morality. It means the corporation has the right to do financial violence to its employees or the environment (conducting massive layoffs, clear-cutting forests), or to attack other corporations (brutal competition, hostile takeovers), if that increases the well-being of the ruling tribe, the stockholders.
Indeed, according to Kelly, prominent philosophers, including Karl R. Popper, have characterized (what he calls) “the totalitarian theory of morality” as maintaining that “good is what is in the interest of my group; or my tribe; or my state”. Thus, such states, for example, are permitted to attack other states, or to do violence to their own citizens, if it benefits the ruling tribe. Or, alternatively, such corporations are permitted to attack other corporations, or to do violence to their own employees, if it benefits the stockholders. These states and corporations are exploitative and corrupt.
What Makes Something Immoral?
If Popper is correct, then corporations certainly appear to be inherently immoral. But is he correct? The answer depends upon which theory of morality is correct. There are many claimants to that role, including subjective theories, family-value theories, religious-based theories, and culture-related theories, according to which actions are right when you (your family, your religion, or your culture) approve of it. So if you (your family, your religion, or your culture) approve of incest, cannibalism, or sacrificing virgins to appease the gods, such actions cannot be immoral. They are moral, necessarily.
Inequities in wealth produce inequities in power
All of these approaches make morality a matter of power, where right reduces to might. If someone approves of killing, robbing, or raping you, you have no basis to complain on the ground that those actions are immoral, if subjectivism is correct. Similarly for family, religion, and culture-based alternatives. Every person, every family, every religion, and very culture is equal, regardless of their practices, respectively, if such theories are true.
As James Rachels,The Elements of Moral Philosophy (1999), explains, on any of these accounts, the very ideas of criticism, reform, or progress in matters of morality no longer apply. If attitudes about right and wrong differ or change, that is all there is to it, even when they concern your life, liberty, or happiness. If some person, family, or group has the power to impose their will upon you, these theories afford you no basis to complain.
Philosophers have therefore sought to establish some less-relative and more-objective framework for understanding morality, including what are known as consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories. According to consequentialism, an action is right if it produces as much GOOD (usually taken to be happiness) as any available alternative. But the problem remains of deciding FOR WHOM that happiness ought to be produced.
According to Ethical Egoism, for example, an action is right if it brings about as much happiness for you personally as any available alternative. Consequences for others simply don’t count. So Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, are home free–morally speaking–though few juries would be likely to be impressed by the argument that killing gave them more happiness than any available alternative.
According to Limited Utilitarianism, moreover, an action is right when it brings about as much happiness for your group as any available alternative. This is good news for The Third Reich, the Mafia, and General Motors. If no available alternative(s) would produce more happiness for Nazis than territorial acquisition, military domination, and racial extermination, then those qualify as moral actions if Limited Utilitarianism is true.
Classic Utilitarianism, among consequentialist theories, is the only one that dictates encompassing the effects actions have upon everyone rather than some special class. But this virtue does not guarantee the right results. If a social arrangement with a certain percentage of slaves, say, 15%, would bring about greater happiness for the population as a whole — because the increase in happiness of the masters outweighed the decrease in happiness of the slaves — then that arrangement would qualify as moral. Necessarily!
So if theories that qualify manifestly immoral behavior as “moral” ought to be rejected, perhaps a non-consequentialist approach can do better. According to what is known asDeontological Moral Theory, actions are moral when they involve treating other persons with respect. More formally expressed, it requires that other persons should always be treated as ends (as intrinsically valuable) and never merely as means (instrumentally).
This does not mean that persons can never treat other persons as means, which usually happens without thereby generating immorality. The relationship between employers and employees is clearly one in which employers use their employees as a means to conduct a business and make profits, while employees use their employment as a means to make a buck and earn a living. Within a context of mutual respect, this is moral conduct.
When employers subject their employees to unsafe working conditions, excessive hours, or poor wages, however, the relationship becomes exploitative and immoral, which can also occur when employees do not perform their duties, steal from their employers, or abuse the workplace. Similar considerations apply to doctors and patients, students and faculty, or ministers and congregations, which may explain our dismay at their betrayal.
Are Corporations Inherently Immoral?
If these considerations are correct, then it would appear to be the case that corporations qualify as limited utilitarian entities. When exemplified by states such as Germany during The Third Reich, they qualify as instances of what Popper calls “the totalitarian theory of morality”. Since corporations are not states, however, it would seem to be more appropriate and less prejudicial to classify the morality exemplified by these entities instead as limited utilitarianism. Since they satisfy the conditions that define an indefensible moral posture, it seems to follow that they also qualify as amoral, at least in the sense that their behavior does not have to satisfy conditions of morality.
Corporations are limited utilitarian entities
The conclusion that corporations are inherently immoral appears very plausible, but it might be a good idea to investigate the matter further to ascertain whether or not corporations can be moral, in which case they are not necessarily inherently corrupt. If we assume the prevailing paradigm of corporations as profit maximizing entities, then since profits are generated as the difference between net income (as a function of prices for products or for services) and net costs (of producing those products or services –schematically, where profits = ( prices-costs ) — the principle of profit maximization implies the obvious desirability of inflating prices and deflating costs.
Costs themselves tend to be a function of the cost of natural resources, the cost of human labor, and (local, state, and federal) taxes. To increase profits, therefore, at least three broad avenues of approach are available related to decreasing costs, namely: (a) decrease the cost of natural resources; (b) decrease the cost of human labor; and (c) decrease the cost of (local, state, and federal) taxes. Alternatively, increase prices to the optimal point where sales produce maximal profits, where the term “profits” should properly be construed broadly to include such forms of profit as retained earnings, stock options, reinvestments in companies, and such).
The modes of operation that tend to maximize profits thus include (a) decreasing the cost of natural resources by, for example, (i) exploiting the environment, (ii) converting public land to private use, and (iii) evading the expenses of pollution cleanup or costs of environmental restoration; (b) decreasing the cost of human labor by, for example, (i) paying minimal wages, (ii) offering minimal benefits (health coverage, dental plans, and such), and (iii) opposing the organization or diminishing the influence of labor unions that engage in collective bargaining.
Alternatively, (c) decrease the cost of taxes, for example, by (i) resisting paying corporation taxes, (ii) seeking to reduce income tax rates and (iii) attempting to abolish inheritance taxes; or (d) increase the price of your product, for example, by (i) reducing competition, (ii) promoting monopolies, and (iii) manipulating markets (by contriving shortages, disseminating misinformation, and the like). These techniques are morally acceptable to corporations because, as limited utilitarian entities, they are obligated to consider the consequences for no one but themselves. The consequences of their acts for others simply do not matter.
Indeed, the situation is so drastic that corporations operating as limited utilitarian entities can even resist supporting the social safety net that has been developed since the days of The New Deal, including unemployment insurance, workmen’s compensation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and similar programs, which tend to defeat profit maximization for at least three reasons: (1) they increase the cost of (local, state, and federal) taxation; (2) they create alternatives to low-paying, menial jobs; and (3) they thereby empower the workforce with options.
The current trend toward globalization appears to extend the reach of American corporations around the world, where the potential benefits are enormous as a new form of (or a new name for) colonialism and imperialism, for example, by (1) reducing the cost of natural resources; (2) reducing the cost of labor; and (3) reducing the cost of (local, state, and federal) taxation. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the diminution of sweatshops in the United States should be taking place with a commensurate increase in sweatshops around the world!
What Can Be Done?
It should be apparent that, when their conduct is controlled by the principle of maximizing profits, corporations are inherently corrupt. The problem results from the operation of corporations on the basis of Friedman’s principle rather than from the definition of corporations themselves. Consequently, it may be said that corporations are inherently amoral, which means that they can, but are not obligated to, operate on the basis of principles of morality that involve treating other parties with respect. The situation can be changed, therefore, only by adopting a different paradigm than the prevailing corporate paradigm.
They tend to look after "their own"
Kelly, for example, suggests that corporate responsibilities should be redefined to maximize benefits, not merely to stockholders, but tostakeholders, where the responsibilities of corporations include taking into account the consequences of their actions for the parties that they affect by not violating their rights. From a moral point of view, this is analogous to abandoning limited utilitarianism and adopting deontological principles as binding on corporations in their relations with stakeholders and only seeking to maximize profits to an extent consistent with deontological morality. This represents a change in corporate paradigms.
The stakeholders, remember, include every party with interests that are affected by the actions of the corporation, that is, which is causally affected, for better or for worse, by its mode of operation, including employees, customers, suppliers, and stockholders, but also the community, the environment, and the world. This approach forsakes short term gains for long term planning, where decisions are made taking into account the answers to questions such as the following three:
*How do corporate actions affect the qualify of life of employees?
*How do corporate actions affect sustainability over the long run?
*How do corporate actions affect the survival of the human species?
Such a change represents a shift toward corporations that serve the public good and do not merely promote private greed, as we have seen in the case of AIG, Goldman-Sachs, CitiBank, Halliburton, Raytheon, and other monsters who seek to benefit themselves regardless of the consequences for individuals, society as a whole, or even the best interests of the world. It would be nice if we could count on our own Supreme Court to maintain a certain Constitutional balance in matters of this kind, but that, alas, appears to be asking for too much.
When the economist with whom Zbig is discussing the Wall Street movement and the social unrest and economic inequalities that underlie it, therefore, pay special attention to the point he makes about his conversations with the CEOs of transnational corporations, who could care less about the people and the nations where they reap their profits.  The core of morality is treating other persons with respect, but to limited utilitarian entities of this kind, the value of any individual is his net worth and how much money they may be able to extract from him as a consumer.  Nothing else matters–and we are going to be paying the price.
Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. This is an updated and revised piece previously published in OpEdNews (25 January 2010).

Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust


by Jim Fetzer


Academic Freedom Conference logo








An unprecedented conference entitled, “Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, was held at the University of Illinois UC, Illini Union, Room 314A, from 9 AM-6 PM/CT on 26 April 2014.
The idea for this conference originated with Stephen Francis, who also organized The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which was held at the Urbana Free Library on 22 September 2013, featuring as speakers Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer and Wayne Madsen. See “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference” on Veterans Today.
Stephen Francis
Stephen Francis
While there have been many conferences on JFK and 9/11, including the Holocaust in this one was adopting an original approach to a subject that has typically been regarded as “taboo”.
Registration was held from 9 AM-10 AM/CT, with Kevin Barrett presenting the first lecture from 10 AM-11:00 AM/CT, followed by David W. Robinson from 11 AM to Noon/CT. The lunch break from Noon-1 PM/CT was followed by a presentation by Nicholas Kollerstrom from 1-2 PM/CT. Since Nick resides in London, he joined us via Skype. Stephen Francis then spoke from 2-3 PM/CT, followed by Winfield Abbe from 3-4 PM/CT. Jim Fetzer was the final speaker from 4-5 PM/CT, with a informal discussion and questions and debate from 5-6 PM/CT.
Three of the speakers–Barrett, Kollerstrom, and Fetzer–have had experience as faculty with complex and controversial issues, while three of us–Robinson, Abbe and Francis–have long been involved with academic freedom issues in relation to both faculty and the public. By focusing on three “hot” topics, JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust, their presentations aim at sharpening public understanding of what should be expected of colleges and university. In particular, they addressed the question, “Are there limits to what faculty can research?”, and “Are there limits to what they can teach?”, where these speakers appear to be especially well-positioned to address these extremely important but themselves sensitive subjects.

THE PRESENTATIONS


Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.

BarrettDr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. In the early 1990s, Barrett received master’s degrees in both English literature and French from San Francisco State University. He received a Ph.D. in African languages and literature with a minor in folklore from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2004.
He has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. He is co-editor of 9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out (2007) and the author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and of Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). Among his recent articles is“Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger”.
Facts, Insults and Academic Freedom
Click here: Kevin Barrett, “Facts, Insults and Academic Freedom”
Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in The New York TimesChristian Science MonitorChicago Tribune, and other leading publications. He ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. His web sites include VeteransToday/BarrettTruthJihadTruthJihadRadioand MUJCA (Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth).

David W. Robinson, Ed.D.

David W. RobinsonDavid W. Robinson, Ed.D., received a B.A. from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, went on to an M.A. in Teaching (Social Studies) from Lewis and Clark College, and an Ed.D. in Educational Foundations and Leadership from George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. He has taught courses in history, the humanities, and the social sciences at both the undergraduate and graduate level, as well as graduate courses in higher educational teaching, course design, assessment, and administration. Additionally, he has served as Department Chair, Program Chair, Vice President of Information Technology, and Vice President of Academic Affairs at several colleges. This has made him well acquainted with the practical and complex issues of academic freedom in action.
Currently, he serves as an adjunct professor on three different university faculties, teaching graduate courses in education, information technology and e-commerce, and doctoral course work in educational foundations and leadership. His scholarly writing includes books and articles on the history of higher education, specializing in academic industrialization in America, as well asProtestantism’s role in the history of universities and schools.
David Robinson
As a long-time student of American history, David has a strong interest in academic freedom, liberty of conscience, open access to historical evidence, and the implications of America’s loss of free inquiry in national discourse. It is his conviction that our current national-security state civilization is the main by-product of the loss of the checking-and-balancing power of reasoned dialogue in academic life. David is looking forward to further exploration of these themes at the conference.

Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D.

NicholasNicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., has two history of science degrees, one from Cambridge 1968, plus a PhD from London, 1995. He was an honorary member of staff of UCL for 11 years. He co-organized the Belgrano Inquiry in 1986, publishing The Unnecessary War (1998) as its proceedings and co-edited The Case Against War (Spokesman, 2004) comprising the CND legal arguments against the Iraq war).
In 2008 he received widespread publicity and ethical damnation for his interest in studies of the residual cyanide levels found in walls of the WWII labor-camps. Articles about the violations of his academic freedom have appeared elsewhere, including “ISIS trips, stumbles and falls” and “The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career”.
Nicholas Kollerstrom
His recent book, Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) is the most comprehensive account of the 2005 London bombings. It supports the conclusion that this was a “false flag” attack.

Stephen Francis

me_1Stephen Francis was born and raised in Fresno, CA, and volunteered for the draft in 1969. At the time, he was a conventional youth who supported the main stream’s political views. These opinions dramatically reversed after entering the service; and he was jailed for various antiwar activities, including disobeying direct orders to get on a bus during antiwar protests at Fort Ord, CA.
Due to stockade overcrowding, he was released and spent the next one-and-a-half-years as a fugitive in Canada, eventually receiving an Other-than-Honorable Discharge, of which he remains proud to this day. He returned to college when he was 34 years old, earning an AA degree in Business Administration at Parkland College in Champaign, IL, and a BA in Sociology from the University of Illinois UC. He spent the next 12 years or so employed by a number of different companies, including a multi-national, mid-level accounting-consulting firm as a network administrator/accounting-software specialist.
Stephen was able to semi-retire in 2000 because of successful investments during the stock-market boom of the late nineties. For over thirty years, he was also a semi-professional musician playing the electric-violin and keyboards. He has since reinitiated his efforts as an antiwar activist out of concern for world events surrounding the invasion of Iraq. From 2002 to the present, he has continued pursuing his activist efforts, including editing NewsFollowUp.com, in the hope that he might make an ever-so-slight positive impact on the future course of civilization.

Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D.

Winfield AbbeWinfield Abbe received an A.B. degree in physics from the University of California Berkeley, M.S. in physics from California State University at Los Angeles and Ph.D. in physics from the University of California Riverside. His main areas of research are low temperature solid state physics and theoretical elementary particle physics.
He has also spent some time working on the long standing problem of Fermat’s Last Theorem which was recently solved, but the esoteric solution is known and understood by only a handful of people in the world. Dr. Abbe was a faculty member at the University of Georgia, Athens and an Institute of Science and Technology Fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
During his career in academe, he has observed gross abuses senior faculty have administered to junior and the deterioration of the practice of academic freedom, including at the University of Georgia, which he looks forward to addressing at the conference. He was recently interviewed by Jim Fetzer on “The Real Deal” on such issues.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Fetzer-SFA former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. Among his recent articles is “Anti-anti-Semitism and the Search for Historical Truth”.
The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005),The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science(2010). Since his 2006 retirement, he has devoted himself to dealing with the most complex and controversial events of recent history on “The Real Deal” and in his articles on Veterans Today.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. [This article reprints the original, which was initially published on veteranstoday.com in 2013 shortly after the conference.]

Oregon Shooting: 13 Potentially Troubling Signs of yet another False Flag

false flag shooting

By Bernie Suarez

When you practice something all the time you eventually get very good at it. The one thing many awakened and vigilant Americans have become good at over the past few years is sniffing out government false flags because they have so much practice at it. You may find that the events surrounding the recent Umpqua Community College shooting in southern Oregon may ring a few familiar false flag bells after you consider what the mainstream media is saying about the shooting. It is at least extremely reasonable to suspect that this is yet another gun control shooting false flag event since it has many of the characteristics of it.

Sounds crazy? Yes, it always does. False flags are supposed to divide people in addition to tricking them. But as I’ve said repeatedly in the past, when considering a suspected false flag event you have to start somewhere. Look for the beneficiaries of course and look for common patterns. I think many of us know the patterns by now and what to look for when suspecting a false flag shooting.

The college where the latest shooting took place is located six miles north of Roseburg, Oregon and was a very small town where you would expect everyone to be known to most people yet early on it appears this is not the case. Thirteen so far unknown people are said to be murdered and another 20 wounded.



So, should we believe that the Oregon shooting is legitimate with no government involvement? I would like to think so, but as always many things surrounding this latest shooting force us to consider if we’re dealing with yet another gun grab shooting designed to push anti-gun legislation. With the new world order’s Agenda 2030 pushed last week with help from the Pope, we know that Obama now has gun control as one of the remaining major items on the top of his list before he leaves office in 2016. The administration desperately needs this gun-control agenda to be pushed through and we’ve seen a laundry list of proven false flag shootings over the past several years.

Are you someone who wants to believe this is not so? Then deal with these 13 points which at the very least bring into question this latest shooting.

1 – Grandiose mainstream media headline demanding your attention to this story.

Without the same grandiose mainstream media headline, I myself would not have noticed this story online. Here we go again? This is now the latest 24/7 story that the mainstream media seems to want and need you to be fascinated by. This alone is a huge tell-tale sign no one should overlook.

2 – Immediate call for gun control in the story sub-headlines.

This latest Oregon school shooting comes with no holds barred. Even in the very headline there was a quick post announcing the need for gun control. Whenever you have gun control pushed on you before you can understand what just happened, that should be a red flag.

3 – Obama himself immediately calls for gun control seizing the moment Sandy-Hook style

Obama even admits his desperate gun control agenda is political
“This is something we should politicize,” he said, calling on Americans of all political stripes to hold their elected leaders accountable for acting on the issue.
It goes without saying that whenever Obama jumps into a topic you should run the other way and fast. Very few actions tell me this shooting has an agenda behind it more than seeing Obama immediately calling for gun control on cue. I’m thinking, doesn’t Obama have presidential work to do? Why is he so involved in specific stories that perfectly fit the new world order agenda? Are we to ignore this or consider this timing coincidental?


4 – Shooter is dead as usual.

We all know the script by now and once again and as usual the shooter does not live to tell the tale or defend his intent. That’s because dead men tell no tales. Consequently, the story as usual is left to the story tellers. And with the usual dead shooter there is much less need to worry about any account conflicts or future revelations of government involvement. Some things for everyone to consider are the following – Did the shooter try to lower his gun? What circumstances led to police actually killing the shooter? Are police reports available for us to see? Don’t police disable people any more?? Isn’t there policy for this? Did police follow correct procedure?

5 – Shooter identity completely unknown but repeated mention of “4 guns” very known.

How often does a shooting take place and no one knows who the shooter is (as of the time of this article)? Students didn’t recognize their own classmate? Or did the shooter decide to shoot a bunch of strangers in a school that he’s never attended? How is it that no one knows the shooter? This certainly was not the case in the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007 or Columbine shooting where everyone seem to know or recognize the shooter. Consider this carefully.

6 – “Conflicting reports” in the number of dead people. Identity entirely unknown as well.

Who are these dead people? What are their names? And why is there confusion as to how many people are dead at a small school. Is the body count that high? That difficult? You decide what this might mean given the context of all the facts coming out. It would certainly not be the first time we’ve heard conflicting stories and body counts.

7 – Oregon is recent state of political interest to Neocon former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

It’s not a far stretch to imagine that a good town for a false flag shooting would be one where trusted criminals have influence or are in power. Is it just me or has anyone else been wondering what the heck in former Mayor Bloomberg was doing in Oregon? Is it a coincidence that former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been dumping a lot of money into pushing legislation in Oregon? In the past, others within alternative media have called for watchful eyes in Oregon given this connection. No big deal? You decide.


8 – Social media controversy already brewing.

Recall after the Sandy Hook shooting false flag we saw criminal Lt Paul Vance come on TV and call social media exposure of the Sandy Hook shooting “disinformation” and a “crime” to be “prosecuted.” Similarly, again we are seeing an early immediate attack and discrediting of social media in an attempt to control the information. Perhaps they are doing this knowing that soon more information will come out. Everyone should consider that this social media stunt may be purposely bogus to discredit social media. I suspect this may be what is happening. This is just another attempt by the controllers to condition people into thinking that the only reliable news comes from mainstream media sources.

9 – Initial images and videos show no ambulances, no blood or dead bodies.

If anyone has these images please provide them so we can see them but as of the time of this article this evidence was not available.

This reminds us of almost every shooting false flag where the mainstream media hides the images of the crime scene. Where are the images of the police yellow tape? The blood on the floor? The bodies? The ambulances and emergency vehicles?? By hiding all of these images all of the story and images is left to your imagination and this allows for maximum control of the information.

10 – Shooting has a divisive religious twist to it – opens door for blaming Islam, others later on.

Without any further explanation we’re told that the shooter demanded that his victims state what their religion was before shooting them. No one seems to offer what the intent of this was or what does this mean. Is this an attempt to leave the door open for a possible blaming of ISIS or some other extremist related patsy? Consider that the shooter up to now (the time of this article) can be anyone. Conveniently the controllers have held back the identity of the shooter.

11 – No clear cut witnesses actually saw the shooting.

Yes, believe it or not. After reading the story it appears there are only 3 witnesses accounted for. The closest thing to an eyewitness is Kortney Moore:
Kortney Moore, 18, told the local News Review newspaper that she was in her writing class in Snyder Hall when a gunshot came through the window and struck her teacher in the head.
The remaining 2 supposed witnesses only HEARD the gunfire according to reports.
Student Cassandra Welding told CNN that she heard 35 to 40 shots.
Student Brandy Winter, in a posting on Facebook, said she was in a classroom in Snyder Hall, next door to the room where the shooting began and ran, along with her classmates, when they heard the gunfire.
Winter also says that “from talking with a student in the classroom where it happen, almost every person in the room was shot by a man with four guns,” admitting she herself did not witness the shooting.

Anyone who knows about guns might find this statement a bit peculiar since you can only shoot someone with a gun one bullet at a time. You cannot fire 4 guns at once. Also, studies show that when someone is shot with a gun most of the time they will actually survive the shooting since the bullet must penetrate vital organs. Also people who are severely shot won’t die right away giving them time to potentially tackle the shooter. So it’s not easy to actually shoot and kill a room full of people with 4 guns. Also surely after the first few rounds everyone afraid for their lives would have run full speed out of the room.

So where are the people who actually saw the shooting with their own eyes? And, again, why did no one tackle the shooter as he switched guns given that most likely he could get off no more than 10 rounds at a time? I’m sure we’ll hear from the wounded victims much later on like the interview we saw with Greta Van Susteren and the Virginia Shooting survivor crisis actor.


12 – All students quickly treated as strip-searched suspects instead of victims.

Did the police not want the students to get a good view of the evidence and scene as they passed by? Was this part of the drill to condition students to give up their 4th amendment rights Boston bombing style under shooting conditions? And why were students joking?? Were these students not just exposed to a shocking bloody gruesome scene? I find this a little odd.
“They walked us straight through the crime scene with our hands up,” 18-year-old freshman Andi Dinnetz said. “It was more tense outside. In the classroom, everyone was trying to make jokes and keep it from being as serious as it was.”

13 – Social media manifesto-like messages once again posted to further substantiate shooter intent.

Mainstream media is posting a chain of messages posted by an anonymous character on 4chan.org the night before:
Don’t go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest.
Once again, a would-be shooter in America whose shooting would quickly serve the gun control agenda just so happens to pre-post threats announcing or hinting at what he is going to do. This is another trademark of false flag shootings.

Conclusion

I want to believe this latest shooting is not a false flag. I have no other information except what mainstream media wants us to know. I (we) have an obligation to receive the information in the right context. And what context is that? That the globalists are desperate and they are running out of time to get more gun legislation in. The context that a month ago they suffered a horrific failure in Virginia when overwhelming evidence clearly shows the shooting was a false flag. Following this, the Virginia TV Reporter shooting disappeared completely from mainstream media news, and it disappeared for a reason. Surprisingly and ironically there was no mention of the late August Virginia TV Reporter shooting in this recent story which, by the way, mentions several of the other shootings from the past. Given that it only happened a month ago isn’t this a little odd?

Also consider this story in the context of the embarrassment that the U.S. is suffering with respect to ISIS being called out and bombed in Syria. The U.S. and the new world order is in the midst of a tumultuous period. They need a victory soon and just as everyone is looking at the ISIS/Syrian crisis failure here comes a new shooting to get your attention away from Syria.

Is this latest shooting a perfectly coincidental event for the globalisst or just another false flag shooting? You consider the evidence for yourself and decide. I’m sure new evidence will emerge. Whether that evidence debunks my suspicions or confirms it will remain to be seen.

Bernie is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV project where he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.