- repackaged factual American War Crimes, from ‘invasion” to “torture,” into a box labeled “Patriotism;” ala 1933 Nazi Germany. In particular, the comparably ‘packaged’ national sin became any form of ‘disloyalty’ to the Bush Cabal, versus any form of articulate and truly moral righteousness.

The frightening aspect of 9-11 was the dramatic demonstration of the relative ease required to convert everyday good men and women into proponents or participants in obvious evil behavior, by altering one or more social (situational) values – via “Perception Control.” The events of 9-11 echoed the essence of the words of Herman Goerring at the Nuremberg Tribunal – “Tell the people that they are being attacked, then paint any dissention or objection as treason.” As Goering illustrated, that was a ‘standard’ formula of history.

The core of behavior is often a case of individuals or groups discovering the “…path of least anxiety” - an emotional path of least resistance. Inherent in that process is the dynamic reassignment of moral values. Often, these are a function of the ‘bandwagon’ of the particular situation. Certainly, 9-11 is a classic for all time.

Much of social behavior involves the internal or external management of one’s conscience. One must note that the term “evil” connotates an intentional and deliberate nefarious act - or inducing others to so act – so as to mentally, emotionally or physically dehumanize or physically harm the innocent. (Obviously, such a definition must exclude any factually accidental, unforeseeable or unintended harmful results.)

Early on, history was passing judgment upon the ‘evil’ of President Bush’s role in the invasion of Afghanistan and his pre-emptive, aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2002; fraught with simple suspicion, and dubious justification. Certainly, the end result being widespread death, destruction, injury and long term revenge – against the USA. Despite the background and content of the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter, the world seemed content to resort to ‘pragmatic’ reasoning; which was nothing less than barbaric.

With the global media being so highly controlled, the illustrations of the nefarious deeds of the Bush Cabal were tagged as “conspiracy theories” and buried by a variety of tactics.

Comparably, the Internet became a fertile ground for the trained disinformationists; charged with discounting anything which approached the greater truth/horror of 9-11. In the end, those same disinformationists ironically served as ‘devil’s advocate’ editors of that greater truth/horror.

Conveniently, the truthful matters and consequences of the Afghan invasion were slipped into the shadows of the mainstream media, as the Iraq War was almost uniquely forced upon the public’s attention, instead.

Consequently, the world is currently divided along the line separating those who knew better, from those who simply ‘hoped’ – or assumed - that they were automatically on the proverbial ‘moral high ground;’ Americans, in particular.

While 9-11 served in the identical fashion of the infamous 1933 “Reichstag Fire,” the world had since transformed into an incredibly deadly environment of various forms of terrorism. However, the term “terrorism” was instantly prostituted to cover “unapproved” select acts of homicide, domestic strife – including drug trafficking - and other cases of devastation. Unfortunately that which could be found in the shadow of simple “suspicion” became instantly and hysterically repackaged as confirmed “terrorism.” With the loyal assistance of the mass media, the application of the term “terrorism” became extremely selective.

In further evidence of the magnitude of the institutionalized power craze which was in process, amidst the post 9-11 events, Martha Stewart was charged with “conspiracy,” for having entered a not-guilty plea. Hers was not the only case of this.

Following 9-11, human brilliance, once again, had become responsible for an incredible perversion of the finest achievements of industrial and technological endeavors; such has always been the nature of war.

Unfortunately, history also records the presumed institutions of ‘morality’ as the greatest creators and purveyors of “evil.’ The Crusades and the Inquisition are classics. History prefers to forget the associated tribalism and profiteering of these events. Ironically, the means to defeat ‘evil’ have a constant way of creating a greater ‘evil.’ 9-11 was another gateway to a powerful evil; this time committed by flag-waving Americans.

While such as the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Tribunals demonstrated an international accountability; the underlying issue is the decision to actually prosecute the factual evil. If the police refuse to accept a crime report; has there been a crime? By all reasonable estimates, the refusal of the police to accept the report is the greater crime. Still, it is only fair to ask which mouse is powerful enough to ‘bell’ the cat. Such is “power,” a demonstrated by the ‘globalized’ post 9-11 political moves.

As George Bush Jr. demonstrated himself as more of a ‘connected’ kid, than a “President,” the events following 9-11 demonstrated an interesting twist in the perception of ‘power’ - the institution, per se, was observed, over the charisma of a particular leader. Most followers of politics regarded Bush Jr. as a dangerous mouthpiece for the “real” power, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

The post 9-11 military adventures were forecast as guaranteed failures; exactly as they turned out to be. Yet, the ‘institution’ was still observed comparably to the more historic “authoritarian” figure of an empowering individual leader.

The related observance of post 9-11 ‘power’ was not dynamically opposed, until the 2006 elections; with Rumsfeld’s immediate resignation first indicating a widely recognized major flaw in the dynamics of the hawkish culture which characterized the Bush Administration.

In close proximity, the Baker-Hamilton “Iraq Report” came with the virtual message: “Ignore this at your own peril.” And so it was.

The McKinney Bill, of December 8, 2006, calling for the impeachment of Bush was no surprise. The "power" of the day still favoring the Bush Cabal, well ...... what can you say about a good try.

In retrospect, it is compelling to note the differences between the Bush ‘adventures,’ versus those of Hitler. Following W.W. II, a team of psychologists examined the “authoritarian personality syndrome,” attempting to explain the horrors of Nazi Germany in terms of a single personality. While Hitler’s personality and style were key to the events of W.W. II, the dynamics were demonstrated to be far more a force of the population; with Hitler’s personality being almost coincidental. The “perception” of the populace was the key ingredient. Goebbels was the Nazi real-life ‘man behind the curtain.’

While not as ‘popular’ to observe or study, the Japanese efforts in W.W. II demonstrated that a ‘puppet’ could be as effectively used; the Emperor, in that case. Few are aware that Emperor Hirohito had little to do with the events of W.W. II, versus a powerful team of military generals.

While not particularly “provable,” it must be at least highly suspected that some group asked whether or not a seeming ‘board of directors’ could effect the same following, as did Hitler. A majority of Viet Nam Veterans will respond that the answer is clearly “yes,’ noting the perverse corporate profiteering of the Viet Nam War. Those same veterans routinely note the same corporate players raping the U.S. treasury, on a grander scale, in the shadows of 9-11.

Key in the minds of the Viet Nam War veterans are the issues of heroin and oil supply. Viet Nam’s oil was off-shore; the heroin came from the adjacent secret wars in the vicinity of the “Golden Triangle.”

The instant re-planting of the post invasion Afghan opium crops (previously shut down by the Taliban) and certainly the Iraqi oil were the obvious goals of the shadow forces of war, evidenced by the consequent and unobstructed record opium production of Afghanistan; and Bush’s Presidential Executive Orders 13303 and 13315.

One must also note that the dynamics and processes of national ‘power’ must be effective at all levels of a society, infecting the economic, political and societal structures of a nation. Having a truly dynamic and powerful personality is almost somewhere between convenience and coincidence.

History typically holds that individuals are entitled to achieve fame and fortune; being honored, accordingly, as unique personalities. However, it must be comparably noted that many a society, for a variety of reasons, has comparably punished such individuals – as well as their family and associates. The typical case is the popular resentment of luxury at the top, versus the unjust suffering of the commoners.

Tradition also typically holds individuals accountable for non-leadership achievements in such arenas as the legal, religious, social, educational and medical systems.

However, the ‘team’ concept appears to be replacing the ‘honored individual,’ in society. By any reasonable analysis, it must be concluded that if Hitler had been accountable to anything approaching a board of directors; he’d have easily won. Judging by the deeds of the Bush Cabal, some group didn’t miss the obvious. In another ‘quiet’ twist, America observes a substitution for their primal need for ‘heroes,’ in the form of social, Hollywood and sports celebrities, versus the conquerors and saviors of yore. That is no small – or insignificant - accomplishment.

In modern America, the mandated ‘team’ concept goes to the paradox of ‘manufacturing’ consensus. In that light, personal achievement will serve as its own punishment. In current times, acting as an individual is commonly deemed to be a social violation. When such individualism is deemed to be anti-social, or non-conformal, the individual commonly faces a mandate for behavior modification. In the light of George Orwell’s “1984,” such “deviants” are required to be ‘re-educated’ through information presentation or even psychological or psychiatric “therapy.” Whether professionally or societally, such individuals are subject to a wide range of ‘treatments’ or even punishments, ranging from “re-education,” peer pressure, exclusion, exile, occupational termination, financial ruin; possibly imprisonment or even death.

In current times, American society is rapidly approaching the standard of “thought crimes,” as described by Orwell. The passage of “hate crime” laws are glaring evidence of this trend. Worse, the “hate crime” laws are very selectively applied. That leaves a lingering resentment, awaiting a violent expression.

Historically, ‘civilized’ societies attempt to maintain domestic order for all pragmatic reasons, but also maneuver so as to evade any accountability. It logically follows that such societies establish a working set of structures, or methods to exempt the society leaders from moral or legal judgment. In example, under the laws ushered in by the Bush Cabal, the ‘team players’ were specifically exempted from legal action. So much for the Constitutional concept of “equal protection.”

To preserve domestic order, a society’s political decision-making must evade the creation of poverty, marginalization of whole populations; and in more recent times, racism and sexism. Unfortunately, such ‘popular’ requirements commonly interfere with the function of the society, which is supposed to be protected from itself. For example, establishing a military draft for women, demanding – under threat of punishment - that they physically perform to the same standards as their male counterparts – including shaved heads. Or, mandating unisex public restrooms, etc. In the American ‘surface-logic-only’ arena, few want to ponder the highly probable fate of a female POW, or the rape statistics of unisex public restrooms. The refinement of ‘surface-logic’ successfully dissuades the common sense insight, which would otherwise ‘think through’ the situation.

Unfortunately, societies are once again facing the subjective test of “‘good.” Is it permissible to bomb civilian targets because the USA is supposed to always be the proverbial ‘good-guy?’ Do “American” ends serve to justify obviously barbaric means? One must ask how long it will be, before churches, hospitals and universities are readily and arbitrarily declared “dual-use” military targets - the Geneva Conventions be damned.

While the USA has played a pivotal role in two world wars, the permanence of global “good” is losing ground, both internationally and historically. Against the incredibly flimsy excuses to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans selfishly assume that whatever is “American” is always and automatically moral.

Beyond the Bush military invasions, the application of “renditions” and U.S. operation of torture chambers in illegal Iraqi prisons became a bizarre “American” ‘norm’ to be accepted. The evidence of such obvious guilt was wrapped in a blanket of secrecy, labeled “National Security.” The head of the American “Justice Department” was complicit in the events. Appropriately War Crime charges were filed against him, along with Rumsfeld, in Germany – however unlikely to succeed, at the time of this writing.

Amazingly, few noted that America was setting itself up to eat – not just ‘reap’ - what it sowed. Americans ignored the notion that Bush’s monstrous deeds would compel a proportionate “revenge” response – as warned by the CIA.

It must be noted that much of group or individual behavior stems from a perceptible and convenient set of illusions – pure and simple. The father argues that his child is incapable of breaking the law; the wife can’t believe that her husband would ever have an affair. Americans are notorious for their arrogant assumptions of moral superiority, backed by an institutionalized ignorance of history, and its context. As an American classic - “They hate us for our freedoms!” The world bizarrely and stupidly refuses to accept that a passionately conveyed lie isn’t “truth,” itself.

Worse, societies everywhere evade the capability to understanding how things go wrong, when they do. Instead, subcultures make such discoveries, only to have the discoveries secreted, then prostituted for the sake of profit and/or power – most often, both. Amazingly, the associated denial and defense mechanisms are methodically at the forefront of the culture. As another cultural classic, societies are taught that in times of crisis, we face two options; ‘flight-or-flight.’ The ‘controlling agencies’ selfishly never want anyone to note the obvious third, and preferred, choice – ‘submission.’ Victims of violence are experts on this position; as are victims of tyrants.

Given the repetition of historical horrors, there is a logical mandate to derive what mechanisms propel the evil which we constantly abhor, then re-create; while still pretending to be ‘moral.’ That process begins with the necessity to study history – in terms of individual behavior – and to create sufficient blockages to stem the proverbial repetitions of history. Thus, it is a requirement to objectively observe the dynamics by which ‘good’ and ‘ordinary’ people can be methodically and easily indoctrinated into a realm of undeniable ‘evil.’ In turn, that requires noting the predispositions which are evidenced by the ‘ease’ of the known process; and certainly the methods, themselves.

Thereafter, it is necessary to attend to those mechanics by which entire populations are not just swayed, but controlled – in the fashion of creating a protective shield for those targeted for “behavior/attitude modification.”

In general, there are a set of ‘steps’ which can be utilized in whole, or in part – so as to effect amoral behavior. The Milgram experiments, in particular, demonstrated that with the right manipulations, a high percentage of an educated class of people could be easily (individually) transformed into homicidal agents. Yet, it must be observed that there was a process, whereby that transformation both successfully and easily occurred.

What would it take to somehow compel a ‘good’ person to reach out to an obvious immorality such as torture and homicide? Observing the rise of Hitler’s Nazis and post 9-11 America, what is required to sway and control the entire population of a nation – not traditionally cemented to a central ideology?

1. Information Presentation (timing and repetition, as required)
2. Pertinence
3. Mandate for action/inaction
4. Appropriateness
5. Faith
6. Viability
7. Payoff
8. Environment
9. Rationalization
10. Authority
11. Safety – physical, mental, emotional and spiritual
12. Prejudices – pro and con
13. Boundaries - pro and con
14. Commitment / Entrapment
15. “Rules” establishment
16. “Re-education”
17. Accountability relief
18. Stealth
19. Leverage
20. Driving Force
21. Ease and Palatability
22. Penetration of Barriers
23. Moral Barrier Destruction
24. Cognitive Control
25. Silence
26. Acceptance

PRESENTATION
The first requirement for ‘involvement,’ is that of information “presentation.” If a tree falls in the forest, but no one knows, did it happen, for all intents and purposes? Conversely, NON-presentation is comparably powerful. Denying that Iraq was a "Civil War" had tremendous power. What if Monica had remained silent? What if Vince Foster had lived to speak? Certainly, “disinformation” is a key component; as in Iraq’s civil war being forcibly re-packaged as “sectarian violence” and “al Qaeda.” The ‘bin Laden’ version of “al Qaeda” didn’t survive the spring of 2002. Yet the very association of the ‘implanted’ image was enough. It was all in the 'presentation' of the infamous "Great Lie;" from the legacy of Adolph Hitler!

PERTINENCE
Next is the issue of “pertinence.“ So what, if a tree fell? However if it fell on a close friend during a hunting trip, the ‘pertinence’ instantly becomes high; also bearing the quantifiable quality of “magnitude.” NON-pertinence is likewise powerful, whether factual or created vial lies and Psyops tactics. Why are the conditions of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Ghetto superior to the Warsaw Ghetto? Who cares? Do enough people care? Are they allowed to care? At the time of this writing, sending charity to Palestinians would probably be re-packaged as supporting terrorists.

MANDATE
Next in line is the issue of ‘mandate.’ If a truth affects a particular individual or group, is there a mandate for action – or inaction? Is there a means for the demanded, or assumed, ‘mandate’ to be realized? Is there a mandate for NON-involvement?

APPROPRIATENESS
Next is the matter of ‘appropriateness.’ A well known actress appeals for help in feeding the hungry and abused children of China or Africa; as most Americans wonder who speaks for the hungry and abused children of the USA. Would it be “appropriate” to contribute to the deprived and starving children of Palestine or North Korea? The U.S. involvement in Somalia was demonstrated to be “inappropriate” via the “Blackhawk Down” disaster.

FAITH
It must not be forgotten that Hitler’s rise to power was a direct result of the “faith” – or “hope,” if one prefers – which he inspired, and maintained. Where a ‘charismatic’ individual is involved, that personality often embodies the institution, whether God, the Caesar, the Emperor” or the “President.” Obviously, the events precipitated by 9-11 invoked the ‘American’ cry of “…. my country, right or wrong.” At the time of this writing, the vast majority of Americans badly misplaced their faith.

VIABILITY
For all the “good intentions,” the U.S. invasions of Afghan and Iraq were doomed by the lessons of both history and human nature. “War” is a function of the will of a populace. As Iraq demonstrated, the Government and Military can be destroyed, but the “will” of the populace will determine the final outcome.

In the von Clausewitz war model of the “Trinity” of Populace Government and Military, the populace is the enduring and foundational element of the triangle.

That lesson should have been engraved in the minds of all in Washington D.C., given the history of Viet Nam, Beirut, Mogadishu; and the Russian failure in Afghanistan. Add the lessons of Northern Ireland.

Conversely, Germany and Japan were defeated, because the will of the populace was totally broken. Operations such as Panama were successful, because there was no ‘popular’ opposition to anyone wanting to defeat the tyranny of Noriega. Whether “Psywar” or combat, the outcome probability isn’t that difficult to determine. Unless the will of the affected populace(s) is not won or broken, the ‘war’ will continue. So says all of history. Afghanistan and Iraq were doomed as failures, because there was only a plan for conquest, not for “peace.” The matter of “political correctness” prohibited the perpetrating mindsets from addressing the historic and constant element of “tribalism.” Just the street gangs of American cities should have propelled that matter to the leading edge of the decision-making.

PAYOFF
In all of human nature, the key element is found in the assumed, hoped-for; or probable ‘payoff’ – or ‘penalty.’ What ‘payoff’ would a working man have in donating $500.00 to the unfortunate children of China or Africa? Personal satisfaction, public recognition, a certificate? Conversely, would he consequently get censored, or somehow ‘penalized,’ by his family for not applying those same funds to his own child’s benefit? In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the ‘payoff’ was obviously anticipated to be heroin and oil; it just didn’t work out, the way it was hoped. The lessons of Viet Nam had been forgotten.

ENVIRONMENT
Human nature displays a ‘gravid’ nature, such that a major part of ‘evil’ is the dynamic seemingly ‘produced’ by a unique environment. Just as one might feel more connected to God in a cathedral, versus a small chapel, a laboratory or expensive office complex can have a major influence on the attitude of the individual. Specifically, is the environment one which is somehow trustworthy, relative to what is about to, in all probability, happen? Is there a known, assumed or an apparent ‘distance’ from accountability? Does the environment offer a particularly strong suggestion of privacy, secrecy or remoteness? Or, does the environment inherently oppose any nefarious deeds? Would a seeming objective observer embrace the deed, relative to the environment? Would that same observer abruptly ‘join in?” When would “mob mentality” kick in? In a combat zone, for example, when is destruction or killing ‘evil?’ In ‘commercial’ Las Vegas, is gambling or prostitution somehow uniquely “super-moral?” What can be reliably expected of the individual’s unique estimation, within a given environment? Otherwise stated, would a given environment reliably enhance or obstruct a proposed behavior?

RATIONALIZATION
Beyond environment, the most obvious requirement is to excite, discover or manufacture and present an acceptable rationalization or justification for engaging in the particular action. When does spanking, or otherwise punishing a child, deviate from ‘parentage’ to sadism? When does ‘Gestapo’ force become an act of loyalty to the “state?” Where does ‘normal’ reality give way to a flimsy cover story for an obvious crime or horror, wrapped in a pre-packaged denial mechanism? Borrowing from Hitler, the apparent principle behind 9-11 was, “If the ‘terrorist’ doesn’t exist; we must invent him.” In W.W. II, the ‘resistance’ fighting a War Crime effort was heroic; in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ‘resistance’ force fighting a War Crime effort became “terrorists.”

The post 9-11 case for the ‘end rationalization’ became the driving force behind a corrupt and nefarious version of “National Security;” a bizarre ideology for foisting a neo-Gestapo onto the planet. The Afghan caught with an AK-47 was an “unlawful combatant,” while the profiteering mercenary operating under a commercial contract in Afghanistan and Iraq was a “Security Contractor.” All that being part of the “big lie” (again emulating Hitler) which drove an international disaster.

AUTHORITY
For the purpose of perpetrating a scenario, an ingredient which runs parallel with rationalization is “authority.” In the case of the post 9-11 events, Bush invoked every lie possible, from messages from God, to irrelevant passages from U.S. law and U.N. Resolutions. Beyond congressional silence on the topic, Bush never had legal authorization to invade Iraq – from anyone. Certainly, the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter actually prohibited his invasions. Few know or appreciate that the U.N. Charter embraces ALL of the Geneva Conventions, not just the third, as claimed by the White House. The U.N. Charter chokes all of the Geneva Conventions down the throats of the White House and the Pentagon. (“Enforcement” – or lack thereof - being the controlling variable.)

‘Conveniently’ unknown to most Americans, also, the language of the U.S. Constitution automatically incorporates international treaties; thus, the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Charter are part of that same Constitution which George Bush Jr. swore to uphold and defend.

SAFETY
Inherent in amoral activities, is the perpetrator’s/participant’s need for a ‘safety net.’ That could be discovered in anything from a ‘convenient’ law, to assured anonymity. The ‘smart’ perpetrator will front-load the situation with such a safety net – or multiple safety nets. The usual case is a statement which absolves the hands-on perpetrator from any moral or legal responsibility – whether the claim of non-responsibility is valid, or otherwise. That usually entails an assumption or overt assertion that ALL the responsibility is at the ‘top’ of the associated structure – or, at the center of any ‘inner circles,’ in the case of a ‘cult’ environment.

PREJUDICE
The related deeds of ‘programmed immorality’ also require a distinct emotional insulation. That is typically found in some form of ‘tribal separation,’ as well as a ‘justice statement,’ to the effect that “…they have it coming to them.” At hangings and firing squads, the hoods/blindfolds and reading of the death sentence are radically more for the benefit of the executioners, than the condemned.

Honoring human nature, it must also be acknowledged that much of anti-social behavior often comes from within the individual - spontaneously. While most honor the statement, “There is a bit of ‘larceny’ in all of us;” is it more appropriate to say that there is a bit of ‘predator’ in all of us.

If there is an existing and commanding prejudicial mindset, an individual’s perception of the proposed immoral conduct can easily evoke any required, or additional moral justifications, so as to relieve the anxiety found in the situation. “Invasion” becomes “liberation; “murder” becomes “self-defense,” for example.

Internal denial mechanisms also offer a utilitarian dynamic, by the personal assignment of values or flatly denying that there is any valid or potential accountability. “They’ll get over it,” for example.

The safety requirement is also served by the individual’s personal sense, or estimation, of responsibility for their personal actions, versus those who appear to be in a more accountable position; or who share the responsibility – the “Everybody else did it, too” mentality.

The individual’s personal view of the victim can dehumanize the target, while arguing that the harmed individual is the underlying responsible party for the outcome. Often that view is a function of related propaganda. In wartime, the soldier of the opposing force is always portrayed as being a variant of a rapist and/or murderer of children. “Remember the Alamo,” or “Remember 9-11,” the effect is the same.

BOUNDARIES
A very common tactic is the application of “sacred territory,” whether setting up a mental-emotional ‘perimeter;’ or forcibly excluding information. We exclusively blame Oswald, we don’t discuss the absurdity of the “… pristine bullet.” We blame Sirhan, we don’t discuss the fact that Bobby Kennedy wasn’t hit with a single round fired by Sirhan. Etc.

COMMITMENT / ENTRAPMENT
The next requirement for the horror-masters is to effect a long-term commitment to a dedicated course of action, whether a “contract” or an effective form of intimidation or even blackmail. A major part of that mission requires the application of psychological devices which range from simple propaganda to the nearly secret tactic of “Coercive Persuasion;” the Jonestown cult mechanism. Key to that compliance creation is the successful invocation of “shame,” “guilt” or “ridicule;” pertinent, or not. “9-11” successfully delivered “….we don’t want to fight ‘them’ on American soil.”

Where commitment can’t be readily achieved, the next course is entrapment, typically applied via the methodology of a corrupted version of the “Delphi Technique,” commonly referred to as “Manufactured Consensus,” versus detecting, observing or applying the ‘spontaneous solution’ version, which the original Delphi Technique was successful in doing.

That increment usually involves the creation of a parent-teacher relationship, in which prior values are ‘bent’ to achieve what initially appeared to be a meaningful and productive result. In most cases, the participants bring a high level of personal motivation to the table. Upon being ‘trained,’ the ‘students’ are additionally issued the necessary mix of ‘logical’ and ‘emotional’ rationalizations and responses to defeat those ‘enemies’ who would argue for a traditional standard of morality.

RULES
When the requisite level of ‘commitment’ is effected, the next priority is the injection of the ‘rules,’ to be applied. The primary task is to envelop those ‘rules’ in an aura of logic, whether ‘ordinary’ logic, or ‘skewed’ logic. This task typically involves an ‘immersion learning’ (“re-education”), so as to create a reliable and mindless application of ‘the rules.’ The goal of this task is to enable the individual to push past previous moral boundaries, into ‘new territory.’

A key factor in the enforcement of the group ‘rules,’ is to selectively re-contextualize any internally adverse mistake or omission as a punishable error. Breaking the rules isn’t the sin; versus the selective accountability (extortion), at some later date. Worse, in such a system, there is no latitude for personal judgment. The task is accomplished by the assigned individual, or punishment is the selective response. When any accountability is effected, no “extenuating circumstances” are tolerable. Once ‘enforcement’ has been authorized, an innocent or ‘human’ mistake - or an ‘omission’ - equates to a punishable error. Only when an overriding stress level is reached, will the punishing ‘operative’ refuse to continue – time for a ‘replacement’; OR the ‘errors’ become a convenient source of blackmail, in some format.

Amazingly, that “gotcha” mindset is quite commonly found in the American corporate environment. The obvious question is whether or not that is a convenience of management controls, or a much broader ‘conditioning’ of America. The latter is more likely.

RE-EDUCATION
To achieve the nefarious results, the issues typically go through the classic brainwashing process of “re-education.” In the fashion of re-packaging child molestation as child “love,” the political issues are comparably re-packaged with an incredibly clever rhetoric and application of semantics. In the post 9-11 world, violating all “American” standards became the new mandate of U.S. “National Security” and “…. stopping terrorism.” The U.S. Constitution became an instant and constant target.

ACCOUNTABILITY RELIEF
The most obvious obstruction to amoral behavior is the issue of “accountability,” which operates in concert with the human conscience. A political version of the “immortality complex” is required. ( “It will always be the other guy who gets caught.” ) Thus, there is the mandate for deflecting or at least ‘sharing’ the responsibility for negative deeds and results. The Bush Cabal elements claimed to be effecting “National Security” and “…. stopping terrorism,” while those personally effecting the related ‘policy’ were “….just following orders” – assuming that ‘others’ would exclusively be held responsible, should anything ‘go wrong.’ At a minimum, it was presumed that any possible punishment would be minor.

STEALTH
While there may be a pool of “…natural born monsters,” (law enforcement or combat veterans, for example) the more typical conditioning process usually begins with a small role/deed, which doesn’t strike the typical individual as being particularly meaningful. Over time, the programmed role/deed becomes incrementally more involved; usually with an increasing magnitude of aggression – or accountability, as an ‘accomplice.’ Finally, the role/deeds clearly transcend the realm of good-bad, right-wrong, fault-blame to being almost exclusively irrational, in the spirit of “…dammit, just do it!” (Compliance usually and reliably achieved.) In the end, the individual has a “file” chronicling his/her guilt and complicity.

LEVERAGE
The typical real-life environment calls for the creation of a “…no way out” situation - blackmail, if you will - wherein any stated intent to exit is tolerated, involved or complex; the cost of escaping the environment also being too high for the individual to accept. That ‘cost’ could be anything from loss of pay and benefits, to the threat, or just suspicion of, death.

DRIVING FORCE
All events require some form of energy, spontaneous, or otherwise. That could be ‘natural’ revenge, or the effect of designer “propaganda.”

The corruption process can be additionally ‘fueled’ by the influence of others in the immediate vicinity acting comparably, or acting and speaking with an aura of ‘passion; add such suggestive ‘props’ as uniforms, policy manuals, educational materials or ‘equipment’ being in plain sight, readily available to the participants.

Certainly, as history so well records, overt propaganda (or ‘useful’ factual and unaltered history) which induces a sense of rage or fear of the presented ‘enemy’ enhances and accelerates the participating individual’s decision making. Such could be a very localized presentation, or a national/global propaganda campaign. It is academic that any independent and accommodating personal prejudices add to such situations.

EASE
Where major events occur, the ability to proceed has to be greater than the sum of the resistance; some events happen more easily and quickly than others. Where an ‘enemy’ is discovered or declared, the insertion of a dehumanizing characterization onto a group or even a single individual will commonly be used to reliably increase the level of aggression. Any previous aggressive “practice” – by an individual or group - will both expedite and increase the level of aggression, to the degree that aggression can eventually become self-motivated, nigh unto stimulating, or even pleasurable.

BARRIER PENETRATION
Admittedly, there are found those described as ‘bad seeds.’ What does it take to convert the ‘ordinary’ person into a purveyor of undeniable ‘evil?’ By some means, the process requires the numbing of the controlling aspects of the ‘normal’ human conscience and ‘civilized’ value system. Often, the matter of ‘compartmentalization’ can operate as a powerful insulation, by itself. Whether the wearing of a uniform, a distant or physically separate environment; a conscious or subconscious anxiety can induce the human mind to separate realities, in the very fashion of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – without the addition of alcohol or drugs. The augmentation by an immediate acceptance-approval system of verbal, social or material rewards will additionally reinforce a diabolical behavior.

MORAL BARRIER DESTRUCTION
Although most are intrigued at the idea of ordinary people being “enticed” to commit heinous crimes, it is also valid to question what magnitude of pressure would force ‘good’ people to commit atrocities? What magnitude of ‘force’ is necessary to cause an individual or group to feel so powerless and submissive as to respond to a state of seeming or factual mindless servitude? What level of control is necessary to suppress even the idea of rebellion or even personal pride or identity? What level of anonymity, coercive tactics and restrictions would be required to effect the necessary conviction/belief/illusion?

These particular answers are generally contained under the heading of “Coercive Persuasion;” and are on the top of the institutionalized “….least popular list” of political knowledge. In part, it makes no pragmatic sense for a society to tolerate a set of instructions on forming a cult. However there are certain events in history which are politically protected, such as the operation of the “Jewish Committees” who selected those in their own community to go to the Nazi death camps; and certainly the Jonestown killings. There is an expected limit as to what information that a society will tolerate; rightly or wrongly.

Yet “acceptable” environments, such as military “boot camp” demand just such a system, epitomized in the movie, “Full Metal Jacket.” The ‘dignified’ military academies are little different; evidenced just by the number of rapes which have been committed and covered up, in the co-ed environment.

COGNITIVE CONTROL
The mandate – “Think like this!” The amoral mission demands a means of control over the individual’s cognitive processes. If there is a clash of ‘values, any ‘adverse’ values, such as that which is personally acceptable or otherwise normally considered to be socially acceptable – or desirable – is suspended, in some fashion. The key effort in accomplishing this is to diminish, reduce or erase the fear of accountability of the hands-on player, and to discourage any independent exercises in self-accountability. By accommodating the ‘usual’ acceptance-approval needs and wants of the individual, the conscience is relatively little disturbed. The factor – factual or otherwise - of ‘anonymity,’ where possible, goes a long way in this arena. In that process, the individual’s self-image must also be accommodated.

The situation, again, requires the illusion, at least, that others are responsible for any accountability, and/or the accountability is spread amongst an unaccountable ‘crowd.’ Whether NATO, the “United Nations” or Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing,” just the ‘ability’ to disperse any possible ‘blame’ goes a long way toward both perpetrating horrendous deeds, and covering for them.

However, as in the cases of Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib, the “responsible others” are usually found to be capable survivors, who will predictably and effectively deflect the accountability to the bottom of the proverbial ‘chain-of-command.’

Where real-world harm is done, the ‘system’ also finds an advantage in any self-determining evasion of accountability, in the form of personal denial tactics, or obscuration tactics, such as alcohol or drugs. The ‘system’ also finds convenience in alternate personal stimulation-intensive distractors, requiring full time attention, such as a physically active sport, personal relationships, or even sexual adventures. The mechanics being a case of the individual successfully dissociating from the past or the future. Obviously, if the participant can successfully project any known or suspected responsibility onto others; so much the better.

Following the 2006 “Iraq Report,” Tony Blair pleaded for the world to NOT examine the “why” (invasion-occupation) of the Iraq chaos, versus just the deeds, themselves, committed by the “insurgents” in that chaos. While bordering on being absurd, his plea was highly successful, none the less. No doubt the W.W. II Germans felt the same way about the French and Dutch “Resistance.”

The norm of presenting immediate or potential enemy archetypes, who would threaten the ‘home’ women, children, property, society, way of life or God, will expectedly fuel relevant passions. Conversely, the ‘system’ grants no permission for an alternate viewpoint, which would present, or even suggest, that the acclaimed enemy could be a good, worthy, noble or heroic opponent. Obvious ‘resistance’ and ‘revenge’ are carefully re-packaged in nefarious language and terms. Otherwise stated, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter.”

Most of the Iraqi ‘terrorists’ would gladly trade the perpetrator’s odds with a roadside bomb, for those of a LASER-guided missile; add the death statistics.

In example of ‘cognitive control,’ - however unpopular the viewpoint may be - the 2006 issue over Iran’s nuclear program offered the position that if Iran astutely observed the “American” War Crime invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be fools NOT to seek defensive nuclear weapons, over just a program of nuclear energy. Such is simply not tolerated, in the face of the Bush sword rattling.

While, at the time of this writing, the future evaluation of this position, above, is unclear, in late 2006, the viewpoint is generally intolerable among the American public.

As the Iranians denied – with sufficient ‘proof’ – Bush pathologically pleaded that Iran factually had a nuclear weapons program – needing interdiction. After the “Iraq mess” with the WMD issue, Bush began his “Iran” issue with a major credibility problem.

SILENCE
Although human nature generally looks to the “active” component of amoral deeds, there is also an equally destructive force behind “inaction;” the ‘un-mob mentality.’ That, of course, begs the question, “When does inaction, silence or cover-up equate to overt actions of aggression?” Apologists aside, the generic answer is “…immediately.”

Whether pondering the silence of the W.W. II Germans, relative to the concentration camps and crematories, or American war protests, the situations and positions quickly become complex. In example, it is common for inner city residents to “…not get involved” in crimes which are highly visible and highly preventable. Such is sometimes a chaotic fear of reprisal, or some bizarre sense of ‘frontier justice,’ evidencing an unpopular ‘primal’ rule set.

In the light of the ‘gravid’ nature of human behavior, the neglect is often ‘social;’ others of equal or greater ability refusing to help. The justifications of “inaction” reasonably follow the rules of “action,” in that the individual in whatever ‘crowd’ consciously or subconsciously assigns the value that ‘others’ have the greater responsibility and resources to act – and to account. Such situations also invoke the ‘diffusion of responsibility,’ ( add ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’) with the proposition that “….nobody else did anything!” Sadly, the omissive behavior is highly predictable.

Most law enforcement officers hold that there is no such thing as a “spectator” at a crime scene; there are only perpetrators, victims, innocent bystanders and witnesses. Few appreciate that the occasional “good Samaritan” is at risk of being hurt, sued or criminally charged, out of his/her interference. All too often, the good Samaritan unwittingly goes beyond the ‘legal’ limit,’ later being charged as a criminal. “Here’s how it works - a good Samaritan fires one shot to stop the crime; a criminal takes an extra shot to punish the original crime.” Thus, societies quite often face a major challenge in motivating a heroic attitude ‘shift’ to someone within the ‘crowd’ of those who are otherwise abiding/accommodating ‘spectators,’ so as to produce the required interference. The desired courage entails someone mustering the wherewithal to risk their local ‘acceptance-approval’ status, with possible down-line distrust, as a potential witness to the social neglect – whatever the specific event or associated consequence. Further, the associated society also faces the risks in admitting that the event(s) ever happened. Far too often, a reported drug house is tagged with the police admonition, “Don’t do anything, we have the house under surveillance.” All too often, that surveillance is seemingly eternal, as it continues to operate with a mysterious impunity.

Some walls of silence are being torn down. The American society, for example, is just now facing the “institutionally accepted” issues of spousal abuse, familial child molestation, church pedophilia and toleration of illegal drugs – add reverse racism. Those issues are steeped in the counter-culture ‘thought control’ attitude expressed by the unspoken statement, “We don’t speak about those things.” In example, the issue of prison rape is still an institutionally and culturally accepted ‘norm.’

Often, personal or institutional ‘priorities’ operate as an interference to rational and responsible behavior. A common example of this is the ‘lead’ driver who hears or sees an auto collision behind him/her, then continues on his/her way – assuming (hoping) that ‘others’ behind the accident will provide the necessary assistance. The ‘priority’ might be the fear of the boss not understanding a late arrival at work, because of any assistance. Would such assistance likely result in witness testimony, complicating the individual’s life? Did the accident happen in the bad part of town? Will family, friends or peers offer criticism for ‘unnecessarily’ getting involved? In a circumstance which is not likely to reward the individual for their involvement, the bottom-line is most commonly “….anxiety/stress evasion.” A doctor, nurse or policeman is not particularly more disposed to offer appropriate assistance. Such is “human nature.”

With respect to the Afghan and Iraq invasions and occupations, Americans refuse to think or talk about today’s villains as being the product of the CIA, long supported by Presidential Administrations. Unfortunately, Americans don’t have the luxury of pleading ignorance. The issue at the time of this writing is the probability of being held accountable.

ACCEPTANCE
Most importantly, the affected public must be comparably prepared to accept, endorse or encourage the “evil’ of these ‘internal’ deeds. Often that is a matter of old fashioned ‘blind faith’ in those in authority, with the public assuming a “…see no evil, hear no evil” posture, famous for supporting the military’s “Delta Force,” and the CIA’s infamous “ Black Ops.”

Where found, the related methodologies are typically found to span a broad horizon of “influence” or “supervisory” realms; wherein the authority figures expect others to blindly and expediently comply with the associated instructions. While the involved individuals are expected to be compliant, the associated leadership is keenly aware that few of the ‘players’ would otherwise comply with the process, or accept the amoral end result, without the required coercive persuasion. Therein lies the underlying sin of the matter – the methodically crafted enticement of the participating individual and/or group.

When considering the issue of “….. the moral high ground,” one must immediately refer to history. In recent times, the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal in Iraq jarred America, in particular, into a state of attentiveness. America is aware of the well-known history of the German Nazi deeds, reinforced by the rather constant presentations of Holocaust history on TV shows, such as the “History Channel.” Thus, the world has to ask how the act of destroying the US-made torturer known as Saddam Hussein could lead to anything remotely “American” approaching the evil of which Saddam was accused. It is no secret that his 1987 gassing of the Iranians was being conducted, as Donald Rumsfeld was facilitating American arms sales to Saddam. That history is “un-mentionable.” By leaving that history out of the currently presented facts, “Cognitive Control” successfully produced the desired perceptions and attitudes.

It should not escape notice that the proverbial “High Moral Ground” is often prostituted for major political advantage. A ‘constant’ in American life is the constructive apartheid of the American Indian tribes. Another is the implication that the “War Between the States” (Civil War) was fought over the matter of slavery. Factually, it was a war over regional economics; the ‘slavery’ issue was little related. Further, the “Emancipation Proclamation” didn’t apply to the ‘Northern’ states, whom were the very last to actually free their own slaves.

In still another case, we have the implication that only six million people died in the Nazi Camps; all being Jews and all dying in the ovens of the crematoriums. While the actual figures are ‘political,’ (uncertain, at best) the suggestions of ‘presented’ history indicate that somewhere around thirteen million died in the Nazi camps, most via starvation, exposure and disease, with approximately four million Jews actually dying in the camps, mostly from starvation, exposure and disease; with another two million Jews being exiled (accounting for the six million figure). There is no suggestion that the Nazi gas chambers and ovens were reserved for the Jews. History resists the idea that the majority of those who died in the Nazi camps were presumably Christian, in the form of Freemasons, Communists, homosexuals, Gypsies and various other ‘political’ prisoners. Yet, none of these “others” have a significant place in ‘presented’ history. Where are their “Holocaust Museums?” What is blindly and institutionally “accepted?”

In the prostitution of “High Moral Ground,” Bush mounted the purported mission to rescue the Iraqi people from heinous ‘evil,’ at the hands of Saddam. The American GIs were supposedly schooled in the “Geneva Conventions” which clearly prohibited not only any coercion of POWs, but the utilization of penitentiaries. The Conventions also provided that without a status determination tribunal, the particular prisoners were legally POWs, not the automatic “unlawful combatants,” by proclamation of the Bush Cabal players.

The issue of wartime prisons was nothing new to the elements of the Bush Cabal, as the background institutionalized attitudes were steeped in the fairly recent history of the American bombing of the makeshift Mazar i Sharif prison in Afghanistan – made famous by the killing of the CIA agent, Johnny Spann and the capture of the “American Taliban,” John Walker Lindh.

Even after the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal broke, the illegal use of the prison continued – with little if any protest. With that background, the world became fixated on the details and motivations of the Abu Ghraib Prison Prison abuse – by any name.

Whether one cares to call such abuse “coercion” or “torture,” it is abhorrent to any civilized society. Beyond the immediate amorality of such, it is necessary for warring parties, in particular, to consider what inspiration is being provided in regard to the treatment of their own soldiers, who might become POWs. Lacking guaranteed total secrecy, for all time, the treatment of prisoners is not an arena of the proverbial ends justifying the means. Beyond legal issues, the participating individuals should justifiably fear the reality – and criminal liability - being chronicled in history books.

Yet, in the case of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, those claiming the moral high ground were guilty of the entire range of classic prison abuses, including murder. A smaller scale of atrocities doesn’t imply any level of innocence. In hindsight, it is necessary to ask what forces - or combination thereof – can compel ‘civilized liberators’ to commit such acts.

Unlike combat, the American abuse of the Iraqi prisoners – including unmitigated torture - occurred on a very personal and enduring level. On the assumption that the Abu Ghraib events (generally) happened at the hands of untrained personnel, it is necessary to question what motives, rewards and praise could be provided by the associated superiors, so as to produce those deeds.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, it is also necessary to ask what kind of men – and women - could enthusiastically stoop to such deeds; complete with the voluntarily photographed pleasure. At least in theory, these people had been schooled in the Geneva Conventions, the American “Code of Conduct;” and possessed a fear of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Yet they not only persisted, they questioned the very possibility of their own guilt – until the end of their trials. Amazingly, they echoed an expected and constant historical cry, “I was just following orders.” Not uncharacteristically for the American military culture, the lowest ranks were made to bear the blame, while obviously guilty parties bearing the rank as high as “General,” were left relatively untouched. Somehow, the lessons of William Calley and Mai Lai had been lost to history.

Amazingly, there is no shortage of military legal papers on the limits of a “lawful military order.” Steeped in the Nuremberg trials, these positions are quite clear, as to where the military limits are. However, it must also be noted that previously accepted definitions of ‘torture’ were declared ‘officially’ unclear. While it would have cost nothing to err on the ‘human’ side; the abuses were advanced and passionately defended.

Characteristic of the Bush Cabal, apples were successfully mixed with oranges, in the form of citing American law, as though it countermanded International Law and treaties. That was not possible, but had a sufficient ‘ring’ of plausibility, that much time was purchased, so as to continue the abhorrent acts. The horrors continued in their ‘acceptance.’

Amidst the obvious, it is also necessary to probe for the possibility that the human species has an instinctive primal predisposition toward cruelty. Did the (photographed) hands-on perpetrators of Abu Ghraib experience some form of primal ‘flashback,’ with a ready surrender to some form of instinctive and sadistic impulses and associated sociopathic behavior? The Abu Ghraib events didn’t happen at the hands of trained workers in personal violence. They were not a select group of scientifically identified “bad seeds.”

At a minimum, the ‘caught’ individuals of Abu Ghraib should be examined to understand what forces caused them to play their new role. Was their interpersonal camaraderie; their acceptance and passion for the “National Security” mission, and their belief that all prisoners they dealt with behind those walls were some form of ‘enemies of the state,’ sufficient not only for the prison guards to do the deeds, but feel so safe that they could openly pose for the damning photographs?

Certainly it must be assumed that internal and external manipulations somehow made them feel special and unique; certainly “appreciated.” It must also be assumed that however perverted their task were, they felt that it was some form of “patriotism.” Clearly, the elements of the Bush Cabal “….had their ways.” The most damning part of the Abu Ghraib events is the fact that torture is generally considered to be a waste of time – with very rare exception. Yet Abu Ghraib was intended as a long-term scenario. Tracing the “interrogation” deeds back to Guantanamo, and General Geoffrey Miller, it is worth asking if Abu Ghraib wasn’t part of a broad psychological experiment, attempting new discoveries.

In the middle of all this were the CIA’s “renditions,” the international kidnapping, detention and ‘outsourced’ torture of accused individuals. That went beyond being “Gestapo.”

Whatever the case, it is necessary to ask whether or not there has been established a set of methodologies and rules, enabling future deplorable acts via the perversely identified methods, easily replicable via training programs such as those at the infamous “School of the Americas,” now the “Western Hemisphere Institute.” Can such a ‘special’ mix of external conditions, rules and situational parameters be identified? Most importantly, can they be stopped?

What must the world think, if it becomes apparent that such monsters are not simply convenient and rare defects of nature, versus readily converted products of methodical training and conditioning, as in the case of the elite S.S. troops and Gestapo of Nazi Germany?

In the more ‘classic’ scenarios of history, the required sadists were selected because they readily defied rules and control; and found pleasure in witnessing or inflicting pain. However, there is historically a paradoxical “compartmentalized” character to such monsters; they otherwise lead relatively normal lives – away from their dungeons.

In the end, we must note the various factors which lead to such disasters as we witness in modern times. It is easily recognized that motive, timing, personality, character, attitudes, environment and the mechanics of a unique situation combine to produce a particular piece of history. However, it must also be noted that each of the individual elements can have a unique and distinguishable dynamic – positive, neutral or negative. From any of these individual elements, the ‘trend’ of a single dynamic can be transmissible, such that the an abrupt or powerful trend in one element can affect the collective of a particular situation, which in turn, can quickly – or slowly – go to an extreme, either for the good or bad; hopefully for the good. History is all to clear that a behavior amplification and/or acceleration is easier to trigger, than to arrest.

To be fair, it must also be noted that the ‘trend’ of one element can negate or reverse the trend of another; a ‘chain reaction’ is not automatic.

In a ‘local’ social scene, an intended party of boys, broads, booze – and possibly drugs – are commonly intentionally combined for a “fun” occasion. However, these situations also commonly go bad, starting with a single element. The “Cops” TV shows routinely present the images of a full-blown riot being stirred within minutes – literally. Often these spontaneously erupt out of a joyous occasion, such as the ‘locals’ winning a ball game – no opponents present! Thus, it must be observed that the “trend” is as important as any single ingredient, by itself.

With such runaway situations as a rather ‘common’ example, it must next be concluded that in a political situation, the nefarious forces of – or within - government agencies can do that much worse, whether the Seattle WTO riots, or the Abu Ghraib scandal. History is also clear that the element of ‘courage’ is vital to any outcome, whether starting something good, or stopping something obviously bad – or ‘trending’ toward the bad.

We can be quite certain that “history repeats itself.” However, if a society refuses to examine the dynamics of institutionalized horror, with the same magnitude of curiosity which drives ‘ancient’ schools such as Astrology, the Tarot or Druidism; what chance does any population have to endure? There is the challenge.

What happens, when an apathetic and ignorant populace empowers a ‘government,’ which comes to take away the Astrology Charts and programs, the Tarot Decks and associated books, the Ouija boards; add the Bibles. Such would be another “repeat” of history.

Those who elect to remain ignorant of the “how,” need to be desperately concerned as to “when.” At the time of this writing, such a horrific history is in the “repeat” cycle, in America.