46 Tips for Recognizing a False Flag or other Psyop

     “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.

– Josef Stalin

     There can be no doubt that false flag attacks are a reality.  Washington’s Blog has documented at least 53 false flag attacks to which government officials in various countries—including the U.S.—have later admitted.  Only the most cowardly, self-deceived individuals can doubt the existence of false flag attacks.

     Several web sites offer anywhere from three to fifteen clues on how to recognize false flag attacks.  I’ve gleaned through them and added a few of my own.  There are really too many to cover in detail in a single article.  Instead, I’ve chosen simply to list them and perhaps go into further detail a few at a time, on some future occasion.

     In a false flag attack or other psyop, several (or many) of the following phenomena are evident:

1. There is an immediate comprehensive narrative, including a convenient culprit. Law enforcement, government agencies, and the mainstream media immediately proffer a narrative that completely explains the event and encourages citizens to tie their intellectual understanding of the tragedy to the emotions they experience.

2.   The official narrative has obvious domestic and geopolitical advantages for the governing body.

3.    The narrative behind the attack serves to leverage emotions like fear, as well as patriotism, in order to manufacture consent around a previously controversial issue. (e.g. calls for gun confiscation)  Media and government officials promote a narrative against scapegoat groups and/or an agenda to deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property.

4..    Government begins to “take action” against the scapegoat or moves along the lines of the media narrative.

5.    Military training drills and police drills occur on the day of and very near the attack itself, causing confusion to obscure eye witness testimony and allowing orchestrators to plant both patsies, disinformation and backup operatives.

6.    It’s a high-profile event. According to a NewYork Times news article, mass murders (murders of four or more people at one time) occur an average of once a day in the U.S.  The overwhelming majority of mass murders are ignored, but a select few are covered 24/7.

7.    The event seems too theatrical to be real (or too theatrical to be taken at face value).

8..    Government or media foreknowledge (e.g. BBC announcing the collapse of WTC-7 some 20 minutes before it actually occurred).

9.    Ignored warnings.

10.. Facilitated by authorities.

11. Protocol ignored.  (In the Sandy Hook psyop, almost everyone in any official capacity violated the law and failed to follow required protocol.)

12. Official narrative contradicts boundary conditions (e.g., the narrative that a non-pilot such as Hani Hanjour taught himself to fly a Boeing 757 more expertly than an experienced Boeing pilot.)

13. Significant omissions in the official story  (e.g., the fact that, only two weeks before 9/11, Hani Hanjour was not allowed to rent a Cessna 172 due to his poor piloting skills).

14. Official narrative contradicts experience (personal or historical) (E.g., that no high-rise building in history has ever collapsed due to fire damage, yet it supposedly happened three times at the same place on the same day.)

15. No surviving witnesses) (problematic witness or patsy gets killed, drugged, or “suicided.”)

16. There is no obvious motive for the attack.

17. Family or witnesses in the event have elite or acting backgrounds

18. Fake “victims;” the same “victim” get killed in two or more separate events.

19. The same witnesses are present at two or more events. (Link)   

20. Families of “victims” appear on TV within 24 hours, showing little or no emotion, and even snigger and laugh.  “Robbie Parker”  James Foley’s smiling sister’s “duping delight”: 

21. “Witnesses” make official talking points. (E.g., 9/11 “Harley guy” claiming that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”) 

22. “Witnesses” speak in “officialese” (e.g., “multiple gunshots” instead of “several (or a specific number of) gunshots,” or, “I witnessed…,” instead of, “I saw…”)

23. Non sequiturs (e.g. that victims’ families wouldn’t want to know how their loved ones died; or pulling out of an illegal war would be disrespectful of “the troops;” or that “an investigation of a terrorist act would invite another such offense.”)

24.  “Witnesses” speak in generalities, so as to avoid the risk of telling too different a story as other “witnesses.”

25. Witnesses’ statements are reinterpreted or shut off by an interviewer.

26. Shooters always have new social media accounts.

27. Shooter leaves a manifesto.

28. Even before there is time for investigation, the “news” media has quickly and conveniently named and demonized the “culprit” (read: patsy).

29. Patsy has had no military training, yet he shoots extremely fast and accurately.

30. The suspect(s) have a demonstrable connection to the CIA, FBI, or another intelligence agency.

31. The suspect has no credible means of funding.  (e.g., James Holmes, an unemployed medical student who had $26,000 worth of armaments, body armor, bomb-making equipment, and other paraphernalia.  Unaccountably, he also had the skills to make the bombs, rig the booby traps, and use the guns and ammo.  Wow!)

32. Victim’s families don’t sue anyone for negligence, but receive millions in unsolicited federal payouts

33. The officially proposed solution wouldn’t have prevented the events.

34. The official narrative keeps changing.

35. At or near the same time and place as the event, officials are conducting drills simulating an event that’s virtually identical to the “real” event that is taking place.

36. Cui Bono?  (Who benefits?)

37. Key questions are never investigated and are left unanswered.

38. The case is quickly closed

39. Key evidence is conveniently destroyed before a thorough investigation can take place.

40. Clues in pop media (foreshadowing) (Use your favorite web or video search engine to find “predictive programming.”)

41. Eyewitnesses have accounts conflicting with official narrative) and are ignored

42. Credible reports of accomplices (e.g., “John Doe Number Two”) are ignored or quickly covered up.

43. Reporter or other authoritative accounts contradict official narrative (e.g. McIntyre’s (McIntyre’sfirst version)  (McIntyre’s flipflop)  and Walter’s flip flops; or FBI crime stats revealing that no murders were committed in or around Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the year of the alleged Sandy Hook shooting).

44. Official behavior contradicts official narrative (e.g. outbound flights arranged for the bin Laden family while bin Laden was being blamed for an atrocity, even as all other flights are grounded).

45. Terrorist PR is clearly designed for domestic consumption (e.g., when organizational initials or other PR symbols are in English when one would reasonably expect them to be in the native language of the terrorist group.  Note: the acronym ISIS stands for the English words Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

46. Other anomalies, which may or may not be found in more than one psyop event.  “Other anomalies” can cover a wide range and be very difficult to spot or may be nothing more than anomalies. 

     Well, that’s my list.  Not everything is a conspiracy, but conspiracies do happen.  Politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial. 

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”      —Thomas Jefferson

Whole Systems Thinking and Global Warming Snapshots

     The following snapshots appeared in the December 23, 2015 edition of the Taipei Times:

Snapshot number one: “The nation [Taiwan] had its warmest winter solstice in 67 years yesterday, with the highest temperature rising above 30°C [80°F].”

Snapshot number two: “The statistics also showed that the nation experienced its third-warmest winter solstice in recorded history, only beaten by 31.5°C recorded in 1934 and 30.7°C in 1948.”

     I call these two sentences snapshots, because snapshots represent only an instant of time in a comparatively small spot.  When a snapshot is selected for publication, it’s selected from among possibly thousands of snapshots to illustrate a point that the writer is trying to make.

     In the case of literal snapshots, two photographers can attend the same lecture and take pictures of the speaker and the crowd.  One photographer selects an audience photo showing many empty seats and several disinterested people (the shot was taken during a less interesting part of the speech.)  The other photographer’s photo shows many enthusiastic listeners (during a more interesting part of the speech) packed into an area that has no empty seats. 

     It’s the same speech, the same audience, and the same venue; but the two selected photos give completely opposite impressions of how well attended the speech was and how interested the listeners were. 

     Snapshots of events can be very different from whole histories of the same events.  Let’s look at how the two above-mentioned snapshots of temperatures may be seen in the light of whole systems thinking. 

     In the light of whole systems thinking, these figures tell us that the world as a whole wasn’t especially hot on December 22; the figures apply only to Taiwan: an area only a little larger than Maryland.  It also tells us that it was hotter on that day 67 years ago (1948)—several decades before the alleged “man-made global warming” became an issue (around 1978).  You cannot reasonably infer "global warming" from a single hot day on a tiny portion of the globe.

     The only other time in recorded history that it was hotter on that date than it was this year was in 1934.  In the 37 years that global warming has been a significant issue, Taiwan has never experienced a winter solstice as hot as it was 30 years before the scare began.

     It’s also worth asking, “How do they arrive at the global temperature figures the use?”  Of course they use thermometers, but where are the thermometers located?

     Here’s a map showing the location of temperature measuring stations.  Fully two thirds of the thermometers are located in a fairly narrow band that includes only the middle two thirds of the northern temperate zone.   When more than 80% of the world is underrepresented, how accurate can the system be?

     It gets worse.  Take a look at “MeasuringTemperatures: How Temperatures are Measured,” by Dr. J. Floor Anthoni.   Measuring global temperatures is far from an exact science.

     Bottom line: Statistics, when honestly presented, are useful as a visual means of digesting facts.  They’re not by any means a substitute for facts.  Check the facts.

Why Some People have a Phobia of Conspiracy Theories

     (This article is the second version of a blog post I wrote a few months ago.  The first version was somehow lost.  No, I don’t suspect that it was destroyed by reptilian shape shifters that didn’t want you to read it.  My schedule has relaxed enough now that I’m able to write a second version of this article.  I hope it’s as informative as the first (missing) version.)

     We’ve all seen articles purporting to explain why some people are attracted to conspiracy theories.  The rationale behind the articles is that, if someone is aberrant enough to suspect that politicians sometimes have ulterior motives, this suspicion requires a socio-psychoanalytical explanation—from a safe distance, of course; and it should be performed only by someone who recognizes the danger of examining the facts for oneself.

     In a previous article, “Why Some People are Attracted to Conspiracy Theories,” I broke all the rules and presented my politically incorrect findings.  Yes, I admit it; I’m a thought criminal.

     It's highly curious that a belief in conspiracies is considered aberrant enough to warrant socio-psychological analysis; but no one seems to question why some other people are addicted to official narratives and have a phobia of conspiracy theories.  It’s as if the official narratives are the default explanation of events (like the reasonableness of wearing a hat as protection from the blinding rays of the sun), and that skepticism of official narratives is considered an oddball alternative (like wearing a lampshade over your head).

     (Actually, it’s the conspiratophobe who likes to imagine “truthers” as the sort of people who wear lampshades—probably so that people around the “truthers” will not be blinded by the dazzling light of truth.  Doesn’t it seem odd to “accuse” a political opponent of wanting to know the truth?  For what it’s worth, the opposite of truther is liar.)

     In the article, “Why Some People are Attracted to Conspiracy Theories,” I gave three commonly given explanations and showed the absurdity of all three.  To give equal time to conspiratophobes, I give three explanations for why certain other people have a phobia of anything—question, fact, or theory—that calls an official narrative into question.  Here are the three explanations:

1.    They are vain; to them, social responsibility is less important than a sense of personal reward or the approval of others.

2.    They’re either lazy or they’re moral cowards.

3.    They miss the comfort and security of their mothers’ wombs.

     They are vain; to them, social responsibility is less important than a sense of personal reward or the approval of others. This motivation is rather tricky to examine because certain virtues, such as social responsibility, are often compartmentalized.  I’ve known conspiratophobes who gave very much of themselves through organizations dedicated to helping others—deeds that brought them considerable honor and praise.  Belief in a conspiracy theory, however, calls for a similar level of commitment to the needs of others, but very few people will praise you for it.  More often, it results in disrepute and even social ostracism.

     It’s not that conspiracy deniers don’t see that there’s a problem.  Many conspiratophobes are highly intelligent, articulate people who use their intelligence in the service of self-deceit.

  

     Here’s the sort of example I’m sure you’ve seen:

     Let’s say the year is 2006.  You tell someone that the NSA has been conducting widespread warrantless wiretaps.  Year after year, for he automatically rejects any and all evidence you try to show him, declaring that it’s too evil to contemplate.  After all, we live in a “democracy.”  In a democracy “our” government would never do something that evil and authoritarian.  Fast forward to last year—Edward Snowden.  To the conspiratophobe, this is a recent revelation; (“Who could have known?” he says.)—notwithstanding that the evidence had been around since 2006.  Just as suddenly, the evil, authoritarian practice of widespread, warrantless wiretapping has become a good thing that is necessary to protect us from Al Qaeda or some other boogey man of the day.  All that is needed now is an extra-constitutional Presidential Directive defining the limits of a practice that has already overstepped constitutional limits.

     They’re lazy or are moral cowards.  When a citizen has a healthy skepticism of those in power, he assumes a burden that he had not had before the skepticism arose.  He’s required to use critical thinking skills instead of simply responding to spin doctor-generated stimuli—the same sort of stimuli that advertisers use to convince gullible people to pay twice as much for a pair of shoes as it’s really worth, all because it has a corporate symbol on it, or because the corporation has paid millions of dollars for a famous athlete to wear it in a television commercial.

     It’s not that they can’t get excited about something and generate energy as a result of that excitement.  They can get very excited about the Super Bowl, a rock star, the latest fad, or some other pointless diversion.  Those things don’t require taking a stand that someone else may oppose.  Those who find it fashionable to get excited about meaningless things are the very people who give the fisheye to people who display even a little passion about things that matter—such as the genocide of Palestinians (a sure ticket to being labeled anti-Semitic), the Bill of Rights (easily dismissed as the work of home-grown terrorists”), GMO (luddites), or the Bible (intolerance).  There’s always a convenient label to marginalize anyone who upsets the status quo, and to shut down a conversation so you can go back to your mindless game of moving dots around on your so-called “smart” phone.

     They miss the comfort and security of their mothers’ wombs.  An addiction to official narratives is key to their paradigm for “understanding” the world around them.  In their world, there are no stakeholders but themselves, and the world revolves around their desire for security and happiness.

     In their world, the news media have to tell them the whole truth at all times because the news media have only one stakeholder: the newspaper buyer or the news program viewer.  Like the babe in the womb, they fail to see the owners, investors, sources, creditors, advertisers, and others who also have a stake in the news media.  As often as not, the other stakeholders have interests that are completely against the interests of the newspaper buyer or television watcher.  (See here)

     In the world of conspiracy denial, politicians have only one stakeholder: the voter.  The conspiratophobe’s one measly vote (if he votes at all) is more than a match for campaign donors, high-powered lobbyists, intelligence agencies, foreign diplomats, international bankers, and many others—if they enter his thinking at all.  At the same time, politicians (most of whom have never created value in their entire lives) have the magical abilities to do things that everyone knows can’t be done—such as creating millions of jobs just by signing a name to a sheet of paper.  (See here.)  

     The world as imagined by your typical conspiratophobe is a world that hasn’t existed since he was in his mother’s womb, or in story books his mother read to him as a small child.  It’s a world populated by magical beings that exist only to perform miracles especially for the conspiratophobe.  In short, a typical conspiratophobe is someone who has an irrational aversion to reality because reality calls for responsibility and is sometimes uncomfortable.

     A conspiracy theorist, by contrast, is the following:

1.    Someone who believes that human events are caused by humans.

2.    Someone who believes that politicians sometimes have ulterior motives.

3.    Someone who believes that the assassination of Julius Caesar wasn't a spontaneous event.

4.    Someone who believes that Richard Nixon “knew something” about Watergate before he read it in the Washington Post.

5.    Someone who, when a politician says, “Read my lips,” also takes care to watch his hands.

6.    Someone who believes, as Lord Acton did, that “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

7.    Someone who believes that politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial.

8.    Someone who, when a politician pats him on the back, is smart enough to know whether the politician is just feeling for a place to put the knife.  When a politician pats a conspiratophobe on the back, he’s attaching a sign that says, “I’m gullible. Trick me.”

     Here are a couple of videos that the average liar (the opposite of truther) dares not watch:

6 Corporations that Control your Perception 

Top 5 Conspiracy Theories that are True

Why Some People are Attracted to Conspiracy Theories

     This article is the first part of a two-part series.  The working title of the second part is tentatively titled “Why some People are Attracted to Official Narratives.” 

     No doubt you've already read articles with titles like “Why some People are Attracted to Conspiracy Theories.” All such articles have taken the approach that official narratives are the default view, and that any rejection of an official narrative is an aberration that needs to be explained in socio-psychological terms. 

     Logic, fairness, and respect for Truth, however, demand that both phenomena—attraction to, and automatic revulsion to, conspiracy theories—must be evaluated by the same standards.  Let’s begin with the most common arguments offered by conspiratophobes.   In the next article, we’ll deal with the conspiracy theorists. 

     If you’re in need of a socio-psychological term for conspiracy theorists, just call them conspiratophiles. If you require a term to explain what kind of theorist a conspiratophobes is, you may call them excretory theorists; that is, people who believe that “stuff” just happens.

     In trying to explain some people’s attraction to conspiracy theories, conspiratophobes typically offer three explanations:

1.      Conspiracy theorists tend to be distrustful of authority figures.  This leads them to look for alternative explanations.

2.      Official narratives sometimes leave some questions unanswered.  Conspiratophiles tend to “fill in the blanks” with explanations that seem to fit their worldview.

3.      Academic studies have shown that, typically, conspiracy theorists don’t actually propose theories; they simply point to “anomalies” in the default explanation.

     Regarding point #1, it’s entirely true that conspiracy theorists tend to be distrustful of authority figures.  The most notorious conspiracy theorist in American history—Thomas Jefferson, by name—is a case in point.  Below are some of his conspiratorial opinions:

 (Ahem!  Just remember what private banking institutions did to us in 2008 and on a few earlier occasions.)

     “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”  (Ahem! George W. Bush’s acts of tyranny and war making progressed unabated throughout the reign of Barack Obama.  Except for the dates of these events, it’s virtually impossible to tell which “President” committed which offense.)

     “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”  (Thus, our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was built on conspiracy theory.  The thirteen colonies declared their independence, not only for what the British regime had done to them but for what Jefferson and others claimed that the British regime was planning to do to them.)

     "Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism.  Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence….The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first….In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." (Notes from various drafts of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798)

     If Mr. Jefferson were alive today, we should not be surprised to hear of his name being added to the DHS terrorist watch list.

     Let’s turn to explanation #2: That some people are attracted to conspiracy theory as a means of “filling in the blanks” in unanswered questions.  Actually, I have never heard of anyone doing that.  Almost invariably, the blanks are filled in, but conspiracy theorists think that the blanks have been filled in incorrectly.  Let’s look at a few examples:

1. World Trade Center Building #7 imploded at near free-fall speed into its own footprints because of _(a)_________________ and (b)______________.  (Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the answers (a) two small fires that firemen said they could put out with two lines and (b) twelve feet of parapet that was broken away from the roof of Building #7.
2. The Pentagon was damaged when a (a)(who) _______________________  (b) (did what)      _____________________________.  (Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the answers (a) novice pilot who was unqualified to fly a Cessna 172 (b) expertly flew a Boeing 757, effecting a 370-degree turn during a steep dive at 530 miles per hour, upon which he leveled off and hit the Pentagon at close to ground level without disturbing so much as a blade of grass.)
3. (Multiple Choice)  Who is Victoria Muñoz?

1. A close acquaintance of Nancy Lanza, the mother of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza (December 2012).
2. An eyewitness to the Boston Marathon bombing (April 15, 2013).
3. An eyewitness to the Watertown, Massachusetts, shootout (sic) (April 19, 2013)
4. An eyewitness to the Albuquerque, New Mexico, stabbing (April 28, 2013). .
5. All of the above.   (Conspiracy theorists refuse to believe that E is the correct answer.  Of course it was just a coincidence that all four women had the same face and hair, same voice, and same mannerisms.)

   
     Finally, let’s look at explanation #3: That’s the assertion that conspiracy theorists usually don’t offer conspiracy theories; they simply point to “anomalies” and use those anomalies to question the official version of events.

     That’s an incredible assertion.  Anomalies, by definition are facts (facts that "deviate from what is standard, normal, or expected.")  As I've often said, a fact can’t be a theory.  How can someone be called conspiracy theorist if he offers facts rather than theories?

     Further, it’s an understatement to use the word anomaly to describe impossibility.  While many dubious events present suspicious anomalies, conspiracy theorists rarely rest their cases on unanswered questions or anomalies.  Almost without fail, the tipping point is the discovery that the official explanation of events is impossible.

     For example, it’s impossible for a man to use a rifle to kill someone if that rifle is locked in the trunk of a car.  It’s also impossible for ordinary office fires, which burn no hotter than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, to liquefy steel, which liquefies at no less than 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. 

     It may seem curious that an academic can come up with so ludicrous an assertion that conspiracy theorists usually don’t have conspiracy theories.  A casual glance at the dictionary should clear up any puzzlement over this (ahem!) anomaly.

      One of the definitions of the word academic is, “having no useful or practical purpose.”  I’m a university instructor, so I should know.  Here’s how it works:

     People at a university decide to host an academic conference; that is, a conference that has no useful or practical purpose.  They issue a call for academic papers—papers that (unlike toilet paper) have no useful or practical purpose.   The quality of the papers are reviewed according to academic standards; that is, if the reviewer suspects that something in the paper has a useful or practical purpose, either that part of the paper must be changed or the paper is rejected altogether.  The people who go in for that sort of stuff are called academics; so that should tell you all you need to know about those people.

     In part two of this series, I will attempt to examine the perceived inner needs that drive some people to blindly accept even the most risible narratives that talking heads and other authority figures hand them.  (Hint: If they questioned authority figures even once, they’d have to leave the womb, think for themselves, and take responsibility for their lives.  They may even—heaven forbid!—have to turn off their television sets.)

Fifteen Questions that will Improve Your Thinking Skills

     A major part of thinking more reasonably—of judging our own best interests and the best interests of others—is knowing which questions to ask.  You've  heard some of these questions before.  Others, such as the first, are so basic that you may have never considered them.

1. What are we really discussing?  (That is, what is the core issue?  Suppose, out of concern for the safety of a deaf child, neighbors wanted the local government to put up a sign reading, “Slow.  Deaf child playing,” but there’s no such sign that can legally be placed there.  That the child is deaf may tug at our heartstrings, but it has nothing to do with the issue that even hearing children can thoughtlessly run in front of cars.  A sign reading, “Caution: Children Playing” would serve the same purpose without labeling the deaf child as “different” from her peers.)
2. Is this an objective reality or a social reality?  This is similar to #1, though it’s more specific.  It’s absolutely true that “the government wouldn’t lie to you” because government is a social reality; it exists only as an agreed-upon concept.  When most people use the word government, they’re really referring to politicians and bureaucrats; those people will lie like bed wetters.  Many social realities are based on false assumptions.  As an example, corporate logos are just marks; yet millions of dollars in advertising can convince gullible people that corporate logos are talismans that magically transform the wearer into worthy people.
3. What difference does it make?  (Sometimes it doesn’t make any difference.  When it does, it’s vital to know just why it makes a difference—otherwise, you can be distracted by things that are interesting but not vital.)
4. Is it true?  (Rule of thumb: If “everyone knows” that such-and-such is true, but no one seems to know how he “knows,” you’re probably being manipulated and the assertion is probably false.  Here's a familiar example of an is-it-true question: "How hot would office fires have to get before they can liquefy steel, and do office fires actually get that hot?"  Here's one I've never heard anyone ask before: "How is it possible for accidental fires to heat steel in perfect symmetry so as to cause every core column and supporting column to liquefy at precisely the same instant?")
5. What are the underlying assumptions, and are they true?  (For example, the popular model of environmental responsibility is that we should do the same things in the same way, only do less of it.  This assumption leads to the belief that environmental responsibility must come at the cost of lowering our standards of living.  I have learned that, by shifting our focus from “what brand we should buy” to “what benefits do we want,” we can raise our standards of living, spend less money, make healthier choices, and become more environmentally responsible all at the same time.)  For further information, click here.  
6. If it’s true (or false), what can we reasonably expect to see?  Do we in fact see it?  If not, what do we really see, and what’s the most reasonable explanation for it?
7. Are there other explanations or options?
8. How do people elsewhere—especially in other countries or cultures—handle similar situations, and how well does their method work?  (It’s amazing how this question automatically broadens our options.  I did a study of 31 “default” selections for our culture as compared to “alternative” selections.  To my surprise, even when I wasn’t consciously looking for better alternatives, Depending on what I was measuring and comparing, I found better alternatives 28.57% to 96.88% of the time—overall average, 75% of the time.  In every case, the alternative selection was as good as or better than the default selection.)
9. Who benefits?
10. Who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity?
11. In deciding between A and B, what are the costs versus rewards of being right or wrong?  (Uncertainty in the abortion debate is an opportunity to use this model.  The issue hinges entirely on whether the human fetus is a person; and, though we may never know the answer for sure, the person facing this decision has consequences regardless of our beliefs.  If the fetus is not a person, and an abortion is performed, no harm is done; if the abortion is not performed, a pregnant woman may be inconvenienced without good cause.  If the human fetus is a person, and an abortion is committed, an innocent human being has been killed for the sake of convenience; if no abortion is committed, the life of an innocent human being is spared, perhaps at the cost of someone else’s convenience.)
12. Does this rationale or explanation fit the facts?  If not, what does?  (For example, when a politician has ulterior motives—which they often do—he’ll offer a rationale that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.  Most people will react to the discrepancy by thinking, “Oh, this issue is too complicated for me to understand,” which is exactly what the politician is hoping you’ll do.)
13. What am I expected to do as a result of believing what I’m being asked to believe; and, if this belief were not an issue, would it be in my best interest to do it?  (For example, would you think it was in your best interest to allow someone to monitor your telephone calls if you weren’t convinced that the person monitoring your calls was protecting you from being murdered?  Chances are, the problem and the solution were concocted in the same laboratory and they’re both bogus.  As Edmund Burke said, “Men are seldom disposed to give up their liberties except under some pretext of necessity.”)
14. In making this decision, what facts are essential?  (To avoid decision paralysis or confusion, leave out everything else.  Some years ago, a coronary care physician discovered that doctors could make right decisions in the emergency room twice as often if they reduced the number of factors considered from twenty to four.  His decision model is now standard procedure.  See question #3.)
15. Does this version of events pass the reenactment test?  (That is, mentally reenact the received version of events in detail and see if it makes sense.  It’s amazing how easily a lie comes unraveled when the liar’s story is reenacted.)

     These questions have been quite valuable to me.  I hope you’ll also find them useful.

The Diaoyutai/Senkuka Islands Conflict and a Way to Peace, Part 2 of 2

     In part 1 of this article, I said elliptically, “Peaceful solutions to the Diaoyutais/Senkukas controversy and other lingering controversies from Japan’s militarist past are impossible without the support of the great Japanese people.  Before any such peace movement can gain critical mass, however, the matter must be deemed important to the world at large.  That would require, as I said earlier, raising the diplomatic stakes to a new level.  It would require capturing the imagination of the world in a way that would gain the peace movement international support and demands for a peaceful settlement.”

     In part 2 of this article, I suggest a strategy for capturing the world’s imagination to the degree that the people in Japan, Taiwan, and throughout the world should demand an international settlement.  First, let me point out some of the shortcomings of earlier attempts to bring the issue to the world’s attention.

     Over the past decade or so, activists have openly challenged the Japanese government’s claim to the disputed archipelago. They have been content merely to land on the main island and plant a flag claiming the island in the name of their respective countries.  The Japanese government has always met force with force, and the activists have always been foiled. 

     Every attempt was a tempest in a teapot, little worthy of anyone’s attention.  As a consequence, not one of the activists’ attempts ever drew the attention of more than a few people within this immediate vicinity.  It was nothing more than local news that the locals soon forgot, or as Shakespeare wrote, “…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

     What activists need is a narrative that transcends narrow self interest—one that resonates across national and cultural boundaries in a highly visible and positive way.  The event would have to fit a narrative that is familiar, popular, and pre-existing.

     Let me give some examples of what I mean by resonant narratives.

     Of all the stories told of World War I hero Alvin York, one of the most memorable concerns his marksmanship in a turkey shoot.  Two shots hit the bull’s-eye dead center, the second entering the hole made by the first.  The tellers of that story probably told and retold it because it resembled stories that were already well known and popular.  Davy Crockett and Robin Hood had performed similar feats.

     The David-and-Goliath narrative is popularly retold.  How many times have you heard of conflicts described as David-and-Goliath struggles?  The comparison is made and catches on because it resonates.

     Similarly, people are thrilled by narratives of brains over brute force.  Odysseus, the Swamp Fox, and the Gray Ghost come to mind.  People are also inspired by “feel good” stories in which idealism triumphs over (especially if it wins over) cynicism and opportunism.  People are also fascinated by quest stories.

     Here’s what I envision:

     Instead of resorting to a full frontal assault, about a half dozen people from different backgrounds and persuasions can secretly slip onto the island.  (What about the Japanese Coast Guard, you wonder?  Well, a guard can cover only the ground beneath his feet.)  Instead of trying to plant the flag of one of the national claimants on the main island, they can claim the islands in the name of the rightful owner of the archipelago: the Creator Himself.  Nothing is really ours; everything is on loan from our Creator. 

     Activists can do this in a strikingly visible, memorable, and environmentally friendly manner.  Nothing would be polluted or defaced, and nothing brought to the island would remain on the island.  It would also be done in a way that is startling to all who see it or know of it—and in a way that few could imagine or think is possible.  It would also be something that no one should be able to undo without incurring international scorn.

     Who would those intrepid souls be?  They should number at least five but no more than eight.  They should be as varied as the legendary Eight Immortals. 

     There are two reasons I believe they should be this varied.  First, their combined talents would be needed to make the project a success. 

     Then there’s the question of resonance.  A more disparate crew would increase the chances of each newspaper reader identifying with at least one of the volunteers.  They should include young, middle aged, and older; male and female; professionals and trade, prosperous and poor.  It should include someone of each Taiwanese ethnic group (Hoklo, Hakka, “mainlander,” and aborigine) and probably others.

     There should be no government policymakers involved.  Nor should the Alliance for the Defense of the Diaoyutais be involved; I’m fully convinced that the ADD is a government front group, though I won’t say for which government.

     Here are some areas of important skills:

1.      A naturalist, biologist, chemist, or all three

2.      Someone who is skillful at all aspects of sailing a small boat (No sailboat will be needed—only the skills are desired.)

3.      A sea woman (that is, a woman who lives along the coast and makes her living from the sea)

4.      A fisherman

5.      A cameraman or video journalist

6.      A farmer (no, not for planting—just for harvesting)

7.      A craftsman (for example, someone who can weave palm fronds, make braids, or transform fibrous plants into rope.)

8.      Three or more people with effective communication skills in one or more of these languages: English, Chinese, Japanese

9.      A medical person.

10. A person with skills as an outdoorsman.

11. A computer geek.

     That’s more than eight, but some people can claim skills in more than one of those areas.  Volunteers should be prepared to live off the land for a few days.  Behind the scenes, someone would have to have the money to finance the enterprise.  From what I’ve read in the papers, boat captains have been pretty mercenary, charging more for activists than for tourists. 

     I’ll be happy to advise those whom I trust.  I expect I must be content to be the penman of this peaceful revolution (or as some activists like to spell it, r3VOLution.)

     Taiwan is not my country, but it is my home.  The Japanese are my neighbors across the creek.  They’re good neighbors to Taiwan, and not simply because of good fences.  We’re having a difference of opinion; but if we hunker down and jaw it out, I’m sure we can see things eye to eye.  Apart from government, the people of all three countries, in their private capacities, are perfectly capable of answering to what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” 

     The politicians are another matter altogether.  If the politicians won’t see the light, citizens of all three countries may have to hold their feet to the fire and help them to feel the heat.

     The key to peace, then, is in the hands of the good people of Taiwan, Japan, and—to whatever degree they can speak for themselves—China.  The people of those three nations can be reasonable enough and open hearted enough to make an end run around narrow-minded politicians and do what is best for all of us and most pleasing to heaven.  In the end, each of us must stand before a just God and answer for our stewardship over His creation and to whatever degree we have loved our neighbors.