We live in chaotic times. Many feel that our fragile economy could come crashing down at any time. One devastating terrorist attack, false flag attack or natural disaster could lead to an unprecedented disaster and martial law would be declared. Some Americans would take to the streets and the only remaining question is whether or not American soldiers, called to the scene, would restore order by firing upon American citizens when ordered to do so?
This scenario and the resulting public execution of American citizens for engaging in protesting has happened many times in our past. For those old enough to remember, the 1970 Kent State massacre should come to mind as the Ohio National Guard opened fire on protesting college students on the campus of Kent State University. But for those who believe that this was merely an anomaly, let’s examine what the field of psychology has discovered about the answer to this question.

 

The Oath Keepers Cannot Save Protesters

Some our citizens are deluded into a false sense of security by the group known as Oath Keepers. It is a well-intentioned effort to remind both law enforcement and the military to uphold the Constitution and to disobey unlawful orders which would bring harm to American citizens. Under this false sense of security, many in the American public really believe that American troops will not fire upon American citizens. Unfortunately, the field of psychology demonstrates why only a minority of soldiers will actually resist committing atrocities against the American people.

Conformity to Group Norms: The Solomon Asch Experiment

Do you think of yourself as a conformist or a non-conformist? If you ask most people the same question, you would find that most people consider themselves to be a non-conformist and would be able to stand up to a group when they know they are right. However, can nonconformists actually resist the peer pressure to blend in with the rest of their peers?

In the 1950’s, Polish born psychologist, Solomon Asch, conducted a conformity study. The participants signed up to participate in a psychology experiment in which they are asked to complete a vision test. This was a deception. The real experiment attempted to answer the question, can people resist peer pressure to conform to a false belief?

Seated in a room with the other participants, the research participants are shown a line segment and then asked to choose the matching line from a group with three segments of different lengths.

The experimenter subsequently asked each participant individually to select the matching line segment. On some occasions everyone in the group chooses the correct line, but occasionally, the other participants unanimously declare that a different line is actually the correct match. Unknown to the main subject of the experiment, everyone else in the experiment is a confederate and their answers have been preplanned for the purpose of determining whether, or not, the participant’s answer can be determined by the people deliberately giving the wrong answer.

Nearly 75 percent of the participants in the conformity experiments went along with the rest of the group at least one time. After combining the trials, the results indicated that participants conformed to the incorrect group answer approximately one-third of the time.

At the conclusion of the experiments, participants were asked why they had gone along with the rest of the group. In most cases, the students stated that while they knew the rest of the group was wrong, they did not want to risk facing personal criticism. A few of the participants were so weak-minded that they suggested that they actually believed the other members of the group were correct in their answers.

These results suggest that conformity can be influenced both by a need to fit in and a belief that other people are smarter or better informed. Given the level of conformity seen in Asch’s experiments, conformity can be even stronger in real-life situations where stimuli are more ambiguous or more difficult to judge. For example, a soldier, in attempting to decide if they will fire upon innocent civilians, will be forced to weigh their own risk. If they fail to obey the command to fire upon American citizens, will they face disciplinary action, or even death?

 

Asch also found that having one of the confederates give the correct answer while the rest of the confederates gave the incorrect answer dramatically lowered conformity. In this situation, just five to ten percent of the participants conformed to the rest of the group. Allies, committed to a central belief, is what drives many in the alternative media to relentlessly pursue the truth and then inform as many people as will listen.

 

 

The Milgram Experiment and Group Think

The world of psychological research provides the definitive answer as to whether we should fear our military in the coming storm ahead in the form of a phenomenon called group think. Group think is often described as a decision-making process whereby the group members go along with what they believe is the consensus. Group think has also been used to describe individual acquiescence to authority even when the authority has limited power to enforce compliance. Group think often causes groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s leadership and balance.

Just how far will people go to please authority figures and subsequently do what they know to be immoral? The first known laboratory test for groupthink occurred in 1963 by Yale professor, Stanley Milgram. Subjects for this landmark study were recruited for the Yale study through newspaper ads and direct mail. The participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees.
Milgram wanted to determine what percentage of people would willingly administer enough progressive electric shocks which would result in death simply based on the orders of a perceived authority figure (i.e., the experimenter).

There were three participants in the experiment:

1. The Teacher was the real subject in the experiment. Their role was to administer shocks for each wrong answer provided by the learner. How far would they go, was the true subject of the experiment.  Would they actually kill a person for failing to provide the correct answer on a word pair test? Would they mindlessly follow the orders of the experimenter to continue with the abuse, regardless of the results and obvious harm being perpetrated upon the pretend victim in the experiment?

2. The second participant, the Learner, was actually a plant in the experiment. The Learner would sit in an adjacent room and pretend to be shocked for each wrong answer that they would purposely give. Eventually, they would cry out for help and beg the Teacher to stop administering the electric shocks. Their cries included pleas of mercy that were often based on an unknown level of self-expressed cardiac distress that they were pretending to experience.

3. The Experimenter was a stern looking fellow who carried a clipboard, wore a lab coat, and would urge the Teacher to continue regardless of the make believe pleas of the Learner.

The “Teachers” were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning. However, as has already been stated, this was not the goal of the experiment.

The “Teacher” was given a list of word pairs which was used to teach the Learner. The Learner was actually a confederate, or a plant, in the experiment. The Teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The Learner would deliberately press the wrong button to indicate his response. Since the answer was incorrect, the Learner would receive an electric shock, with the voltage progressively increasing with each wrong answer. Therefore, the
subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the Learner was receiving an ever increasing level of actual shocks which would eventually result in death.

In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate (i.e., Learner) was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds of pain and distress for each successive level of shock. After a number of voltage level increases, the Learner would bang on the wall which divided him from the subject (teacher). After several instances of banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the learner provided no further responses to questions and no further complaints. The fate of the Learner was left to the imagination of the teacher. The silence was met with the command to continue with the experiment. Although the Learner was not being harmed, the Teacher believed that they were administering progressively dangerous shocks. From the instrumentation panel, the Teacher could clearly see that their shocks were approaching the level of lethality. Was the Teacher being forced to capitulate and continue with the experiment? Quite the contrary was true, the prompts to continue administering shock were encouraged by minimal prompts and absolutely no threats were offered by the Experimenter.

If at any time the subject hesitated or expressed a desire to discontinue the experiment, the subject was given a planned and verbatim succession of verbal prompts by the experimenter:

1. “Please continue.”

2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”

3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue. ”

4. “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

If the Teacher still wished to stop after having listened to four successive verbal prompts, the experiment was discontinued. Otherwise, the experiment was terminated after the subject had administered the lethal 450-volt shock three times in succession.

Milgram expected that less than one percent would actually administer a fatal electric shock. The actual results were so stunning that he decided to film the results on the final day, fearing that nobody would believe his results. And what were the results? Despite expressing some measure of discomfort and the minimal use pressure, in Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65% (26 out of 40) of the subjects administered the experiment’s final and hypothetically fatal 450-volt shock. Amazingly, no participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level!

Milgram’s results were confirmed when Dr. Thomas Blass performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. Blass found that the percentage of participants who were willing to administer fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%.

The results of Milgram’s and Blass’ work are stunning in their final conclusion which demonstrated that almost two-thirds of all Americans will mindlessly follow the commands of a “perceived” authority figure even when the authority figure has no real power over the people. Can you imagine how the 65% rate will dramatically climb when they authority figure had “real” power over the people being ordered to fire upon American citizens?

 

The Zimbardo Prison Study

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram was interested in expanding upon Milgram’s research. He wanted to further investigate the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

The research question the researchers asked was how would the participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment? Zimbardo had previously speculated that, “Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place, or, would their goodness triumph?” The results of the experiment haunt many of us in the psychology field, today, as we ponder how far would Americans go in the enforcement of a brutal and vicious tyranny?

Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building, and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards.  The assignment of roles was accomplished through random selection. The participants were selected because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues and had no major medical conditions. Therefore, the participants in the study were far more psychologically and physically healthy than any group of modern day military force, police force or FEMA camp guards. The volunteers agreed to participate for a one- to two-week period.

Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24-hours a day for the duration of the study. Guards, on the other hand, were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, guards were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift. Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards through the use of hidden cameras.

The experiment was originally scheduled to last two weeks, but it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became exceptionally abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress, anxiety and nervous breakdown.

The prisoners and guards were allowed to behave in any manner they chose. However, the interactions were generally hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began behaving in an aggressive and abusive manner toward the mock prisoners. Subsequently, nearly all of the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience such severe and acute anxiety, that they had to be released from the study early.

Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect that “Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class” . Even Zimbardo lost his objectivity and the experiment was only halted when his girl friend at the time, Christina Maslach, a graduate psychology student, voiced objections and threatened to break off her relationship with Zimbardo if the experiment continued.

The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally act in their everyday lives or in other situations. By putting a prison guard uniform on the participants, issuing sun glasses and a baton made the participant guards act in accordance with their perceived role. This has dire consequences for the ability of uniformed personnel to resist orders from their commanding officers to fire upon American citizens. People will act according to the role that they have been assigned to play. Finally, based upon the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, what kind of treatment could you expect at a FEMA camp?

 

Conclusion

Will American soldiers fire upon Americans in times of civil unrest? The evidence has been presented to you, what do you now believe?

 

References

Andersen, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70.

Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1–17. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research

Morris, W., & Miller, R. (1975). The effects of consensus-breaking and consensus-pre-empting partners of reduction in conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 215-223.

O’Toole, K. (1997, Jan. 8). The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years. The Stanford News Service. Found online at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html

The Stanford Prison Experiment:A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University. Found online at http://www.prisonexp.org/

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.

By | 2017-10-26T22:10:02+00:00 September 9th, 2014|Featured, Main, Martial Law|53 Comments

About the Author:

53 Comments

  1. randyfreedom September 9, 2014 at 4:17 am

    Best question is this: Is there a way to get the military and police on the side of the people? If we can do that then the globalists have no teeth – we have the teeth.

  2. […] via The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens | Dave Hodges – Th…. […]

  3. […] Dave Hodges TheCommonSenseShow.com Sept. 9, […]

  4. David September 9, 2014 at 5:51 am

    I’ve known about these experiments for years now. And it is a large part of the reason I dissuaded my children and their friends from enlisting in the military or joining law enforcement at any level even though our family has a history of same. I went back to SE Asia in 1999-2000 for three months and saw first hand what the US military did twenty five years after the fact. The stories I was told shocked me, how non combatants were treated by soldiers. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: parents, do not encourage your children to enlist in the military. And those in presently in the military – get out at the earliest opportunity, go home and be with your family and community.

  5. Sophie September 9, 2014 at 5:56 am

    It is interesting to see so much detailed information about each experiment. There is no doubt that American military could fire on American citizens. I would like to know whether a brief information message could be designed and delivered to greatly reduce the percentage of people who would do so. Could a brief information message permanently and drastically reduce the percentage of soldiers who would fire? Likely, the message would have to be succinct and powerful.

    Ideally, everyone –soldiers and civilians would be exposed to the relevant information in this article. Then, the dire consequences of such actions would have to be linked to a direct danger to the soldier –of greater concern than any reprisal by authority figures. Naturally, the more Americans become aware of serious threats to their very survival, such as the water takeover, the more they are likely to understand that getting by in the short term will be a formula for extinction in the longer term.

    We can observe the real life application of this sort of experimental result in the way that street goons have been prepared to mentally torture innocent targets. A law-abiding, peaceable and upright citizen in America can be torture-surveilled and stalked by neighbours and other highly state-organized groups, so that there is not a single minute of the day or night when he is not essentially incarcerated in every public place. By this government program, the target is, in effect, covertly transformed into a prisoner in a secret prison population. He is subjected to ongoing psychological torture, which leads to injury and death. The general public who engage in such a barbaric practice seem to have no idea that it effectively makes the gas chambers obsolete. It is not necessary to transport victims to a distant prison camp and gas them to death. They can and are being quietly tortured to death in the streets. If the prisoner should attempt to speak to the individual goons, they will be advised how to respond. They will be told to put on earplugs or to smile and agree with whatever the victim says. Even if the “prisoner” is highly articulate and delivers a compelling message, only a tiny number of “goons” will immediately demonstrate understanding and desist totally from the stalking torture. Hence, the state is able to kill off high level citizens who would be the natural advocates for mankind, turning the majority against those who would be best able to protect them.

  6. Rumplestiltskin September 9, 2014 at 6:48 am

    These experiments are no more than a corroboration of what we have seen in many cultures when tyranny takes hold. Germany for instance, China, Russia under Stalin, and many many more.

    Ba,sically, humans are cowards and will generally side with those who will elicit the least punishment for immoral and unethical activities. It is the sick and twisted aspect of our genetic make up, where our genetic linage must endure regardless of the cost.

  7. Craig Mouldey September 9, 2014 at 6:55 am

    These experiments about lay it all out. Wasn’t this evil in the human heart known by the founders of the U.S.? Isn’t this why they tried to set up a system that would prevent any one person of part of government to gain power exclusively? I recall a bible verse, in Jeremiah I believe that says the heart of man is desperately wicked. Who can know it?
    And now the sheep have been conditioned to believe total government cares about them. A very rude awakening approaches.

  8. Syrin September 9, 2014 at 7:11 am

    Here’s the thing not addressed. Those soldiers live AMONG us as do their families. Once they fire upon us, their families’ lives are in jeopardy. These are some foreign nationals 3000 miles overseas. These are fellow citizens that they must face daily. How many of the wives of these Nazi wannabes will stick around to be with their Nazi hubby? There will be consequences for following the group. Deadly consequences.

  9. Sam September 9, 2014 at 7:25 am

    During the L.A. riots in the 1960’s, California National Guard troops were told by their commanding officers that the riots were the result of communist agitators, that Martin Luther King’s advisors were communists, and the troops were led to believe that the uprising was communist led and inspired, making it a situation of fighting “the enemy”.

    Once police and military are indoctrinated to believe that any resistance is enemy-inspired or led, they will be far less reluctant to use excessive force or even lethal force, as was the case in the Kent State massacre. The willingness to obey unlawful orders depends to a great extent on the preconditioning one received prior to those orders. In police departments today, the delivery of military goods to them sends a message that they are to be prepared for war inside their own cities and towns. In using military weapons, they acquire the military mindset – search and destroy, not protect and serve.

    The flow of military weapons to civilian police must be stopped if this trend is to end, because if it continues, it will end very badly. Military weapons suggest an occupying force, not a police force, and most people will resist occupation. It is in our nature to resist and we will.

  10. […] The Common Sense Show – by Dave Hodges […]

  11. Ed September 9, 2014 at 7:58 am

    No surprise here.
    The US military in blue kill american citizens every day and you think the military in green wouldn’t?
    Not to mention the fact that ALL Us soldiers that have gone through basic training (that’s all of them) have been psychologically broken and are slaves to their masters and will follow orders.
    Yes it some twisted fantasy that some soldiers that swore an oath to the evil one will some how protect the followers of Jesus.

  12. […] Dave Hodges is the Editor and Host of The Common Sense Show. […]

  13. […] by a resident of Mubi, Adamawa State, on September 8, this video shows Nigerian soldiers and many civilians fleeing a massive invasion by the now highly dreaded Boko Haram sect. […]

  14. Dave September 9, 2014 at 8:31 am

    I have yet to see any evidence that there are any who would not follow any order given them! We see over and over at peaceful protests, cops who are there, happy to be there, and willing to follow any order given, always!

    We have seen disturbing things before and since the Occupy protests, where we saw cops kettle women just to spray them with mace, in what was one of the most sadistic things I’ve seen!

    We now see on a regular basis cops who point their rifles at anyone and everyone, all of whom are unarmed! They do it with pleasure! They are clearly happy to be there!

    With Occupy, Bundy ranch, and Ferguson, we saw cops who were willing to kill unarmed protesters! Without question! There were snipers at all those events, ready to kill! We are even told vetted stories of plans to assassinate these protesters!

    At Occupy, unidentified law enforcement had active plans to assassinate!

    At Bundy ranch, active plans to use lethal force, only stopped when armed militia showed up to provide a response! But, we are also told of a discussion and plan to drone strike the entire area! That came from washington!

    At Ferguson, tell me of any of the 96% white police force policing a mostly black community that weren’t itching to kill someone!

    I think they will fire on Americans, and I think they will kill gleefully! I did not see any cops, at any of these events, that weren’t happy to be there!

  15. […] The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens […]

  16. […] Cops and GroupThink […]

  17. mark September 9, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Today we can’t expect what will really happens in our daily activities in LIFE. Therefore, better be safe, than regret and feel sorrow. And for safety of these students, your child, or maybe your relative. I would suggest emergency safety service that everyone can carry all days. Check it from here: http://safekidzone.com/?a_aid=52f12fafd5de8

  18. Seen2013 September 9, 2014 at 10:20 am

    I’m compelled to highlight the additional lack of recourse being assigned to the general populace both politically and through the justice system.
    It should rather be patently obvious the populace is being conditioned to accept its role as prisoners without any true political or court system recourse.
    Bare in mind, there should be much recourse if Oath Keepers and other groups were successful in keeping military, law enforcement, Sheriffs, and others from following unconstitutional and thus unlawful orders; there would be more recourse than is.

  19. abc September 9, 2014 at 10:22 am

    We got these crazy fanatics politicians, religious leaders, business crooks. Hook an energy line to them and leech them dry. Drain their life force.

  20. Not owned by the MSM September 9, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Look who makes up the non coms in the Army, many seeking to get a fast track to being a citizen. Many were gang members, many can’t find employment to support their family. Many are from military families who want to do what they think is right, but the orders coming down from the top in no way are to protect the people from all enemies inside & out, what or who are the biggest threat to our freedoms? If Americans don’t this by now the answers to your question just got answered. Put a weapon in a low IQ kids hands all hopped up on the new vaxs & what do you have, a brain dead person who will do what he/she is told no matter how wrong it is!

  21. DevilMayCry September 9, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    Propoganda. The DOD knows a signficant group of veterans will defect if not immediately after a hot war with the public, than some time after. The pentagon is in the minority, outnumbered by more than 10-1. They have tanks, bombs, tech, but ultimately you need footsoldiers to hold a territory after it is secured. This in mind, the analysts know there is a signficant chance of a hotwar breaking out before the demographics of gun owners can be changed. We have the numbers just not the skills and organization. By driving a wedge between the public and the military the new hotwar could occur as a proxy between veterans and the public, with the public lacking in veteran’s skills and organization, instead of what established powers fear–a well-armed, large fighting force, that is trained and highly organized via rogue veterans.

    Thanks for the moment of enlightenment though about who you actuayl work for and why they keep on pushing the disinformation narrative that veterans will side with the government in the event of another revolution.

  22. matt September 9, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Everyone in the military took this oath

    I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

  23. David Carswell September 9, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    Dave, this is nothing short of STELLAR reporting. I am the lifelong radio man who called in a couple of weeks ago. My major was political science at the Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This piece really opened my eyes. Group-think and the herd mentality…especially when people are not just under orders but also duress (not to mention the effects of adrenaline and our system’s major stress hormone…cortisol) are powerful motivators. Excellent job. P.S.–for the lowdown on what I achieved during a 40-year, major-market radio career…feel free to Google my air name….”Dick Hungate”. Keep up the great work!

  24. Clark Kent September 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    Hey Dave, great article. I think its sad that many folks in the branches of our military will shoot Americans if ordered to do so. Isn’t it interesting that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia both had military’s that turned on there own people? Yet somehow, Americans do not believe it will happen here. So I’m curious, what percentage of our troops will not shoot Americans and how many citizens will rise to the occasion and defend their families and communities? What are your thoughts Dave? Thanks

  25. jaishen September 9, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    Will American soldiers fire upon Americans in times of civil unrest? Yes.

  26. Ideas Time September 9, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    It is time to get real. 100 million people could not survive without free money. Look at wallmarters and wallcarters. I guess my question, do we want to support them? If so who will continue to foot the bill. At some point we will return to survival of the fittest and I am an old guy who gets 0 money from the gv and I don’t care anymore about the leaches and gv parasites.

  27. Nam Marine September 10, 2014 at 12:02 am

    We outnumber them 10,000 to one !

  28. csaaphill September 10, 2014 at 1:42 am

    yes most heartedly they will never doubted it for a second.
    But is this to scare us out of disobediance or just what?
    If they were willing to fire upon us we shoudl be too!

  29. […] that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may wish to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire […]

  30. […] announced that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may wish to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire upon […]

  31. […] announced that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may wish to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire upon […]

  32. […] announced that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may wish to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire […]

  33. […] announced that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may wish to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire upon […]

  34. […] announced that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may want to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire upon […]

  35. […] Hodges September 11th, 2014 Common Sense Show Read by 1 […]

  36. […] analysis has been contributed by Dave Hodges and was originally published at The Common Sense […]

  37. […] analysis has been contributed by Dave Hodges and was originally published at The Common Sense […]

  38. […] announced that it is inserting itself into this process. Before proceeding, you may wish to read “The Psychological Reasons Why American Soldiers Would Fire On American Citizens“, as it details the well-researched psychological reasons that the U.S. military would fire upon […]

  39. […] analysis has been contributed by Dave Hodges and was originally published at The Common Sense […]

  40. Sophie September 12, 2014 at 5:43 am

    It would be worthwhile for people who engage in torture surveillance, which may go by innocuous terms, such as “neighbourhood watch,” to go to the Stanford Prison experiment “slide show” pages online. The experiment had to be discontinued after six days because it was causing psychological distress and harm after just over a day. In the present day public places version of the experiment, certain “guards” wear a particular colour in order to flaunt their role. The “prisoner”is an innocent victim, (expertly defamed and denounced to many groups) who has not chosen to participate for money in an experiment.

    Young men who had volunteered for the experiment were beginning to cry uncontrollably and exhibit distress after mere days in the makeshift prison. This evidence highlights the extreme cruelty and harm that is being carried out in the streets of America and beyond.

  41. […] Hodges The Common Sense Show September 12th, 2014 Reader Views: […]

  42. […] A complete list of references is available here. […]

  43. Anna September 12, 2014 at 8:18 am

    The cattle herd outnumbers the farmer 10,000 to one. But look who always ends up in the slaughterhouse.

  44. Sleat September 12, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    I guess the Ukrainian Army soldiers who refused to shoot the rebels in the East have much higher standards of ethical behaviour than their American counterparts.

    Either that or much better at thinking things through.

Comments are closed.