Agent Provocateurs and Efficacy

AGENT PROVACATEURS AND EFFICACY

By Kirstin Beatty, with thanks to Sigrid Schmalzer for the sickle cell details

Updated 21 July 2021, 6 April 2022

 

Some people wrongly believe the Black Panthers were anti-white and violent (they promoted self defense), but setting that aside a moment, notice what can be learned from their experience.

One successful project was that the Black Panthers provided sickle cell testing and highlighted how the health of African-Americans had been neglected, using the issue to advocate for free and better health care and better treatment of African Americans and rallying support.

As the Black Panthers gained publicity and support by highlighting the health care issue, the government stepped in and began to offer sickle cell testing — suddenly grants of money were provided to professionals, to the wealthy and white, while bypassing the Black Panthers.

The sickle cell testing provided by the government was welcome, but the Black Panthers also needed thanks and continuing support for their work, including for the fair point of needing decent health care and payment for their work.

The loss of sickle cell organizing and testing events hit the Black Panthers hard, as fewer events with testing for African-Americans meant less opportunity to share the message. Government action on sickle cell testing appeared on its face to have solved the problem, but African-Americans still lacked access to decent health care.

Instead of the government offering sincere support, the FBI had also infiltrated the Black Panther movement at every level to destroy it with agent provocateurs.

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI infiltrated many different groups: socialists, communists, peace activists, etc., as part of a counter intelligence program or COINTELPRO.

As far as the Black Panthers, the COINTELPRO sought to sow violence between the Black Panthers and others, disrupt scheduling, promote paranoia, fuel jealousy, accuse innocents of being ‘informants’, tap phones, employ the KKK, plant disinformation in the media, falsely define Black Panthers as white racists, and kill and imprison members – the same members who professed the right to self defense which, ironically, is today often a right-wing, white-faced mantra which the Black Panthers were not.

This concerted attack is what destroyed the Black Panthers, which originally had wide-spread support among the African American community but was destroyed from the inside. In this context, the decision of the government to support sickle cell testing seems to have been designed to undermine a major source of the Black Panther’s membership growth.

Despite being painted as white racists, the Black Panthers in fact sought to fight racism through solidarity with people of all backgrounds. The FBI went after the Black Panthers not just because of their strong unifying platform, but because the Black Panthers were anti-capitalist, because capitalism or profit motives had fostered slavery.

How could things have been different?

I think first we need to recognize how important working together in unity can be. The FBI sought to create division among different groups to divide and conquer.

Secondly, in relation to the sickle cell testing, we also need to be careful we do not lose sight of the bigger picture. When we ask for one piece of the puzzle to be fixed, we need to simultaneously ask for the larger picture to be fixed. Both need to be front and center so neither is lost.

Maybe a little appeasement of the rich and powerful is necessary to avoid being shot or maimed. Whether appeasement is possible is questionable — Putin jumps to mind. Still, maybe planning solutions that everyone can support, even greedy planet-destroying pigs, is wise.

Considering how the Black Panthers were never paid for their work to make sickle cell testing mainstream, we need to pay back and thank those who fight for us all, ideally the ones who are sincere and not the agent provocateurs.

All too often, the poor, the disabled, the marginalized bring up problems they experience and after they work long enough the government decides to pay a bunch of businesses to profit from the problem with half measures. People who worked on this issue and especially those who suffered deserve to be compensated, treated as leaders and invited find full solutions, never patronized as incompetent victims.

I believe we need to recognize that when we ask for meaningful change we are bound to have hidden opposition, and we need to stop saying that is impossible and instead look hard for where problems might be.

The Black Panthers were destroyed from the inside by paranoia generated by agents who had the intention of destroying trust, leadership and creating drama. This is so easy. The agent might play the victim, say the angry person has a bad temper, and undermine leadership, capability, and respect with a sneer and gossip.

Opposition does not have be sourced from the FBI or a big industry. Opposition can be local, sent by an opposing political party, local business, or just anyone.

I believe we need an all for one, one for all mentality where we support those who operate as a team rather than as a bullies. To do this, we need to recognize and stop when people  use drama and control to lead away from the goal. Those kinds of people need to stopped and not heralded.

I once found a list online of tactics to infiltrate movements, prepared by our government — perhaps it was for anti terrorism. These tactics can be used by anyone, and so it is important to know those tactics so you can call them when you see them.

In addition to those tactics listed above, the following struck a cord with me:

    • use charismatic leaders to infiltrate and takeover grassroots initiatives, e.g. capturing control of all decisions
    • steer movements away from effective goals
    • develop community with cliques, drama, and infighting
    • gain loyalty and steal volunteers by offering lucrative opportunities
    • capturing and not sharing intelligence or connections
    • faking communications (deep fakes could be used)

Agent provocateurs need not be advocates but may also be represented by paid industry marketing groups, scientific ‘consultants’, or nonprofits. Note that nonprofits may be shams – look at the lack of policing of 501(c)4 tax-exempt groups and of 501(c)3 ALEC.

Industry’s work to shape public perception is quite an evil, so anything is possible with advocacy – US Right to Know has documented how ‘experts’ have been paid off, just as one example.

In any case, how can you tell who is sowing discord and division? On a personal level, sometimes you can tell by whether effective choices or bizarre wrong turns are being supported. On a more abstract level, sometimes it is harder. I think to myself of how my ideas are stolen and peddled without thanks.  I feel no one knows, because I’m not a marketer.

Here are a few points to examine regarding advocates and advocacy organizations:

        • Openness or honesty regarding who runs the organization (online):
          • If concealed, is the concealment real, partial, and is there any reason?
          • If someone admits to or says he/she is leading an organization, then why is it not listed on the website?
          • Is relevant background information shared of leaders?
          • If you are contributing to the organization, then are you listed as doing so on the website or in materials?
        • For what does the group/ person advocate?
          • Aside from education, what kinds of political changes are being moved forward?
          • Is advocacy for the status quo or minimal change?
          • Does advocacy undermine the work of ‘competitors’ even when that work is good?
          • Are there clear policy statements?
          • Is the direction of advocacy unclear?
          • Is advocacy hidden from view, i.e. occurring behind the scenes so that you don’t know what is said?
          • Are mistakes admitted?
          • If the group provides or funds research, is the research needed? Is the research conducted following best practices to allow for satisfactory peer review?
          • If the group provides education, is the education free or at cost?
          • Check advocacy materials:
            • Are these accurate?
            • Do these align with your beliefs?
            • Are any of these for sale, and if so is the price reasonable or fair?
          • Is the group mailing list used for marketing?
        • Where do donations or where does the money go?
            • How much money does the organization have?
            • Is the money going towards marketing that appears to benefit personal sales?
            • If marketing occurs, is it transparent? Are connections to family, etc., and the group made clear?
            • Are donations going towards a specific project?
            • If there is a list of supporting organizations, is it clear whether those organizations receive any part of the donations?
            • Are affiliated businesses or nonprofits reaping profits – and if so, how is the money used by affiliates?
            • Are salaries being paid to those who don’t need it while volunteers who do need support go without funds?
        • Sharing is caring – in public and online:

          • Do they share information that is helpful to you?
          • Do they share relevant lawsuits or engaged in lawsuits?
              • Are the lawsuits shared effective?
          • Do they share relevant legislation or engaged in writing legislation?
                • Did you double-check the efficacy of legislation promoted?
          • Do they share information on lobbying via other avenues, such as federal agencies?
          • Does the organization reasonably reference other outside, useful resources?
          • If not, is there a decent reason such as ability only to focus on a few things (which are?)?
        • Membership:
          • Do you know other members in the organization?
          • Do you have the sense that you are being kept from contact with other members or placed in silos?
        • What is the organizations privacy policy?
          • How does the organization collect or share email addresses and contacts – and is this ethical?
        • Testimony:
          • Are you given an opportunity to sign onto testimony or platforms in support or automatically added without explicit consent?
          • Are requests for support of testimony or platform straightforward?
          • Is there a trustworthy review of emails sent on behalf of the organization to insure consistency with mission and with member intentions?
          • Is there oversight of communications?
          • Are there private meetings with legislators behind the scenes? What is being said and can this be verified?
        • Exaggeration of personal accomplishments, taking ownership of other’s work, and omission of other’s accomplishments:
            • Do they use a name which is similar to a larger, better-known organization (to steal its reputation)?
            • Is work original or does it build, with fair credit, on the work of others?
            • Does work plagiarize or mimic the work of others – copying other websites, articles, theories . . . ?
            • Is name-dropping used to suggest ownership of an activity or person?
            • Note the scale of any marketing or self-promotion – is anyone over-promoted, such as being the first subject of every sentence?
            • Note omission of thanks;
            • Note whether thanks is public to give honor – note BCC: email may not be trustworthy as “public;”
            • Note when giving thanks or credit if major players are omitted, focusing on non-competitors only;
            • Accomplishments – are these accomplishments simply by virtue of knowing someone and being there, i.e. what did the person actually do?
            • Make a list of actual accomplishments – evaluate for originality, practicality, and effectiveness;
            • For legislation, do they admit the original source of the idea or any support?
            • For lawsuits, do they share information on the proceedings and who is involved?
            • Is the resume based on paying contractors to do work and on expensive services, rather than work by the group?
        • Who does the organization or personality dismiss, attack, or critique, and is this justified?
            • If an individual is described as “angry” or otherwise emotional – is the individual in the loop to explain or reply?
              • Why is the individual “angry” or emotional? Is there a good reason?
            • If targeting the competence or work of another – is there a well-explained basis or is this just a prejudicial statement?
            • How does the organization, personality, or industry benefit from the attack?
            • How does the targeting impact the cause?
            • Does the personality or organization effectively isolate or break apart community and collaboration?
            • Is there any benefit to this behavior and to whom or what?
        • Deflecting Criticism:
          • Has the group deflected criticism through money, such as via (a) sales agreements, (b) offering jobs or well-paid bonuses, or (c) by virtue of access to expensive material goods or services?
          • Has the group deflected criticism by virtue of having many connections, or at least saying so?
          • Does the resume show marketing rather than substance?
        • Check reputation:
          • If a nonprofit, use these resources to check:
            • CharityNavigator dot org
            • Guidestar dot org
            • Give dot org (Take reviews with a grain of salt)
            • CharityCheck101 dot org (Not every organization will be listed, such as Last Tree Laws which is politically organized and not a nonprofit)
          • For any group, check connections via:
            • SourceWatch dot org (Background information on organizations such as ties to industry)
            • Check history of board members,
            • Check history of administrative teams,
            • Check primary donors,
            • Check affiliations,
            • Check product sales and licensing agreements (the latter is possible in big organizations),
            • Check openness or direct honesty regarding sales and affiliations,
        • If the organization appears to be doing little, can you contact the organization for information, assistance or advice? Is the organization paid to do its work? Is the organization underfunded and understaffed?

Just a few more random thoughts:

In the UK, a user-led disability services group was out-competed by big charities for contracts, which then asked the user-led group to do the work for ‘small pots of money.’ In the USA, addiction treatment centers often fail since treatment is too short, yet failure doesn’t hurt business and so some see relapse as profit. Just as we ask for representation of all kinds of people in jobs and on committees deciding public policy, I believe we need to do more to get people with disabilities in leadership roles providing disability services and so forth — what happened in the UK is patronizing and enriches a few at the expense of the many.

Also, Bill Gates is overrated and is also profiting off his ‘nonprofit’ foundation. The Bill Gates Foundation has been critiqued for supporting his child’s school and his stocks in pharma, education, and GMOs. While I can understand someone lacking money might use a nonprofit to raise money for his or her child’s school, Bill Gates has more than enough to pay taxes.  For examples, see:

              • The Nation‘s “Bill Gates gives to the rich, including himself” March 17, 2020, by Tim Schwab
              • The book No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy by Linsey McGoey
              • Vox dot com “The Media loves the Gates Foundation. These experts are more skeptical” by Julia Belluz 2015 June 10
              • ChildrensHealthDefense dot org “The Brave New World of Bill Gates and Big Telecom” 8 May 2020 by Robert F. Kennedy and Dafna Tachover

Also, regulations on nonprofits are way too lax. The American Cancer Society pays its executives exorbitant amounts – 2 million plus for one executive alongside numerous six-figure salaries – while maintaining reliance on many volunteers. One letter to the editor, by Vernon Hill  in the Carteret News-Times on 3 December 2009, states his organization sent the ACS 900K over three years, covering 37K of costs and tightening expenses at ACS request, while the ACS spent 45% on salaries but wouldn’t even cover event T-shirts and, to top it off, culled 140 staff positions that year.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition has called for a boycott of the American Cancer Society (ACS) for taking big donations from Big Pharma, Big Telecommunications, and Big Chemical, and ignoring environmental pollution as a cause of cancer.  Yet, many people support the ACS offhand, without thinking twice because of name recognition.

In Massachusetts, Rep. Peter Durant has put forward bill H. 3708, “An Act Limiting the Compensation of Executives in Nonprofit Organizations.” He has the right idea but the limits proposed seem too low: he proposes for a nonprofit with a budget of $249,999 a maximum CEO salary of $49,719. If this were a part-time job, that would be more than adequate, but as a full-time job that is on the border of or not quite enough to support a family without a second income or government charity.

In sum, good work needs support, but abuse of the system and agent provocateurs needs to be identified and halted.

What’s with Agenda 21? UPDATED

 

What’s with Agenda 21?

by Kirstin Beatty – Updated 27 August 2021

 

I was curious what is with Agenda 21, tossed about as an evil by some, and examined complaints.

Honestly, my expectations were low. In the same way that governments state that continuing emissions at the current rate will lead to devastation yet continue enabling the same emissions, I expect similar, if less so, dissonant action from the United Nations.

First of all Agenda 21, now Agenda 30, is not mandatory or enforceable. Agenda 30 includes many laudable goals, such as recommendations to protect the rights of women and support environmental health for all.

Continuing with the positive, Agenda 30 seems to make some attempt to prevent big business from winning all contracts and owning everyone and everything. Small farmers, which have been decimated by the false promise of a green revolution and industrial agriculture, are to be protected from big business. Of course, protection may not exist in practice.

Secondly, the United Nations is an organization intended to share the thoughts of nations, or governments, rather than businesses. A one nation, one vote policy was intended to give even small, poor countries a say.

Isn’t discussion among nations helpful to preventing war? So, check, another positive.

Yet, in 2019, the United Nations made an accord with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to circumvent votes from each nation in favor of including business stakeholders in formulating decisions, as discussed in an article by Harris Gleckman on OpenDemocracy.net.

Ivan Wecke, in a recent article also posted at OpenDemocracy.net, discusses how the WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has promoted ‘stakeholder’ capitalism, intended to give corporations more power by setting aside democratic precepts of government so that corporations make decisions.

As with treaties and trade agreements, transnational corporations were welcomed to help craft the Agenda 30 vision, and Agenda 30 states that nations and ‘stakeholders’ (i.e. businesses) are to take apart in achieving the goals.

In other words, transnational businesses will have access to the U.N. plans most lack, and the time and wealth to ‘fix’ decisions with details against cheap solutions in favor of saleable investments. While U.N. plans are unenforceable, the plans are meant to guide countries and are influential.

To welcome transnational corporations into these discussions undermines the one nation vote policy and is a fundamental problem existing not only within the United Nations, but within U.S. local, state, and federal representative government, where businesses are often invited as ‘stakeholders’ into crafting laws and policies.

Even without being invited to help craft plans, transnational corporations can monopolize business opportunities and undermine competition. A more recent problem is that transnational corporations can frame the conversation and public attitudes towards these plans with technological propaganda and wealth. Advance notice of United Nation plans helps transnational companies revise, undermine, and outright oppose ideas shared by nation representatives.

With illusions created by wealth, transnational companies can sidestep real solutions and cause indirect harm, such was seen in the opioid crisis.

I haven’t read the entire document, but Agenda 30 emphasizes innovation, such as modern energy investments. Yet better, cheaper options may exist with older technology or with none at all. Yet, businesses are likely to argue otherwise due to conflicts of interest.

I’ve criticized the smart grid as costly and harmful for several years, but my criticisms have fallen on deaf ears in both business and government.

There is a positive statement advancing the concept of medicine for all, or of affordable medicine, which remains a dream in many countries, but nowhere does Agenda 30 address accountability for pharmaceutical companies regarding honest marketing and safer pharmaceuticals.

Covid-19 is a perfect example of how admirable goals can be circumvented. Vitamin C, D, antivirals, and any cheap treatment are not part of the conventional standard of care or of much consideration. Vaccines for all are being offered only at hefty prices and, with emergency authorization liability protections for indemnification through the U.S. PREP Act. Abroad, companies have refused to provide vaccines unless profits and indemnity are assured. In the USA, no payouts for any related adverse reactions have been made at all, despite 1,693 claims as of 2 August 2021. Any risk taken is a risk borne, apparently, only by the private consumer.

However, I can’t blame the United Nations alone, or transnational companies, for failing to consider pharmaceutical accountability. The United States has done little to halt conflicts of interests of government officers or to insure pharmaceutical accountability. The answer is to first set up laws in our own country to at least prevent conflicts of interests, such as the ballot measure proposed at Last Tree Laws.

As far as private property dispersal there is a vague statement that all should have equal access to ownership of property. Agenda 30 uses the words “access” to ownership, which suggests that the meaning is about preventing discrimination in ownership, such as the historic denial of home ownership to African Americans or in some countries to women and ethnic minorities.

Equal rights to economic resources is also discussed, which may involve rights to water as countries struggle over drought or rights to agricultural land for farmers. While a nice idea, this goal is likely to go ignored, especially since the United Nations cannot enforce any of  its recommendations. Israel and Palestine battle over land in a way that shows just how useful recommendations for sharing are heard.

The arguments against Agenda 30 based on giving away private property are specious.  If ‘property’ is ever shared freely by the wealthy, then it will be a cover for transferring liability or creating ‘sharecroppers’ of some kind.

As far as sharing wealth otherwise, Agenda 30 advocates for social protection measures and these, if business interests reign, may not necessarily equal high quality work, education, or housing. The idea is noble, but is for ‘coverage’ which, like insurance coverage, may come with conditions.

Presently, businesses are mandating medical treatment for Covid-19 — this sets a precedent to allow businesses to mandate any medical care for ‘societal good’ even if the concept of societal good can be manipulated and abused. At one time women were thrust tossed into mental hospitals on questionable psychological assessments, in order to limit their opinions or to acquire their property.

I also see a statement that private property cannot be an excuse to harm others through environmental devastation, with which I’m sure we can all agree. Do you want your neighbor or any business to be excused on the basis of personal property to place, on their property, a hazardous chemical dump next to your home?

In sum, the criticism of Agenda 30 across social media is largely about redistribution of private property, which is off base.

Is the criticism that Agenda 30 will mean loss of private property fabricated by corporate interests to divert attention from the positive goals of Agenda 30, including limits on corporate power, or to divert attention from the detrimental influence of business interests? The American Policy Center, at the forefront of Agenda 21 and UN criticism, has long campaigned against corporate regulation, including pharmaceuticals, and environmentalism under the guise of private property rights.

Criticism of Agenda 30 is also part of a campaign against the United Nations. Check the news, and you’ll see that there is a campaign against the United Nations as well – why, I’ve no idea. I may be against transnational companies participating, but not against the concept of the United Nations.

I see the criticism of Agenda 30 is often laced with the words communism and socialism. This seems like a trick to get people to automatically react badly to the words communism and socialism, when people should be able to discuss economic ideas calmly.

Socialism has been successful in cooperatively-owned businesses. In socialism, the means of producing or distributing goods is owned collectively, such as work cooperatives like Real Pickles. Socialism can also mean when the government owns the means of producing and distributing goods as exemplified in part by Medicare and Social Security. The U.S. military has been held up as a partly socialist system.

Socialism does not appear to be discussed in Agenda 30, and cooperatives are mentioned only as a business entity like any other — not with any preference.

There isn’t a country that is fully socialist, but several have adopted some socialist programs or policies. Denmark and Costa Rica seem to have done well with high taxes and universal health care as the National Geographic ran an article some years ago on how Denmark and Costa Rica have among the happiest people in the world.

There is not mention in Agenda 30 of providing universal health care, although universal coverage appears mentioned as part of ‘social protection’ — coverage comes with many more conditions than anything universally applied. Restructuring taxation is not mentioned either, except to restructure energy subsidies away from fossil fuels.

In contrast to socialism, communism has failed in many countries. Communism occurs when the community provides funds to the government for equal redistribution, but in practice governments have pocketed the money. Some have observed that communism could work on a small scale, such as within a tribal community.

The ideal of communism is nice, and deserves less hate.

Communism is often used as an insult because of its association with authoritarian governments but also, probably, since communism frightens the wealthy. At one time just being accused of being a communist destroyed careers of people who were not even communist as part of the ‘Red Scare’ propaganda. To weaponize the word communist or any other academic idea is dangerous as it supports aggression, censorship and undermines free discussion.

Associating Agenda 21 or 30 with communism is pushing it. The United Nations, full of capitalistic and some wealthy nations, is not going to become communist or, if so, not easily.

The use of communism and socialism as marketing campaign insult to Agenda 30 may be a marketing trick to create division and shut down discourse. Agenda 30 doesn’t, so far as I can see, have anything at all to do with socialism or communism. The criticism, if it is even a criticism, is way off base. I would say that is a marketing trick. If only criticisms exist of Agenda 30 as communism or socialism, which does not exist in the proposal so far as I can see, then critics must be dismissed and Agenda 30 must be a good thing. I would say the public is being misused to attack Agenda 30 on the wrong and imaginary basis, rather than on any real basis, and I wonder if leading critics are paid for by some party intent on sowing division and prejudices in the United States.

Or, I wonder if the criticism is simply to divert attention from more important avenues for change.

Divide & Co-Opt

 

 

Divide & Co-Opt: $hit

By Kirstin Beatty

 

On every issue, there are powerful forces united against change. The liability or potential financial collapse of  any business sector means that there are both personal (investments, job) and corporate interests in continuing the status quo, and so both individuals and corporations have an interest in undermining regulations and legal action, and in promoting half-baked solutions.

I believe it is worthwhile to examine strategies to divide and rule, which may include:

    • relying on deep pockets and media to drown out other voices
    • promoting legislation or actions that distract or accomplish nothing or, worse, cause harm
    • lobbying for ideas and bills which drown out better options
    • encouraging wasteful spending, leaving little for useful purchase
    • undermining funds, communications, and support for industry opponents
    • capturing all data and communications so as to identify opposition and potential problems
    • preventing alliances that could challenge the propaganda
    • generating propaganda, mixing truths with lies to confuse
    • paying for technology or actors to pretend popular support exists for the industry action
    • promoting half-measures which fail to address the systemic problem and thus protect financial interests
    • relying on industry-funded consultants and experts to undermine grassroots opposition by using the authority of their position and elitism
    • building loyalty to industry-preferred leaders through media, funding, professionalism, favors, etc.
      • In other words, the fully-funded industry-preferred leader is able to provide favors, gifts, salaries, and professional materials, etc., which impress the community even when the goals are misdirected and the favors far cheaper than sincere action
    • co-opting movements, promoting only those willing to cooperate with a misdirection or a false leader
    • using industry-planted leaders or tools to:
      • demand fealty and obedience to terrible ideas as a matter of ‘personal’ loyalty
      • demand an end to questions and criticism as a matter of ‘personal’ or ‘tribal’ loyalty
      • eliminate deep discussion & preventing contacts among various advocates
      • provide different directions to people who expect and know more versus to those who know little
      • capture communications and people to identify targets and grassroots plans
      • sow distrust, hate, and drama to undermine unity

The biggest threat is outsize influence through outsize wealth. There needn’t be any planning at all for a single wealthy person to co-opt or destroy a movement, since wealth easily drowns out other ideas.

A wealthy person can easily smear anyone, as Juan Cole suggests with his GoogleSmear article. Wealth can easily manipulate trending articles and social expression through fake accounts, identify theft, paid influencers, and online harassment as evidenced in 2018 by Mexican political parties. Corporations are also using deceptive practices – propaganda. Marketing campaigns, press, bots, and trolls are paid, not volunteers.

The influence of wealth may be hard to recognize. Bill Gates was the driving force for school computers and the major funding source behind the Common Core.  Whether or not you like school computers or the Core, this outsize influence is fundamentally undemocratic and bypasses parents and teachers except under the artifice of details, rather than the larger picture. Gates’ foundation has come under criticism as well for promoting corporate globalization in health and agriculture.

Stories making the news today show that corporations are willing to pay to undermine the voice of the People, not only with bots.  The following stories are factual and should be taken as a reminder to learn from history and the recent past.

Examples where industry was caught causing trouble include (1) faking emails from citizens to the government; (2) using actors to load town meetings; (3) spying on local groups, such as PG&E spying in California; (4) paying for fake science and testimony (5) paying for fake independent news, smear campaigns, and disinformation (wireless, climate, Covid19, pesticides, autism, benzene, etc.) – marketing campaigns undermine what is fair in democracy by favoring wealthy interests & astroturfing.

Soon well-funded, realistic telephone AI may fake being local voters speaking on behalf of business interests.

Troublesome nonprofits may also be fronts for wealthy contributor and have fake membership, like Massachusetts Parents United as identified by Maurice Cunningham. Cunningham critiques Boston papers for failing to vet claims and funders.

Media fails to call out industry sponsorship or public relations ‘news’ while allowing targeting and baseless, bizarre, one-sided attacks – such as a NY Times article insulting science on wireless dangers as a propaganda tool of the Russians, coincidentally when a major Times stockholder holds a major telecommunication company and is considered ruthless, a criminal. Billionaires rule.

Shaming of questions and criticism prevents building local community, shared goals, and political movements, and impairs advocacy and corporate regulation. Such insults foster lies and fake conspiracies, shielding corporations from deep investigations of real conspiracies.

In closing, please see the home page for some recommended actions.

 

Strong Stands Make a Difference

SUPPORTING STRONG STANDS FOR THE PEOPLE  AND EVERYONE

By Kirstin Beatty

Updated 21 July 2021, 6 April 2022

 

Note: The article originally here has been moved and can be found here.

As advocates for safer electronics and communications, we need strong stands supported and led by the grassroots. When you examine the civil rights movement, there wasn’t talk among the African-American community of letting the legislators form a commission to discuss how to dole out civil rights. The civil rights movement went ahead and said we want decent health care, transportation, and housing – equal treatment.

Just recently I put several amendments together as it is a last ditch effort this session to see if hard-wiring might get support.

I was on the phone with a sensitive friend who promised to call her legislator. I later asked how it went and she said she just had too much to do taking care of her family and avoiding wifi. Another said she was going to change things basically through meditation and spirituality. Now, lots of people I have no idea what they do and others even donate or say thank you. But when I hear this from just 2 people who I know can take action, I feel betrayed. Politics is personal.

Substantive change can come through the courts or legislative action, and neither is certain.

The courts are just as afraid as legislators to take action, and for this reason, we must take a radically strong stand. We must ask and make demands.

I know sometimes we are sick and simply can’t do what needs to be done. But when we can, we should be able to make a sacrifice and take a strong stand.

Asking for a commission to study the issue is not a strong stand.

Asking for an opt out of smart meters is not a strong stand.

We can make small requests such as opt outs. (the commission bill needs revision). Compromise still is a way of moving the dial.

However,  we can’t just ask for compromise. We can’t just ask to fix one detail, smart meters, and be railroaded by 5G antennas outside our windows or a block of smart meters on our wall.

We need to make a strong stand and ask for much more, and when there is an opening, take that opening. The amendments are an opening, but only if legislators are convinced of the issue’s importance.

The bills I prepared for 2021-2020, this session, included hard-wiring schools, hospitals, public buildings, requiring insurance for cell towers, etc. The amendments I managed to write are for hard wiring, basically, and fixing the proposed commission.

The reason I wrote those bills and amendments is because I knew it is very hard for legislators and their staff to find the time, plus the time to understand what we need.  Many legislators simply lack staff and time, and staff complain of being overwhelmed and underpaid. For this reason, I suggested trying to meet the legislator in person to discuss the issue, as it might otherwise be lost in emails.

Preparing the bills and amendments was time consuming. I had to read slowly through the General Laws, which will change again next year. Because of changes, I would have to rewrite these for next year.  I don’t know if I can do keep doing this as a volunteer with health problems.

In 2021, after sending out a quick note about the legislative bills, I received a mass email asking I get sponsors for other bills, in other words excluding mine, for bills such as H. 115  to ‘best’ continue using wireless. I’d spoken with the sponsor, Representative Dykema, and she’d said point blank that she would only support a bill to continue using wireless. I cannot fathom why my bill to hard wire was not included and instead a bill to continue wireless was.

Do people even read these bills?

People need to read these bills, clearly, and read the legislative analysis on this website and through the Last Tree Laws email lists.

I should be getting a lot of support. The amendments and bills I suggested are truly common sense ideas. Moreover, we may not have another chance for some time to pass a bill or win a court battle.

If you can, please call your legislator and ask them to support the amendments and why. Secondly, please ask them to give me a call.

Here are the amendments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Tree Laws Massachusetts