Volume 34.2, March / April 2010

The most extensive study of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne’s predictions about missing persons and murder cases reveals a strange discrepancy: despite her repeated claim to be more than 85 percent correct, it seems that Browne has not even been mostly correct about a single case.

One difficulty in judging the accuracy of psychics is the vagueness of their readings, which are often so general that they are worthless. Psychics who offer readings about missing persons and murder cases, however, allow researchers to examine their accuracy with independent information. When Sylvia Browne was a weekly guest on The Montel Williams Show, she performed supposed feats ranging from ghost detecting to offering details about missing persons and murder cases. Among the things Browne failed to predict was the availability of those transcripts on the Internet through databases such as LexisNexis. The authors, as well as several members of the James Randi Educational Foundation forum and StopSylvia.com, closely examined each transcript to track Browne’s accuracy. According to Browne, “my accuracy rate is somewhere between 87 and 90 percent, if I’m recalling correctly.” This article disputes that statistic by examining the criminal cases for which Browne has performed readings. The research demonstrates that in 115 cases (all of the available readings), Browne’s confirmable accuracy was 0 percent.

This article is structured in terms of known and unknown outcomes. The criteria for a correct prediction is that it mostly matches a case referenced in a newspaper, and the criteria for a wrong prediction is that Browne’s claim is the opposite of what actually occurred. The metric for the final accuracy count is based on what is correct compared to the unknown or wrong claims. As this article shows, in the 115 available cases Browne was correct zero times and wrong twenty-five times. Ninety out of the 115 cases have unknown outcomes. A previous examination of thirty-five cases Browne made predictions about was published in Brill’s Content. The magazine concluded: “In twenty-one, the details were too vague to be verified. Of the remaining fourteen, law-enforcement officials or family members involved in the investigations say that Browne had played no useful role.” This article greatly expands the scope of the Brill’s Content article by looking at Browne’s comments to the press and on television about missing persons and criminal cases. No case was excluded. We have listed each case Browne made predictions about as well as provided a reference or broadcast date. When we began to research this, we expected Browne to have been correct at least a few times, but as the list demonstrates, she was not. The references show that the only cases in which Browne was not proven wrong are those that remain unsolved.

Of the 115 cases reviewed with LexisNexis and newspaper sources, Browne was wrong in twenty-five, and the remaining ninety either have no available details outside of the transcript or the crime is unsolved, leaving no way to confirm Browne’s claims. The following data is organized as a list to allow the reader to conduct independent research. One should keep in mind that Browne claims to be at the top of her game. In June 2009, Browne told Seattle Weekly about her psychic ability: “I think you get better, like anything else you get better with time.” The authors welcome Browne to supply independent proof of even one case about which she was correct.

Browne’s predictions have a history of being wrong or unhelpful. In the course of this research, we examined a variety of sources to study Browne’s involvement with law enforcement. Browne was sometimes paid by families of the victims, charged at least one police department $400, and received money as well as publicity from her appearances on television. She is a member of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and, as reported in 2004, earned a minimum of $847 for each talk show appearance. Yet in all these cases, Browne has never supplied independent proof that she has ever helped law enforcement. More than that, she is repeatedly wrong. During the Sago Mining Disaster, she claimed the miners were alive when they were actually dead. She also said Richard Kneebone was alive in Canada, but his decomposed body was discovered a few days later in California. More recently, she predicted that a 9/11 firefighter was alive, but his body was found in the World Trade Center rubble two weeks later.

Sometimes Browne is not only wrong but also tells suffering families horrible things. In 1999, Browne did a reading for Opal Jo Jennings’ grandmother, who wanted to know what happened to Jennings, a six-year-old abducted from her front yard in Texas. Browne told the grandmother, “She’s . . . not . . . dead. But what bothers me—now I’ve never heard of this before, but for some reason, she was taken and put into some kind of a slavery thing and taken into Japan. The place is Kukouro. Or Kukoura.” Browne was wrong. Child molester Richard Lee Franks was charged with the kidnapping that same year and convicted the following year. Jennings’ remains were discovered in 2003. Medical examiners concluded that “Opal was killed by trauma to the head with[in] several hours of her abduction.”

Missing person Holly Krewson was a similar case, one in which Browne needlessly tainted the memories of a family’s loved one on national television. In 2002, Browne told Holly’s mother, “She is in Los Angeles, and when she was calling you, she was on drugs. But she’s still alive.” Browne also said that the girl was a dancer in an “adult entertainment nightclub,” and “you might get a Christmas card postmarked Los Angeles.” Holly’s family made regular visits to the Los Angeles area, scanning the clubs for their missing loved one, but to no avail. Holly’s mother, Gwendolyn Krewson, died of an aneurysm in 2003. Three years later, Holly’s body was identified. As it turned out, Holly was murdered, and her body was discovered in 1996. The remains were only identified as Holly in 2006, after sitting in the medical examiners office for ten years. Needless to say, Browne was completely wrong in every aspect of the case and hurt an already devastated family.

In a 2006 appearance on Montel, Browne did a reading about Robert Hayes, who was serving in the Army National Guard when he was killed at an ATM. Browne told Hayes’s crying fiancée that he met a man at a casino who “took Hayes,” then robbed him to get the casino winnings. The police later found that although Hayes told his fiancée he was going to a casino, he actually went to meet another woman, and there are no reports in the press about him being at a casino. In fact, Hayes was the victim of a conspiracy by four people, including a local beauty queen, who lured Hayes to meet her so they could rob him. Browne said Hayes was shot three times “in the head, chest, and over to the side,” to which the fiancée replied, “I didn’t know he was shot in the head. The police never said that.” The fiancée then added, “The police said he got shot in the hand.” When asked if the case would be solved, Browne said, “Yeah, but it’s gonna take them at least a good two years.” However, the police announced they arrested four people in connection with the murder on April 11, 2006. The first airing of Browne’s predictions occurred on April 26, 2006. Browne was wrong about who did it, the conspiracy, where he was shot, who was involved, and when the case would be solved. By October 2007, three of the suspects pled guilty and were sentenced for Hayes’s murder. The Montel Williams Show and other media outlets have been silent about this and other cases. In fact, a full transcript of this show no longer exists on LexisNexis; instead, there is only a brief summary that excludes the aforementioned details. The authors had to seek the transcript and video by other means to include the details in this article.

Browne’s failures are too extensive to explore in detail here, and more famous ones, such as the Shawn Hornbeck case, have been explored in this magazine before. For the sake of brevity, we have compiled a list of names of people Browne has performed readings about. Some of the cases marked “unknown” were already de facto solved by law enforcement. They know who most likely committed the crimes, but the suspects were never brought to justice and the cases went “cold,” so they are still officially unsolved and open. In other cases, Browne was consulted to confirm the families’ suspicions, determine how to bring the likely perpetrator to justice, or provide more information. This makes her predictions even less impressive, as she is “solving” exhausted cases that the police have already in large part solved and about which she can say almost anything, since any new developments are highly unlikely. On the other hand, some are official accidents and suicides that the families feared were actually murders.

Among the many harmful things that Browne does is convince the loved ones of victims of untimely deaths that foul play was involved and, conversely, convince the loved ones of murder victims that no foul play was involved. However, if the families are correct in their suspicions and these are actual murders, the last thing they need is a psychic involved in the case.

Conclusion

These 115 cases prove devastating to Browne’s claims of helping police and families. It is hard to understand how someone with such a dismal record continually tops bestseller lists and maintains a following. In a 2000 interview, Browne explained it best: “I’ve always said to so many people you’re only as good as your last reading. If you’re not good, if you’re not accurate, if you don’t find missing people and you don’t work with doctors and do health diagnosis with them then you’re, you know, you’re not good.” Indeed, we agree on that point. Judging from Browne’s lack of accuracy, it seems safe to conclude that, in her own words, she is “not good.” If she could really help police, then one would expect a statistically significant number of cases to be solved using Browne’s “predictions.” The only question that remains is why people continually support and seek her advice.

Cases Sylvia Browne Was Wrong About

List of cases Sylvia Browne made predictions about. The names are given in alphabetical order with brief descriptions of Browne’s predictions and the facts of the case.

1. Erica Baker. November 19, 2003, on Montel. Browne told Erica’s mother “she’s not dead” but in Michigan. Furthermore, Browne claimed someone “sold her for drugs,” and “there was a black woman” who helped “throw” her in an “old truck.” In 2005, Chris­tian John Gabriel was convicted of moving and concealing Erica’s body in Kettering, Ohio. Her body was not found, but Gabriel claimed to have buried it after hitting her with his “van.”¹
2. Jamie Barker. In February 2001 on Montel. Two months after Barker fell from a bridge while working, Browne told his widow he died “quick” and his body is “on the site, there’s no doubt about it,” but they won’t find it “unless they dig and I don’t think they will.”² Two months later Barker’s body was discovered downstream in LaSalle. An autopsy discovered he “suffered no broken bones or head injuries in the 15-storey fall,” but instead drowned.³
3. Eve Brown. September 30, 1999, on Montel. Browne told the family “that Eve Brown is well and living in Florida.”⁴ This was not true, as Eve’s body was found a year later at a Brooklyn, New York, construction site thirteen miles from where she was last seen.⁵ The murder remains unsolved.
4. Terrence Farrell. Browne told a woman that Farrell, a firefighter involved in 9/11, was alive.⁶ She was wrong. His body was found in the rubble one month later.⁷
5. Erica Fraysure. September 24, 1998, on Montel. Erica went missing in 1997. Browne did a reading for her mother, saying she was in water and someone named “Chris” killed her. The following day, Erica’s ex-boyfriend, Chris Mineer, killed himself. Police said Chris’s alibi checked out, and he was not a suspect. Chris’s mother sued Montel Williams, his producers, Paramount Pictures, and Viacom Inc., but the case was eventually dismissed. After the broadcast, the police searched the nearby lakes and found nothing. Police say Erica is still a “missing person” and continue to investigate.⁸
6. Robert Hayes. April 26, 2006, on Montel. (See description in this article.)
7. Shawn Hornbeck. February 26, 2003, on Montel. Browne told Shawn’s parents he was dead, but he was found alive in 2007.⁹
8. Sharon James’s son. Discussed January 19, 2007, on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360. Browne claimed she located James’s son, but James was not so positive and would not have used Browne’s service in hindsight.
9. Opal Jo Jennings. April 29, 1999, on Montel. (See description in this article.)
10. Ryan Katcher. February 11, 2004, on Montel. Katcher went missing and Browne told his mother “two boys got terribly frightened” then “dropped him” in “a metal shaft of some kind.” Browne further said he is “still in the shaft” “close to twenty-five, twenty-six, maybe twenty-seven miles from where you would be.” On July 25, 2006, police found Ryan in his truck under water in a pond, and an autopsy showed he was under the influence. According to a discussion with Ryan’s mother on StopSylvia.com, Browne got more details wrong, but those parts were edited before the broadcast.
11. Richard Kneebone. According to Teresa Kneebone, Browne “said she feels he’s not dead and that he could be traveling in Canada . . . and have partial amnesia.”¹⁰ His “badly decomposed body” was found July 7 a “few blocks” from the tavern where he was last seen in San Jose, California.¹¹
12. Holly Krewson. November 27, 2002, on Montel. (See description in this article.)
13. Angie Lee. March 28, 2007, on Montel. Browne told Angie’s mother, “It’s a serial killer” who killed a college girl that was responsible for Angie’s stabbing death and “there’s a knife somewhere in that immediate location that may have DNA, may have some sort of evidence on it.” In 2008, Anthony Ashby pleaded guilty to her murder, and the motive for the crime was “home invasion and residential burglary.” Furthermore, a knife was not part of the evidence. DNA evidence from Ashby’s gun and witnesses caused him to plead guilty.¹² The law enforcement involved remarked, “The psychics did not provide any substantive leads.”¹³
14. Chandra Levy. July 17, 2001, on Fox News. Browne said Levy’s body was in “some trees down in a marshy area.” She made this prediction when it was public knowledge that police were searching Rock Creek Park since someone used Chandra Levy’s computer to find directions to that park.¹⁴ Benjamin Radford noted, “The remains were found across a steep incline in a heavily wooded area—perhaps near some trees but clearly not ‘in a marshy area,’ since a marsh located on an incline is geographically impossible.”¹⁵
15. Lynda McClelland. March 13, 2002, on Montel. Browne said McClelland “is not dead” but in Orlando, Florida, taken by a man with the initials “MJ,” and her family would find her soon. One year later, in March 2003, McClelland’s body was discovered near her home in Pennsylvania. David Repasky was convicted of the murder after witnesses testified Repasky strangled her.¹⁶
16. Ashley Ouellette. In February 2000 on Montel. According to the Associated Press, “Browne said Ouellette’s killing will be solved within a year and two months.”¹⁷ According to the Scar­borough Police Department, the crime is still unsolved.¹⁸
17. Lori Pleasants. September 10, 2003, on Montel. Browne said Pleasants was “killed by a stalker” who got “kicks out of that,” but there was “not necessarily DNA” at the scene and “he was wearing gloves.” In 2006, William Gutersloh, Pleasants’s friend, admitted to killing Pleasants after the police found DNA that linked to him.¹⁹ While on the stand, he told jurors he wiped the knife clean to avoid leaving fingerprints.²⁰
18. Scott Renquin, Dan Nelson, and Roger DesVergnes. March 1999 on Montel. According to the Associated Press, Browne “told the families their loved ones had died in a boating accident near the Everglades in a hovercraft. She gave them the name of a man who allegedly owned the boat.”²¹ Police followed Browne’s leads and found nothing. Later, their bodies were discovered in their SUV in a drainage retention pond. Authorities believe they missed a sharp turn at the unlighted corner and their car flipped into the water.²²
19. Weyman Robbins. May 7, 2003, on Montel. On Robbins’s murder Browne said, “This was other kids. They were playing this stupid game.” She further claimed, “There were two or three other kids that did it,” but “I don’t think the kids meant to” and “one of the—the kids is named Danny.” Weyman’s uncle strangled him in front of his sisters and was convicted of murder.
20. Sago Mining Disaster. Browne first said she knew the miners would be found alive. During the live radio broadcast she appeared on it was announced all except one were dead.^23,24 After the announcement, she later said, “I don’t think there’s anybody alive, maybe one.”
21. Dana Satterfield. February 1997 on Montel. Browne said the murderer was an out-of-state construction worker that “has no connection to Satterfield, choosing her on a whim.”²⁵ Nine years later, Jonothan Vick was convicted of the murder following witness and DNA evidence. Vick was a local high school student who attempted to go on dates with Satterfield, but she rejected his advances.²⁶
22. Shannon Sherrill. November 19, 2003, on Montel. Browne claims Sherrill, who went missing in 1986, was “brainwashed and raised in a different family” but “is alive,” and the case will “break open” soon. As of 2009, Sherrill’s whereabouts are unknown and the case is unsolved.
23. John Slayton. May 14, 2003, on Montel. Browne said “indigents” killed Slayton, and his body was disposed in water and would not be found. In June 2003, Slayton’s body was found in shallow grave. In 2006, his killers, a pawnbroker and his son, were found guilty of the murder.²⁷
24. Richard Torres. October 20, 2004, on Montel. Browne told Torres’s widow that she would have a healthy baby boy. The June 28, 2005, update on Montel reported the baby was a girl and died five months premature. However, the segment omitted Browne making any prediction about the pregnancy.
25. Terry Webb. October 20, 1997, on Montel. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “His daughters said Browne told them she believes he was killed six months after he disappeared and that his body is buried somewhere at Fort Bragg.”²⁸ At the time of the reading, Webb had been listed as AWOL and was missing since 1991. In 2004, his body was eventually found buried “under a shed in Fayetteville.”²⁹ In 2006, the suspect pled guilty, saying “he shot Webb in self-defense when he sexually assaulted him” and was given three years in prison.³⁰ After the arrest, Montel did a follow-up on September 15, 2004, but the segment omitted Browne giving any specifics, including the location of Webb’s body.

Cases Sylvia Browne Made Predictions About That Have Non-confirmed Outcomes

Cases Sylvia Browne Made Predictions About That Have Non-confirmed Outcomes

1. Manuel Archambault. May 5, 2004, on Montel.
2. Crystal Arensdorf. April 2002 on Montel.
3. John Baglier. January 10, 1997, on Montel.
4. Michael Berrios. September 14, 2005, on Montel.
5. Amanda Berry. November 17, 2004, on Montel.
6. Johnia Berry. May 21, 2008, on Montel.
7. Molly Bish. September 17, 2003, on Montel.
8. Acacia Bishop. February 11, 2004, on Montel.
9. Jackie Blair. On Montel.³¹
10. Lori Bova. On Montel.³²
11. Kevin Brown. November 20, 2002, on Montel.
12. Charles Rhodes Campbell. February 19, 2003, on Montel.
13. Jose Concepcion. November 19, 2003, on Montel.
14. Rachel Cooke. February 26, 2003, on Montel.
15. Nicholle Marie Coppler. November 27, 2002, on Montel.
16. Joshua Wayne Crawford. September 14, 2006, on Montel.
17. Jerry Cushey Jr. On Montel.³³
18. Alexandra Ducsay. October 11, 2006, on Montel.
19. Michael Emert. February 18, 2004, on Montel.
20. Jill Lyn Euto. In July 2002 on Montel.
21. Miranda Fenner. Feburary 22, 2006, on Montel.
22. Anwa Abb Ford. May 4, 2005, on Montel.
23. Frank Forte Jr. September 6, 2006, on Montel.
24. Ashley Freeman and Laura Bible. November 5, 2002, on Montel.
25. Cecilia Garcia.³⁴
26. Joshua Guimond. February 11, 2004, on Montel.
27. James Harris. In September 2003 on Montel.
28. Sherri Hassett. May 14, 2003, on Montel.
29. Jason Henderson. September 17, 2003, on Montel.
30. Adrienne Heredia. In September 2006 on Montel.
31. Audrey May Herron. September 17, 2003, on Montel.
32. John Valentine Hope. May 30, 2007, on Montel.
33. Hunter Horgan. Browne was paid $400 by police for a half-hour reading about Horgan’s murder.³⁵
34. Girly Chew Hossencofft. Browne said her body was in mineshaft.³⁶
35. Patrick and Katelynn Hubbard. May 12, 2004, on Montel.
36. Wendy Hudakoc. May 8, 2002, on Montel.
37. Dustin Ivey. February 16, 2005, on Montel.
38. George Erik James. October 19, 2006, on Montel.
39. Sharon Jones. February 26, 2003, on Montel.
40. Douglas Jones. February 28, 2007, on Montel.
41. Steven Kraft. November 5, 2002, on Montel.
42. Donnie Kilby. October 29, 2003, on Montel.
43. Kristine Kupka. On Montel. Her sister discussed her appearance with Browne on ABC’s 20/20, hosted by John Stossel, on March 22, 2004.
44. The Langstons. October 21, 2002, on Montel.
45. Amanda Lankey. February 8, 2006, on Montel.
46. Kristin Laurite. November 20, 2001, on Montel.
47. Taurean Lewis, Terry Canty Jr., and Anthony Collins. October 20, 2004, on Montel.
48. Brookley Louks September 27, 2002, on Montel.
49. Nancy MacDuckston. November 19, 2003, on Montel.
50. Christopher Mader. November 30, 2005, on Montel.
51. Gail Matthews and Tamara Berkheiser. November 9, 2005, on Montel.
52. Marin assault case. I spoke with the police who said Browne worked on the case and it remains unsolved.37
53. Frank Mazzella. October 2, 2002, on Montel.
54. Louise Melgoza Macias.³⁸
55. Tristan Meyers. February 11, 2004, on Montel.
56. Dena McCluskey. February 26, 2003, on Montel.
57. Niqui McCown. November 5, 2002, on Montel.
58. Salvatore Minichiello. May 25, 2005, on Montel.
59. Anitra Mulwee. April 30, 2003, on Montel.
60. Michael Negrete. February 26, 2005, on Montel.
61. Jacqueline Elaine Nix. February 9, 2005, on Montel.
62. Michelle O’Keefe. November 2, 2000, on Montel.
63. Janice Powers. Browne had an interview with the sheriff’s department.³⁹
64. Shamika Riley. July 6, 2005, on Montel.
65. Rochelle Robinson and Michael Johnston. July 13, 1994, on Montel.⁴⁰
66. Christopher Scarbell and C.J. Scarbell. September 10, 2003, on Montel.
67. Jan Scharf. September 17, 2003, on Montel.
68. Tina Sinclair. November 19, 2003, on Montel.
69. Jonathan Skaggs. July 6, 2005, on Montel.
70. Bryan Keith Smith.⁴¹
71. Erica Heather Smith. November 24, 2004, on Montel.
72. Tammie Smith. October 20, 2004, on Montel.
73. John South. November 27, 2002, on Montel.
74. Leah Tagliaferri. November 26, 2003, on Montel.
75. Ryan Thompson. March 13, 2002, on Montel.
76. Yvonne Torch. November 30, 2005, on Montel.
77. Tabitha Tuders. February 18, 2004, on Montel.
78. Max Uffelman. October 21, 2002, on Montel.
79. Anthony Urciuoli. January 31, 2002, on Montel.
80. Terressa Lynn Vanegas. March 21, 2007, on Montel.
81. Pat Viola. February 11, 2004, on Montel.
82. Leanna Warner. November 19, 2003, on Montel.
83. Elizabeth and Nicole Watkins. September 24, 2003, on Montel.
84. Lindsay Wells. February 26, 2003, on Montel.
85. Amber Wilde. In July 2000 on Montel.⁴²
86. Carrie Ann Williams. November 9, 2005, on Montel.
87. Gina Williams. November 5, 2002, on Montel.
88. Sherita Williams. September 15, 2004, on Montel.
89. Wayma White. April 30, 2003, on Montel.
90. Carol Wood. April 11, 1997, on The Sally Jesse Raphael Show.

Notes

1. Rob Modic, “Conviction doesn’t settle much in Erica Baker case,” Dayton Daily News, October 9, 2005.
2. Donald McArthur, “Barker’s body embedded in riverbed, psychic says,” Windsor Star, February 22, 2001.
3. Sarah Sacheli, “Safety rope failed,” Windsor Star, June 15, 2004.
4. Zachary Dowdy, “When all else fails, try a sixth sense,” Newsday, Octo­ber 6, 1999.
5. Al Baker, “Remains unearthed in Brooklyn are those of a missing woman,” New York Times, November 25, 2000.
6. “Terrorist attacks: Marrow donor ‘moved mountains,’” Newsday, Sep­tember 16, 2001.
7. “Firefighter survives in girl who received bone marrow,” Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2002.
8. Wendy Mitchell, “Erica Fraysure: Questions remain unanswered,” The Ledge-Independent, October 20, 2005.
9. Benjamin Radford, “Sylvia Browne’s biggest blunder,” SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, May/June 2007.
10. Jack Foley, “No clues in Hollister man’s disappearance,” San Jose Mercury News, July 6, 1990.
11. Jack Foley, “Body found in Hollister is identified; coroner says man died of broken neck, injuries to head,” San Jose Mercury News, July 11, 1990.
12. Maggie Borman, “Man pleads guilty, sentenced in Angela Lee murder,” The Telegraph, November 12, 2008.
13. Maggie Borman, “Man faces charges in Angela Lee slaying,” The Telegraph, April 27, 2007.
14. Joe Nickell, “Levy case a psychic failure,” Center for Inquiry, March 11, 2009.
15. Benjamin Radford, “Psychics wrong about Chandra Levy,” SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, November/December 2002.
16. Michael Fuoco, “N. Braddock man held in mother-in-law’s killing,” Post-Gazette, March 18, 2003.
17. “A year later, police call slaying ‘very solvable,’” Associated Press, February 7, 2000.
18. Susan Kimball, “Ashley Ouellette murder investigation ongoing,” WCSH-TV, February 9, 2009.
19. Owen Moritz, “DNA links cop’s son to old slay,” Daily News, October 10, 2006.
20. Shawna Morrison, “Trial in ’00 death begins in Radford,” The Roanoke Times, February 27, 2007.
21. Alison Fitzgerald, “Six months later, still no trace of missing Attleboro men,” Associated Press, April 10, 1999.
22. Paul Edward and Elisa Crouch, “A missed turn led to tragedy in Fla.,” Providence Journal-Bulletin, June 23, 1999.
23. Benjamin Radford, “Art Bell’s show broadcasts Sylvia Browne failure about mine tragedy,” SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, March/April 2006.
24. “TV psychic misses mark on miners,” Fox News, January 5, 2006.
25. Chase Squires, “Psychic predicts leads in murder; victim’s spouse seeks help on TV talk show,” Herald-Journal, February 15, 1997.
26. Rachael Leonard, “Vick gets life in prison,” Herald-Journal, December 1, 2006.
27. “Jefferson County pawnbroker gets life plus 20 years in murder of jeweler John Slayton,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 25, 2006.
28. Monica Haynes, “Psychic, local women appear on ‘Montel,’” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 20, 1997.
29. “Schofield soldier charged in murder,” Star Bulletin, April 29, 2004.
30. “Former soldier gets three years for ’91 NC killing,” WIS News, April 25, 2006.
31. Steve Hensley, “Mountain cold case—Jackie Blair—2000,” WKYT-TV, June 15, 2008.
32. “News at Five 5:00 PM NBC,” Global Broadcast Database, June 7, 2006.
33. “Still missing, 4 years later,” Valley Independent, October 15, 2005.
34. Eric Louie, “Police seek new leads in 2002 killing of Livermore woman,” Contra Costa Times, January 8, 2005. The paper reported: “family members are still hoping for some type of closure. They continue to pass out fliers. They had also . . . paid psychic Sylvia Browne $700 for help.”
35. John McMillan, “Psychic gives police clues into priest’s 1992 slaying,” The Advocate, September 14, 1997.
36. “You’ll find Girly’s body in mineshaft, psychic says,” Albuquerque Tribune, December 19, 2002.
37. Erik Ingram, “Psychic helps Marin cops in assault case,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 20, 1986.
38. Stacey Wiebe, “Killer still at large,” Merced Sun-Star, December 21, 2002. According to the article, the daughter paid for “expensive phone call” with Browne and later appeared on Crossing Over with John Edward.
39. “Psychic asked to help solve woman’s murder,” The Daily Oklahoman, February 27, 1998.
40. John Hubbell, “Families offer $15,000 reward in double slaying,” The News Tribune, July 14, 1994.
41. “Mom asks sheriff to listen to psychic,” Star-News, January 28, 1998.
42. “Family of missing woman turns to psychic for help,” Star Tribune, July 18, 2000.

Is Fascism closer than we think?

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism.

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media.

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security.

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected.

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

Note

1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963. Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001. Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999. de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995. Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996. Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001. Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999. Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001. Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam tristique dignissim ante, at sagittis diam vestibulum nec. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Nam tristique dignissim ante, at sagittis diam vestibulum nec. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam tristique dignissim ante, at sagittis diam vestibulum nec. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Nam tristique dignissim ante, at sagittis diam vestibulum nec. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.[one-third]The Madeleine McCann disappearance is one of the greatest frauds in recent memory. Her parents have continued the ruse that she was abducted from their holiday apartment in May 2007 so they can continue with their fraudulent schemes to raise money to search for Madeleine. The fact is that the only thing to search for is her corpse. Their British Government appointed spokesman and spin-doctor, Clarence Mitchell, let it slip during a question and answer session at the London School of Economics that Madeleine was dead. Hear his gaffe in this video on the Truth For Madeleine Channel.[/one-third]
[two-third last][/two-third]

The video (posted below) of dead 9/11 eyewitnesses and Spooked’s significant addendum of additional dead witnesses and whistle-blowers are both important for the 9/11 truth movement. Here I wish to emphasize that one overarching factor needs to be included. And I have some additional people that perhaps should be included in this list of those likely murdered.

The overarching factor that is missing from that video is that several of those witnesses may well have been murdered because of their knowledge that the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was nuclear. Barry Jennings, I have written, may well have witnessed fizzled nukes going off, with the need for replacements several hours later. Jennings related how firemen, or those dressed as such, told him not to even look at the dead bodies around him. Video of his accounting made by the Loose Change gang and Alex Jones has him stating that he “worked for the NYC Housing Authority for 33 years” as that video’s creators insert firetruck engine 33 going by.

The video also states that the firetruck of NYFD firefighter Salvatore Princiotta had strange damage and that Princiotta was later murdered. But his truck was Ladder 9, Engine 33. Years ago, I revealed that the official story is that Engine 33 was the first on the WTC scene. [The 33 being code for the PTB and nuclear matters.] And that numerous vehicles sustained damage that was most likely due to Electromagnetic Pulses (EMP). Other accounts state that firetrucks were tossed about during the “collapse” that may have been from the blast effect aspect of the small nukes. There were many surviving firemen. If Princiotta was singled out, the nuclear aspect could be the reason why.

Now the details of his murder are the following— and they may (or may not) be related to 9/11. Princiotta had moved to Arizona for the lung disease he suffered post-9/11. Allegedly he was murdered by someone who stole his coin and Elvis memorabilia collection, supposedly worth some $20,000. His alleged murderer, Jeffrey Lynn Bigham, 56, was subsequently tracked to California, and shot himself after running from, and being surrounded by, police. It is stated that Bigham met Princiotta at a Las Vegas Convention and befriended him, and then made frequent contact with him, with the goal of stealing his collectibles. So “simple” robbery” may be the motive here, or that may be the cover story. Most thieves do not make such elaborate long range plans, nor choose a tough firefighter type to rob and kill. I have been unable to find anything at all on his alleged murderer, Bigham, other that the accounts of the deaths of Princiotta and Bigham. So I do not know anything about Bigham, other than that he had homes in both California and Arizona, and allegedly shot Princiotta four times while stealing his memorabilia. Could the stolen valuables have included something else related to 9/11? Could Bigham have been eliminated to end the matter? Was he, at least partly a[n intel] patsy? Should Bigham’s name be added to the list?

Then the nuclear aspect of 9/11 certainly includes Kenny Johanneman. The video points out that his alleged suicide is likely bogus. He was a witness both to the sub-basement blast timed to coincide with the upper blast of the alleged plane crash into WTC1, and the melted, hanging skin of Felipe David. Johanneman stated that he assisted Felipe David out of the tower. Separately, “the Janitor” claims he carried out David. David’s own words are that he went out on his own. His own words also were that his skin melted off his body without any fire. It is most probable that Felipe David’s injuries resulted from the thermal rays of a small nuclear bomb. (Many Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors had similar melted, hanging skin.) But again I ask, where in the world is Felipe David? Are there any real reporters or journalists left in the world? Why is no one trying to track him down? Is he still alive, or should he too be added to the above list of dead (nuclear) 9/11 eyewitnesses??

Then we come to engineering graduate student, Michael Zebuhr. He was associated with Judy Wood, PhD, the creator of the DEW hangout. The murder of Zebuhr does look like a deliberate assassination. His murder was used by the Wood/DEW camp to claim that 9/11 perpetrators rubbed him out because he was trying to show that “DEW did it.” But I have amply demonstrated that the hangout of DEW was always a ludicrous, evidence-free “theory,” that was designed to subvert and pervert the evidence that the WTC destruction was nuclear, and that the China Syndrome resulted. And so the real reason for murdering Zebuhr is more likely to have been one or both of the following. He saw that there was nothing to the “DEW hypothesis,” and his analysis led to his planned proclamation that it was a nuclear destruction. The PTB take particular exception to those who “switch allegiances.” (Note the Pat Tillman assassination—most likely a deliberate, “friendly fire” event.) If he was at all close to Wood, Zebuhr may also have found evidence of her being an intel asset charged with putting out that hangout.

Perhaps the list of dead 9/11 eye-witnesses can be categorized into three groups–

1. Those who witnessed, and/or could prove that the destruction of the WTC was nuclear, and/or that the China Syndrome resulted.
2. Those who knew that no “commercial hijacked” planes impacted the Pentagon, and the WTC towers.
3. Those who could prove that the alleged 9/11 perpetrators, are a hangout and that the US regime did it, and/or that Al Qaeda is Al-CIA-duh.

I have stated that one reason the American Gestapo regime has claimed the power to torture and kill anyone, anywhere, is simply to eliminate those who could prove that “Al-Qaeda” is Al-CIA-duh. Many of those tortured and killed were likely on American or British intel agencies’ payrolls. The American regime has claimed the right to kill “Al-Qaeda” or “terrorists” anywhere in the world, at any time by any means. This is analogous (as I have pointed out here) to how the German Nazi regime killed its own intel agents (the SD, the intel wing of the Gestapo) that were involved in faking a Polish attack on a German radio station as the ruse to start WWII.

In this light of exposing the real nature of “Al-Qaeda,” perhaps former (and potentially future?) Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, should also be added to Spooked’s list? She had stated that despite perennial videos, Osama bin Laden was dead. She had indicated American Gov’t involvement in numerous matters, in tandem with the Pakistani regime that she had hoped to supplant. Her autobiography was released posthumously. In it, she wrote that Osama bin Laden’s son was trying to kill her. But we must realize that she was no longer alive to testify whether she really wrote what was published by a major British publishing house (MI 5/6).

Another aspect I wish to make known about this matter, is that several of these eyewitnesses were killed shortly after they were involved with certain videographers. As much of the 911 Truth movement indicates, many of the videographers cannot be trusted. They all seem to have their own agendas, hangouts and gatekeeping. Could the videographers be involved (as deep undercover intel assets) in the deaths of at least some of the witnesses? I have written that in all conspiracy matters (and well documented in the JFK matter), over 99% of “researchers” or truthers, especially the popular ones, are highly likely intel assets emplaced, in the words of Lenin, to “lead the [bogus, gatekeeping] opposition.”

The list of murdered eyewitnesses and whistle-blowers is probably larger than we realize, due to what happens behind the scenes. It is hoped that the above categorization will be useful, and that as with Nazi killers, no timetable ever limits their killers being brought to justice for murdering these eyewitnesses and whistle-blowers.

In particular, we must emphasize protection and publicity for any surviving eyewitnesses of the nuclear destruction of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath. This is one important function, I think, of this blog, as much else in “911 truth” self-vaporizes after serving its purpose.

Anonymous Physicist

anonymousphysicist.com

“Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.

Mead—whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud—recruited like-minded anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of man-caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development. Mead’s leading recruits at the 1975 conference were climate-scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren—all three of them disciples of malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb¹. Guided by luminaries like these, conference discussion focussed on the absurd choice of either feeding people or “saving the environment.”

Mead began organizing for her conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering,” shortly after she had attended the United Nations Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, in August 1974. She had already bullied American scientists with her malthusian view that people were imperiling the environment. She wrote in a 1974 Science magazine editorial that the Population Conference had settled this question:

At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment…. The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated².

The North Carolina conference, which took place Oct. 26-29, 1975, was co-sponsored by two agencies of the U.S. National Institutes of Health: the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (Mead had been a Scholar in Residence at the Fogarty Center in 1973.)

It was at this government-sponsored conference, 32 years ago, that virtually every scare scenario in today’s climate hoax took root. Scientists were charged with coming up with the

“science” to back up the scares, so that definitive action could be taken by policy-makers.

Global cooling—the coming of an ice age—had been in the headlines in the 1970s, but it could not easily be used to sell genocide by getting the citizens of industrial nations to cut back on consumption. Something more drastic and more personal was needed.

Eugenics and the Paradigm Shift

Mead’s population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of “conservation” and “environmentalism” in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain’s Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, “even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Anthropologist Margaret Mead gave global warming its start, as part of a movement to curb population growth. Here she poses at the Museum of Natural History in front of an Easter Island stone figure. Mead is famous for saying, “Instead of needing lots of children, we need high-quality children.” (Jack Manning/NY Times Pictures)

By the 1970s, the paradigm shift that obliterated the optimistic development policies of Franklin Roosevelt and of Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program, was in full swing. The Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, which removed the role of scientific advances, was drummed into the public consciousness. Nuclear energy, in particular, was under attack, because of its promise of virtually unlimited cheap energy to support a growing population. In the guise of protecting the world from potential terrorism, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibited developing countries from acquiring civilian nuclear technologies.

In the United States, where nuclear plant construction was poised for takeoff, the dream of a nuclear-powered economy was under ferocious attack from the top down. The real “Dr. Strangelove,” RAND nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, counseled U.S. Presidents on his strategy for winning a nuclear war, at the same time that he advocated an end to civilian nuclear energy. In one report after another, “experts” paid by the Ford Foundation, among others, argued that nuclear power was not economical, not safe, and just plain no good. Thus was scientific optimism ushered out.

The rock-sex-drugs counterculture of the ’68ers lapped it up. Man was seen as just another animal, but an exceedingly greedy one, using up Mother Nature’s resources and making a mess in the process. The unique cognitive ability of the human being, with its power to create new resources, to develop more advanced science and technology, and thus to provide better living standards was trashed³. Scientific pessimism invaded the scientific organizations.

Mead played a central role in this degeneration, from her obsession with spreading the “free love” message, to her participation in mind-control projects (the Cybernetics group at MIT) with her third husband, Gregory Bateson, intellectual author of the infamous MK-Ultra drug-brainwashing program.

The Endangered Atmosphere?

Mead’s keynote to the 1975 climate conference set the agenda: Mankind had advanced over the years to have international laws governing the sea and the land; now was the time for a “Law of the Atmosphere.” It was a naked solicitation of lying formulations to justify an end to human scientific and industrial progress.

Mead stated:

Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices—to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse throughout the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea—the whole planet may become endangered….

At this conference we are proposing that, before there is a corresponding attempt to develop a “law of the air,” the scientific community advise the United Nations (and individual, powerful nation states or aggregations of weaker states) and attempt to arrive at some overview of what is presently known about hazards to the atmosphere from man-made interventions, and how scientific knowledge coupled with intelligent social action can protect the peoples of the world from dangerous and preventable interference with the atmosphere upon which all life depends….

What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats [sic].

Paul Ehrlich, a 20th Century Malthus, author of the prophetically wrong book, The Population Bomb. Ehrlich’s ideology is shared by the leading global warming scientists who attended Mead’s 1975 conference. (EIRNS/Stuart Lewis)

Mead deplored the fact that some scientists might be so cautious to “protect their reputations” that they would not act. She described this as the “modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.” As for the thinking population, she deplored “those who react against prophets of doom, believing that there is not adequate scientific basis for their melancholy prophecies, [for they] tend to become in turn prophets of paradisaical impossibilities, guaranteed utopias of technological bliss, or benign interventions on behalf of mankind that are none the less irrational just because they are couched as ‘rational.’ They express a kind of faith in the built-in human instinct for survival, or a faith in some magical technological panacea.”

What Scientists Need To ‘Invent’

Here’s what Mead wanted the atmospheric scientists to do:

What we need to invent—as responsible scientists—are ways in which farsightedness can become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet. This, of course, poses a set of technical problems for social scientists, but they are helpless without a highly articulate and responsible expression of position on the part of natural scientists. Only if natural scientists can develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable) to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry.

…I have asked a group of atmospheric specialists to meet here to consider how the very real threats to humankind and life on this planet can be stated with crediblity and persuasiveness before the present society of nations begins to enact laws of the air, or plan for “international environmental impact statements.”

Throughout her presentation, Mead stressed the need for consensus, an end-product free from any troubling “internal scientific controversies” that might “blur the need for action.”

Mead and her co-organizer William W. Kellogg (a climate scientist from RAND and later NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research), edited a report on the proceedings of the conference into a little book published a year later⁴. (The Mead-Kellogg team also came up, in 1976, with the idea that carbon dioxide emissions should be controlled “by assigning polluting rights to each nation”⁵ —an early version of the cap-and-trade program of Al Gore.)

The conference proceedings identify the presenters and the rapporteurs for the sessions, but there is no list of all the participants. Some discord is reported in the audience (more than is “allowed” today in climate change circles!), and Margaret Mead steps in to push for “consensus.” The editors note in their initial comment on the proceedings, “…we believe that we have captured something very close to consensus.”

Mead’s Propagandist Scientists

A few of the 1975 conference presenters stand out today as leading spokesmen for global warming:

Three of Mead’s scientists who have preached global warming—and population control—since the 1975 conference. All have worked closely with Paul Ehrlich, who thinks the the U.S. population should be cut in half (not starting with his family and friends, of course). (IISD)

• Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, who was promoting the global cooling scare scenario in the 1970s, made himself notorious by telling Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.
  

  Stephen Schneider

  Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”⁶Schneider has been one of the most visible and voluble scientist-lobbyists for global warming, testifying to Congress, playing a prominent role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and setting the standards by which it presents its opinions to the public without any hint of uncertainty. At Stanford University he has trained new generations of climate scare clones. He is also a close friend of The Population Bomb’s Paul Ehrlich and wife, Anne Ehrlich, both at Stanford, whose anti-population philosophy he fully shares. He and Paul Ehrlich co-authored articles on the “limited carrying capacity” of the Earth, and challenged population advocate Julian Simon with a bet on how fast man would exhaust certain resources.
• John Holdren, another Ehrlich collaborator at Stanford, is now a Harvard-based energy specialist, and the president of the AAAS. Holdren has co-authored several articles and books with Paul Ehrlich, elaborating on their formula (I = PAT) that the impact of an increase in population and consumption (affluence), although modified by technology, is degrading the environment.
  

  John Holdren

  Therefore, population growth should stop. Their underlying assumption, like Mead’s, was that technology cannot solve the problems created by “limitless” population growth. (Ehrlich’s view, in fact, is that the United States can sustain only 150 million people; there are now 302 million of us.)In December 2006, Holdren shepherded a radical global warming resolution through the AAAS board of directors, which was announced at the organization’s annual meeting in February 2007, the first ever of such resolutions.⁷ Its conclusions, the AAAS stated, “reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change….” Holdren is one of a small group of anti-nuclear “nuclear experts” who push technological apartheid—the doctrine that poorer nations cannot be allowed to gain knowledge of nuclear science.

• Dr. George Woodwell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, is a global warming fanatic whose stated beliefs indicate that he abhors human beings in general, and whose zealousness in this cause leads him to bend the truth.
  

  George Woodwell

  Woodwell works closely with John Holdren at the Woods Hole Research Center, which Woodwell founded and of which Holden is a director.To get the flavor of Woodwell’s views: In a 1996 interview, he proclaimed: “We had an empty world that substantially ran itself as a biophysical system, and now that we have filled it up with people, and the sum of human endeavors which is large enough to affect global systems, it no longer works properly.”⁸ He attributes climatic changes and warming to “the crowding of people into virtually every corner of the Earth.” “How will his plan for a 50 percent cut in [carbon dioxide] emissions happen?” the interviewer asks. Woodwell says it will require “a concerted effort on the part of the scientific and scholarly community; the public will have to be sufficiently enraged….”He stresses that the scientific community is going to have to exert pressure on the government to act.Woodwell’s 1989 article on global warming in Scientific American was illustrated with a drawing that showed seawater lapping at the steps of the White House. Another example of his “bending” the truth: During the environmentalist campaign against DDT, Woodwell wrote a technical article for Science magazine in 1967 purporting to show that there were 13 pounds of DDT per acre of soil. He neglected to mention, however, that he measured the soil at the spot where the DDT spray trucks washed down! This detail came out in the official EPA hearings on DDT in 1972, but neither Woodwell nor Science magazine issued a retraction⁹.

• Dr. James Lovelock is best known as the inventor (in the 1970s) of the Gaia thesis, which views the Earth as a whole as a living biological being. Lovelock’s worry about global warming has led him to make dire predictions about what will happen: “Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” according to one of his scenarios¹⁰.
  

  James Lovelock, a global warmer alarmist, has advocated nuclear energy as a preventative measure, which has grieved his fellow greens. Behind him is a statue of Gaia, the Earth goddess for whom he named his theory of the Earth as a biological being.

  But unlike the three other scientists above, who attended the 1975 Mead conference, Lovelock has called for nuclear power to slow the disaster that he warns is coming. Again, unlike the three others, Lovelock sees mankind as a “resource” for the planet, its “heart and mind.”During the 1975 Mead conference, Lovelock occasionally pooh-poohed some of the more hysterical suggested disasters of man-made warming. In a discussion on ozone depletion, for example, Lovelock strongly criticized the National Academy of Sciences report of the coming danger of skin cancers from increased ultraviolet radiation. “To speak of ultraviolet radiation as analogous to nuclear radiation is most misleading,” he said.(During this discussion, the report of the proceedings says, Mead called for a “ ‘ceasefire’ in an attempt to avoid a premature polarization of the participants.” Referring to the uncertainty of potential effects, she stated, “The time interval required before we begin to see clear evidence of a particular man-made effect on the environment may be long compared to the time in which society has to act…. A decision by policymakers not to act in the absence of scientific information or expertise is itself a policy decision, and for scientists there is no possibility for inaction, except to stop being scientists.”)

‘Anticipating’ Global Warming

Mead’s co-editor of the proceedings, climatologist William Kellogg, notes that “the main purpose of this conference is to anticipate the call that will be made on scientists and leaders of government regarding the need to protect the atmospheric environment before these calls are made.”

Kellogg outlines the difficulties of computer modelling of climate change and man’s role because of the nonlinearities involved in climate, but he concludes that climate models “are really the only tools we have to determine such things.” He then states, “The important point to bear in mind is that mankind surely has already affected the climate of vast regions, and quite possibly of the entire earth, and that its ever escalating population and demand for energy and food will produce larger changes in the years ahead.”

Kellogg reviews the potential global warming disaster scenarios, which are actually what then became the scientific research agenda for the next 30 years. He himself had put forward arguments that the release of the energy necessary to support a “large, affluent world population could possibly warm up the earth excessively.”

The issues Kellogg laid out are all too familiar today: warming that will melt “the Arctic Ocean ice pack and the ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic.” “What will happen to the mean sea level and the coastal cities around the world?” Kellogg asks.

Increased carbon dioxide was high on the list of man-related climate change disasters. It was admitted that there might be other factors involved, but, “It is concluded that, in cases where the societal risk is great, one should therefore act as if the unaccounted-for effects had been included, since we have no way of dismissing the very possibility that the calculated effect will prevail.”

In the Conference summary of recommendations, Kellogg’s thrust is repeated: Scientists and policy-makers must act now on man-caused climate change. “To ignore the possibility of such changes is, in effect, a decision not to act.”

John Holdren repeated this idea: “How close are we to the danger point?” of ecological collapse, he asked. But then he went on to say that it doesn’t matter, because we need to act now. He stated:

We already have reached the scale of human intervention that rivals the scale of natural processes…. Furthermore, many of these forms of intervention will lead to observable adverse effects only after time lags, measured in years, decades, or even centuries. By the time the character of the damage is obvious, remedial action will be difficult or impossible. Some kinds of adverse effects may be practically irreversible…

Should We Feed People?

One of the most telling discussions concerned the view of man as just another species competing for resources. The report of the summary session of the first day of the conference stated “that we as a species are trying to maintain ourselves at the expense of other species; there seems to be a conflict between preserving nature and feeding the rapidly increasing population. Is our major objective really to feed the population, or do we realize we cannot continue to feed the world at any price? Where do we strike a balance between preserving nature and feeding the world?”

Stephen Schneider’s presentation, “Climatic Variability and Its Impact on Food Production,” sounds the alarm:

There is a further fear that mankind’s industrial and energy production activities may affect the climate and lead to enhanced probabilities of extreme vaiability. Thus the food-climate crisis could be very near-term and of major significance…. The smallest impact, and one we have already seen, is the triggering of higher prices for food by crop failures in one nation, such as the USSR in 1972, which had to be made up by North America…. Simultaneous crop failures in North America and the USSR could lead to even higher prices and widespread starvation throughout the world. Some estimates predict that upwards of 100 million people in developing countries could starve, while the more affluent countries would be just inconvenienced by a significant crop failure in North America.

As a gauge of the immorality of the conference participants, Schneider felt compelled to assert that “national energy and food policies must start with the assumption that population control by mass starvation or nuclear war is untenable”!

Like the other presenters at the conference, and the global warming faction today, Schneider fails to see how curbs on science and industry will kill people by preventing the economic development that permits a higher relative potential population density. Advances in science and technology are mentioned, but usually in the context of better energy savers and conservation, not in allowing more people to be supported at a better standard of living on a given amount of land.

Woodwell’s presentation, “The Impact of Environmental Change on Human Ecology,” is even more alarmist. He writes:

A careful analysis of the extent to which the earth’s net primary production is being used directly in support of man leads to the conclusion that, at present, as much as 50 percent of the net production is being used in support of human food supplies…. The fact that the toxic effects of human activities are spreading worldwide and reducing the structure of the biota is an indication that human activities at present exceed the capacity of the biosphere for repairing itself.

The Noösphere to the Rescue

Thirty-two years after this 1975 conference, the world’s population, its science and technology, and its industry are dangerously in the grasp of Margaret Mead’s minions, including those on the IPCC. A good part of the population is scared, as planned, by the potential effects of human-caused global warming. They are ready to react, as Mead demanded, to “warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane,” and in the process tear down the very institutions and technologies that can obviate the perceived “limits to growth.”

In the intervening 32 years, most of our scientific institutions have been taken over by an anti-science ideology, typified by the views of a Stephen Schneider or a John Holdren. How can there be a science when the mind and its capacity for creativity is denied, when man is put equal to beast, and when man’s advancements are perceived as ruining the pristine confines of a limited world? Such pessimism is a formula for a “no future” world.

The question remains, will the reservoir of sanity, in particular in today’s youth, who did not live through the greenwashing of the 1970s and 1980s, be able to force reality—climate reality and financial reality—on the rest of the population? Will the Noösphere, man’s creative ability to change the Biosphere, prevail?

Footnotes:

1. The Population Bomb, published in 1968, was a campus bestseller among the 1968er generation. Ehrlich employs the repeatedly discredited argument of the British East India Company’s Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) that population increases geometrically while food supply increases only arithmetically. Malthus was proved wrong in his own lifetime by the development of fertilizers and scientific farming, and repeatedly thereafter by the application of successive advances in mechanization, chemistry, and biochemistry to agriculture. Describing the spirit of “gloom and misanthropy” into which the English population had fallen following the dashing of their hopes for progress in the French Revolution, Malthus’s opponent Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote: “Inquiries into moral and political science, have become little else than vain attempts to revive exploded superstitions, or sophisms like those of Mr. Malthus.” (Author’s introduction to “The Revolt of Islam,” 1818.)
2. Margaret Mead, “World Population: World Responsibility,” Science, Sept. 27, 1974 (editorial), Vol. 185, No. 4157. The only opposition to the Rockefeller/Club of Rome policy presented at the Bucharest conference came from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
3. See, for example, “The New Environmentalist Eugenics,” by Rob Ainsworth, EIR, March 30, 2007, www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-13/pdf/ 36-46_713_ainsworth.pdf
4. The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, Margaret Mead, Ph.D. and William W. Kellogg, Ph.D., eds. Fogarty International Center Proceedings No. 39, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHEW Publication No. [NIH] 77-1065).
5. Cited in P.C. Sinha, Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change (Anmol Publications PVT, 1998).
6. Schneider made this statement in an interview with Discover magazine, October 1989.
7. The text of the shamefully unscientific AAAS resolution, which closely follows Mead’s 1975 prescription, reads in part: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. “The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years…. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible. “Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs…. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies. “The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.”
8. www.annonline.com/interviews/961217/
9. Woodwell’s original article is “DDT Residues in an East Coast Estuary: A Case of Biological Concentration of a Persistent Insecticide,” Science, May 12, 1967, pp. 821-824. His admission that there was only 1 pound of DDT found per acre appears in the transcript of the EPA’s 1972 hearings on DDT, p. 7,232. He also managed to measure DDT in the forests at a site near an airstrip where crop-dusting airplanes tested and calibrated their DDT spraying equipment.
10. Lovelock’s commentary in the Independent, Jan. 16, 2006, summarizes his views. http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece