The VonFrederick 

Tempus             

February 2009  Volume 6 Issue 2 

  Feature Article:

Can Capitalism Cause Violence?

Dr. Lionel C.M. von Frederick Rawlins, President & CEO, The VonFrederick Group

Recently, on a flight to Asia, I had an interesting conversation with a communist scholar who “enlightened” me on the ills of capitalism. As a result, I pose the question above: can capitalism cause violence? There is a debate raging in America, and also the Caribbean, about the crime and gun epidemic. Newsmen, politicians and the “authorities” blame guns, crack, gangs, poor schools, television violence, and poverty – and even the victim themselves. 

On nationwide television recently, a prominent Senator (an infamous advocate of “benign neglect”) blamed “teenage mothers who are having all those illegitimate babies” who grow up to be “unstable and violent.” In almost every political debate on crime, racist stereotypes, code-words and themes are injected into the discussion. 

One example is former President Bill Clinton’s racist diatribe on crime delivered a few years ago in Memphis. The president went public with almost every stereotype and the concept of inferiority that blames the victims of poverty and racism. If they would only “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” and put and end to “crime in their own communities,” things would get better.
This is official racism that says crime and violence are confined to Black and other minority communities. This is part of the effort to criminalize racially and nationally oppressed peoples with the ideology that drugs, crime and violence, and anti-social behavior are caused by inherited characteristics that produce inferior people. 

The crime issue is being used to promote racism and perpetuate racist ideology. Looking at a documentary on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) shooting of 1993, I saw the severity of the race problem. After the shooting, TV reporters interviewed one of the victims. Answering a reporter’s question about the senselessness of the attack, the victim’s wife cried out, “We don’t just kill Black people. My family did not kill any Black people. Why did that Black man shoot my husband? Why?” Reporters conducted dozens of such inflammatory interviews.

We can never justify or condone – we condemn – mass murder, or any murder. But at the same time, we have to look for the causes and circumstances in our society that contribute to such insanity. It is not enough to say that it is insane, although it is at least temporary insanity that pushes a human being to commit such atrocities. 
Having said that, communists start from the premise that it is the capitalist system and U.S. imperialism that is the basic cause of crime and violence, at home and in the world.

In fact, U.S. development, production, research and use of atomic weapons to annihilate men, women and children, the race for nuclear superiority, are the ultimate violence (according to the communists). As part of the New World Order, the only superpower is once again menacing the world with the nuclear threat, this time without the restraining counterforce of the defunct former Soviet Union (the communists’ version, not me).

The cause of this seemingly senselessly violent society elude most of us because those who own and run everything in our society have a stake in making it look as if we are simply a society run amok – a country filled with violent people who have abandoned “family values,” “religious and guiding principles,” and our “duty and obligation” to society. 

Thus, it is said, in order to protect the law abiding citizens the authorities have to toughen the laws, increase police, build more and bigger prisons, sweep the homeless, the jobless and the poor into nightmare shelters or mental institutions, and throw people off the welfare rolls and into the street. 

To be continued…

Back to Top

In Defense Of The Battered Woman Syndrome, Part II

Elka Svensson Bjork, M.D., Ph.D, surgeon and researcher, The VonFrederick Group

Continuing from last episode, L.J. Veronen and H. Resnick point out that it is a mistake to focus on battered women’s traits during the trial. Battered and non-battered women are not significantly different. Instead, expert testimony should focus on the impact of violence and the woman’s perception of threat. To accomplish this goal, expert testimony may need to include a description of the woman’s conditioning history, for example, which cues have become classically conditioned to elicit fear. A woman whose husband informed her that after his nap he was going to torture her in his new underground torture chamber, might think the time has come to prevent his ever waking up.

 N.C Jurik and R. Winn wanted to determine whether homicide by females has been affected by women’s liberation and whether gender differences were still relevant. Their sample included 108 male perpetrated homicides and 50 female perpetrated homicides. Results indicated that, when women kill, they generally kill in their own homes during domestic conflict. They are prone to kill male partners, within a context of economic dependence, past attacks, and victim-initiated violence. In contrast, men are more likely to kill someone away from home, and they usually initiate the violence when they kill.

Although in absolute numbers more men kill women than the reverse, L.A. Greenfield and S. Minor-Harper documented that violent female offenders were more likely to have murdered a male (61.49%) than male offenders were to have murdered a female (52.70%). Women almost always kill a spouse or an intimate in an intimate setting.
In one study of more than 1,600 homicides, self-defense characterized almost all killings by females, but almost none by males. A number of other actions and motives typified male killers, but not females. : 
(1). Men often hunt down and kill spouses who have left them.
(2). Men kill as part of a planned murder-suicide.
(3). Men kill in response to revelations of wifely infidelity, although men are generally more adulterous than women
(4). Men kill after subjecting their wives to lengthy periods of coercive abuse and assaults.
(5). Men perpetrate family massacres.

A 1997 committee on Domestic Violence and Incarcerated Women recognized that the criminal justice system does not act effectively to protect women from being beaten. A battered woman may not be able to obtain a restraining order or keep it in effect. She may be unable to obtain even temporary financial support for a 30-day period. The court will most likely allow her abuser visitation with the children. In the end, no one can guarantee her safety. The committee determined that the criminal justice system’s response was “inconsistent and inadequate,” leaving some women with no option but to kill their abusers to end the violence.

A New York Committee on Domestic Violence has concluded that killing as assaultive male should not be the only option left to battered women. When leaving is more dangerous than staying, but staying amounts to living in daily terror, the battered woman’s dilemma can reach its final, catastrophic climax…

If a battered woman cannot stop the violence and perceives that she has no options, a day may come when she makes a lethal choice: to kill herself or kill her abuser. 


.

Back to Top

“I fear that too many Americans have contempt for the principles of liberty and opt for solutions that employ the political arena to forcibly impose their wills on others.”… Walter Williams

The recent release of the movie Valkyrie, a film that depicts the July 20, 1944 plot by German army officers to assassinate Adolf Hitler, seemed to peak an interest in the historical aspects of Nazi Germany. The History channel aired a program that explored Hitler’s rise to power and his governing that that led to the German officers taking such drastic action.

Hitler demonstrated how a maniacal tyrant could seize a democratic government with the support of a committed minority while the majority went about their daily business. History reveals that Hitler was a shrewd political “activist” that manipulated control of the left wing German Worker’s Party. As the party’s propaganda manager his reputation as a great orator grew and he solidified power with in the organization. In 1920, He convinced the party to change its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party), which was later called the Nazi Party.

Hitler’s path to power was slow and methodical. He learned to adjust his tactics after he suffered set backs due to attempts overthrow the government by force. The 1929 Wall Street Crash, the economic depression and the popularity of Socialism presented an opportunity to seize power. The U.S. had financed most of Germany’s debt and began to recall loans, which escalated its depression. The Nazi’s hyped the crisis and convinced the German people that they could reverse the economic crisis. With the support of a committed minority, Hitler and the Nazi’s seized power by political manipulation. 

The Nazi party argued that parliamentary democracy did not work and only Hitler could provide the strong government that Germany needed. Hitler traveled round the country giving speeches and his message depended on the audience. In rural areas he promised tax cuts for farmers and price controls to protect food prices. In working class areas he spoke of redistribution of wealth and attacked the high profits made by the large chain stores. He told industrialists he planned to destroy communism and to reduce the power of the trade unions. His main message was that Germany's economic recession was due to the Treaty of Versailles and other than refusing to pay reparations he avoided explaining how he would improve the German economy.

Hitler was a great orator and mesmerized the crowds. The committed became a cult following.
Himmler called Hitler the “Messiah” that was destined to lead Germany to greatness. Goebbels said Hitler “had everything to be king.” The cult was exhilarated when Hitler and the Nazi Party seized power and the majority accepted it. By blaming the Jews and convincing the people they were victims of the war, the treaty and etc., he was able to achieve compliance by the majority. Next he took control of the media, silenced the critics and the opposition. The rest is horrific history.

What is discerning to those that treasure liberty is the eerie similarities between Germany of the 1930’s and the U.S. today. In both, the Socialistic policies of previous decades preceded a stock market crash that resulted in an economic debacle. In both countries the debts were heavily financed by other nations. Hitler and Obama began as unknown political activist with the ability to mesmerize crowds. Both established a cult following. In the Audacity of Hope Obama said, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Both claimed that a strong government under their leadership is the answer to the crisis. During their campaigns both promised tax cuts, spoke of redistribution of wealth, attacked high corporate profits but avoided explaining how they would improve the economy. 

I’m not advocating that Obama is, or will become, another totalitarian despot like Hitler. I am merely pointing out historical similarities. The review of history is meant to warn against subtle attacks on freedom. In “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” Jonah Goldberg makes convincing case that fascism is a phenomenon of the left and the ideas of modern liberalism and fascism overlap and noted the parallels between Nazi Germany and the New Deal.

Rham Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, expressed that a crisis should never be wasted in advancing an agenda and liberals try to silence opposition with accusations of racism when anyone criticizes their messiah. They ignore the fact that subjugation is what can happen when people rely on a messianic cult figure or government instead of themselves. That should concern freedom loving Americans

Back to Top

In his first days of office, President Obama has signed two executive orders to close the prison of Guantanamo within a year –whatever it means- and to put an end to torture as our lawyers see it (what is torture? Is there ever a time when harsh treatment might be necessary, justifiable?). 

The move will certainly appease a good part of his electorate and that was a political thing to do but is it the right or the safe thing to do? The 250 inmates left in Gitmo are the hard core terrorists that nobody want interned in his own backyard at home or abroad. They are the unrepentant and martyrdom seekers that our forces have captured on the battlefields of the War on Terror, or certainly kidnapped from the countries that were sheltering them, closing their eyes on their criminal activities or refusing to extradite them because we, the Americans, the Devil, the Yanquis, the infidels, the crusaders, the backers of Israel or other Bushists are the bad guys. In the meantime, in Guantanamo, no inmate has died yet from harsh treatment, and once confessions or information has been obtained from them, they have all been left sitting fat and happy with running hot water, electricity, news, the Koran, praying rugs, health care, laundry, translators, legal advices and all the many other generous amenities we traditionally provide our prisoners nationwide. Quite different anyways from what our prisoners, military or civilian, fighters or aid workers, get when they are captured by say Al Qaeda or the Talibans!

Furthermore, it has also widely been reported that many of our released Guantanamo inmates went right back to swell the ranks of the terrorists they have served before. So, can you run it by me again why we should let them go? Because at the end of the day, that is what will happen with them if we try them in a civil or military court, isn’t it? For most of them, capture and confessions were “illegally” obtained according to the foo-foo suicidal world we live in and no charges would ever hold in a court of law. But if it makes you feel good about yourself, just go ahead, make their day!

The second executive order banning torture is an effective way to show the enemy abroad that they won’t be forced to “cooperate” if or when captured, and to neuter our intelligence community, again. When President Clinton cut our military down to 10 active combat divisions from the 20 we originally had, it was also the good political move to reward part of his electorate and redirect money from the Defense Budget to the typical Democrat social pandering. When he also prevented our intelligence community from hiring informants of questionable morals and ethics, he changed the focus from a balance of “dirty” Human Intelligence (HUMINT)and modern and “clean” Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) to an all SIGINT system. We know the results and they are always long term. We were not able to foresee the rise of Al Qaeda, the rise of Bin Laden and the 9-11 plot two years in the making before it actually happened. We were also not able to capture or kill Bin Laden, nor confirm or not the status of Saddam’s WMD program. The Bush administration and other Intelligence or Defense bi-party committees at Congress actually had to rely on “stale” SIGINT pieces of information coming from the highly inefficient and politically correct intelligence tool that the CIA had become under President Clinton and Mr. Tenet, unfortunately kept in place by the new Republican administration.

Anyways, what is torture? I guess it is a matter of interpretation. As a former Special Forces operator, I know that water boarding, sleep deprivation and various other humiliations (tied naked to a pole, bag over the head, sensory deprivation, “good cop-bad cop”…) are standard operating procedures for Evasion and Escape training (E&E). When such a treatment is applied to a soldier by his mates, without any actual physical violence and with the knowledge that he won’t actually die, it takes a couple of days to finally break the individual into submission. So is it torture when the same treatments we applied on these guys in Gitmo is applied on our soldiers as part of a training? Or should we just keep on doing it to the bad guy and deliver them E&E certificate of training completion and get done with it?

I guess we must go and read the Geneva Convention to find the answer….but at least when you read it (and you will be one of the few), have the honesty to also read the chapters describing what is a combatant and what rules of war one must follow in order to become a prisoner of war protected by the convention. Actually, Article 3 and 4 of the convention are pretty clear about and say it all, but don’t take my word for it, go and check it out, educate yourself because knowledge is power! (http://www.genevaconventions.org/ ). 

The articles accurately state:

“Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labor units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.”

Also, one has to note that the terrorist groups and armies we fight are not even legal governments and have not signed the Convention anyways. So, does the Convention apply to them?

This is typical Asymmetric warfare, a warfare when one party is held to higher standards than the other. The war on Terror is all about asymmetric warfare and the US or Israel, as the most common examples, are permanently held to higher standards than the terrorist they fight, a good recipe for defeat. Just this morning, our local newspaper serving the city of Sacramento titled the following “Israel strikes Gaza after militants fire rocket” instead of stating the facts :”After terrorists in Gaza broke the truce again and fired a rocket, Israel had to strike back in retaliation!”.

President Obama has made a huge mistake and the consequences of his orders will be felt in a couple of years only, maybe when another unlucky Republican administration will take over. In the meantime ask yourselves these two questions:

Would you rather be a prisoner of our forces in Guantanamo or the prisoner of Al Qaeda in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Why do you think that you have been safe since 9-11? Because we have stepped up to the plate and fought or because the enemy has grown to love us, our life style, homosexuality, women’s right and Democracy, and all the other twisted Hollywood values we spread out?

Back to Top

Did You Know? Michelle Glisan Blevins         

• That the Se Cathedral in Goa Velha, India, began in 1562 and took around 80 years to complete and is the largest Christian church in Asia

• That India’s constitution recognizes 22 different languages and the country has 14 official languages, Hindi being primary

• That the exquisitely beautiful national bird of India, the Indian Blue Peacock, actually belongs to the pheasant family

• That Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India is the one of the world’s most populous cities with an estimated population of 12.8 million residents

• That that about 48% of the adult female population of India can read and write compared to just over 70% of the male population (2003 estimates)

The Indian flag is divided into three equal horizontal bands. The top is saffron (a light orange), white with a blue chakra, or Ashoka Wheel, centered in the white band and the bottom panel is green. There is no universally agreed upon significance to the colors.

Sir James Dewar 

James Dewar

1842 - 1923

Born in Scotland, James Dewar was the youngest of six boys and was orphaned at the age of 15. A chemist and physicist educated at the University of Edinburgh he became, among other things, a professor at Cambridge University. Dewar developed a process for producing large quantities of liquid oxygen, was co-inventor of cordite- a smokeless explosive which proved very valuable in WWI, and he discovered a new processes for creating vacuums which was useful in atomic physics. Dewar also developed the Dewar vacuum flask which is the basis for the common Thermos bottles we use today.

Back to Top

How To Escape A Forest Fire

	Monitor the horizons. If you see smoke rising above the trees in the distance, watch to see if it increases in size or strength. If so, move upwind and down-slope, away from the fire
	Watch for burning embers The wind my blow embers more than half a mile from their origin; remain alert to avoid getting burned, and be ready to change course in case a stray ember ignites another area of the forest.
	Find a firebreak Move to a pond, river, road, rocky area, open field, or another area lacking in burnable fuel. Avoid areas thick with brush and dried grasses, as these materials burn fast and hot. Do not climb uphill, as the fire and superheated air will updraft even on the slightest slope, concentrating the flames and heat most intensely in these chimneys
	Seek a gap in the fire line. A forest fire may advance across a front several miles wide, but it does not always travel at a uniform rate. If you are trapped by a wall of fire, look for a spot where the flames are thin and low to the ground. If possible cloak your body in natural fibers (synthetic materials may melt and burn your skin) and soak yourself with water. Wrap a wet cloth around your mouth and nose. Cover your face and head with your arms and run through a thin line of fire as fast as possible. If the moisture in the cloth around your mouth turns into steam, take it off to protect your lungs..
	If you are trapped on a hillside, move to an outward curve in the trail.  The contour of the land can concentrate intensely hot air currents in protected pockets and indentations on the hillside. The outward rounding bends on the outside of a hill provide a safer location; the heat is more diffuse and travels more slowly. Position yourself as far away from the trail’s outer edge as possible to avoid rising heat. Once the fire has burned up the chimneys, you may be able to move to a burnt area before the fire reaches the outside curve.
	Crawl in a ditch.  If the fire is near and you cannot find another means to escape, lie down in a ditch with your feet facing the direction of the fire. Cover your feet legs and body with as much dirt and noncombustible material as possible. Wait for the fire to pass completely before getting back up.
	Signal passing aircraft to seek their attention. Wave white or brightly colored clothing or shine a reflective mirror toward the airplane. If the plane contains fire personnel, they will likely provide you with instructions over their loudspeaker.

Be Aware

	A field of grass can produce a fire more than 10 feet tall that moves at a rate of 20 mph. Deciduous trees burn more slowly than grass but can elevate temperatures to preheat the nearby trees, causing them to ignite more quickly. The needles and resin in pine trees are highly combustible and will rapidly spread a very hot fire.
	Dangerous wild animals, such as rattlesnakes, bears, and mountain lions, will also be anxious to escape the fire and may cross your path as you seek safety
	If you are surrounded by a forest fire while you’re in your vehicle, remain inside the vehicle rather than attempting escape on foot—the protection offered outweighs the relatively low risk that your gas tank will explode in the heat. Drive to low, bare ground as free from brush and trees as possible and park facing the oncoming fire. Roll up the windows, shut all air vents, and turn on your hazards and headlights to make the car more visible to rescuers. Lie on the floor below window-level and cover your head and face with blankets to protect yourself from radiant heat. Smoke will enter the vehicle as fire surrounds the car, so take shallow breaths close to the floor, breathing through a damp cloth. Stay in the vehicle until fire passes and the radiant heat has dissipated enough that the air feels no hotter than the heat felt from a bad sunburn. The door handles and interior car parts will be extremely hot; do not touch them with bare hands.  (Piven and Borgenicht)

Back to Top

Back to Top

The VonFrederick Group

Phone: (877) 207-1300
Fax:     (916) 488-7531
Email:

Dr. Lionel C.M. VonFrederick Rawlins
Lionel@VonFrederick.com

George A. Torres, MBA
George@VonFrederick.com

Eric Chevreuil
Eric@VonFrederick.com

Pat McLane
Pat@VonFrederick.com

Albert Globus, MD
Al@VonFrederick.com

General Clifford L. Stanely, Ph.D.
Cliff@VonFrederick.com

Check out our Information
Page for Recommended 
reading at VonFrederick.com

TEMPUS FUGITS

Back to Top