PM: Gun control. Violence and Psychiatric drugs. 9/11 link to Police State

Gun control. Violence and Psychiatric drugs. 9/11 link to Police State


(1) Gun Control for the US: a viewpoint from Australia

(2) Gun lobby in the headlights (Israel lobby in the brush)

(3) 9/11 inside job links Gun control, Police State with War on Terror –

Paul Craig Roberts

(4) FBI, Homeland Security & the Banks conspired to destroy the Occupy

movement – Naomi Wolf

(5) Second Amendment: not to favour revolts, but to maintain order

(6) Dr. Peter Breggin’s Testimony to Congress on Antidepressant-Induced

Suicide, Violence and Mania

(7) One of the best short videos about the link between psych drugs and

school shooters – Gary Kohls

(8) Most American school shooters have been taking or withdrawing from

psychiatric drugs – Gary Kohls

(9) Drug-induced Suicides/Homicides – Gary Kohls

(10) Peter Breggin MD testifies against drug companies, on drug-induced


(11) Drug manufacturers’ “prosecutor’s manual” for court cases where

violence is blamed on drugs

(12) Empathic therapy: psychotherapy, not psychoactive drugs – Peter

Breggin MD

(13) Psychiatric drugs and your child – Peter Breggin MD


(1) Gun Control for the US: a viewpoint from Australia – Peter Myers,

December 31, 2012

Interested readers might like to start with


Martin Bryant and the Broad Arrow Cafe massacre


Syd Walker’s webpage The Port Arthur Massacre: A sceptical re-appraisal


Syd recommends  The Port Arthur Massacre – Was Martin Bryant Framed?, by

Carl Wernerhoff:


The Port Arthur massacre seems to have been a conspiracy. But not all

the conspiracy analysts can be believed, either. Joe Vialls was quick

off the mark, but not always believable. Andrew MacGregor took Vialls to

task, but erroneously identified him with Ari ben Menashe. Vialls died

some years ago, but ben Menashe was in the news recently.


Where there are clear cases of conspiracy, eg as in 9/11, many

conspiracy writers undermine our case by envisoning too many

conspirators. More likely, the rest are conditioned: during a panic,

they’re susceptible to suggestion and influenced by groupthink. The

wider the conspiracy, the less plausible, because the more risk of

someone squealing.


Wendy Scurr (an eyewitness to the events at Port Arthur) has teamed up

with Andrew MacGregor. They feature together in these Youtubes:


Port Arthur massacre martin bryant setup pt1


Uploaded on Nov 26, 2007

Wendy Scurr was the first person into the broad arrow cafe after the pt

arthur massacre, she has a completely different story to tell from the

mainstream media , the police and the federal and state governments,

find out just how much disinformation and myths have been created around

the pre planned pt arthur massacre ,if you watch this film with an open

mind you will never be the same again period. also go to the NEXUS

magazine website and download from the their archives section a

brilliant 3 part series of articles in PDF format on the event time to

take the red pill and wake up to what’s really going on in our world.


Port Arthur massacre martin bryant setup pt 2


Australians, even those of us who are conspiracy theorists, believe that

the U.S. has too many guns.


Consider the Waco siege/massacre. Did possession of guns protect those

people from a tyrannical Government? No, the guns only gave the

Government an excuse to take them out.


William Cooper, author of Behold a Pale Horse, died in a shootout with

police. What good did guns do him?


Citizens CAN’T arm against the Government – even a tyrannical one. It’s

suicidal, apart from being foolish; and it leads to proliferation, which

endangers everyone.


Similarly, Suicide Bombings have only hurt the Palestinian cause, and

united Israelis, sweeping even well-meaning ones into the NeoCon camp.


Likewise Hamas rockets; compare them with Abbas’s performance at the UN.

The former united Israelis; the latter united the world.


We must face Government tyranny, unarmed. Then, if police or soldiers

mow us down, there will be no doubt about who is in the wrong. We’ll

lose a number of good people, but they will become martyrs, and their

blood will bring the tyranny down. The tyranny can kill some of us, but

not all.


Therefore, I appeal to Americans to change the gun laws. Support the

banning of assault weapons.


The Occupy movement might seem to be an example of a non-violent

movement successfully suppressed by the Government (item 4). But Naomi

Wolf omits to mention that SOME acts of the Occupy movement were

violent. There were Anarchist and Trotskyist factions who, as

participants of Occupy, initiated violence, as they often do at major

Corporate gatherings.


(2) Gun lobby in the headlights (Israel lobby in the brush)


by Philip Weiss on December 19, 2012


Again and again since the Connecticut school massacre last Friday, the

media have called out the gun lobby. Last night’s NBC Nightly news

opened, for instance, with the NRA statement on the Connecticut

shootings– after days of silence. Chris Matthews harped on this on

MSNBC, saying that this is the NRA’s pattern. The gun lobby is clearly

on the run, the murders of 20 children are being blamed on the lobby.

And justifiably; the gun lobby is a key element of the permissive

American gun culture that produced this massacre.


The contrast to coverage of the Israel lobby couldn’t be more stark. The

NRA is a household name, for better or worse. AIPAC is a who-dat? But

there have been countless outrages over the years involving Israel’s use

of violence with impunity: the killing of American Rachel Corrie in

2003; the massacre of 16 children in Qana during the Lebanon War of

2006; the slaughter of nearly 400 children in Gaza in 2008-2009; the

killing of American Furkan Dogan and eight others on the Mavi Marmara in



Many of these killings involved American armaments. But the condemnation

is absent, and so is the finger-pointing at a powerful lobby. The Israel

lobby has played a significant role in guaranteeing that impunity. How

large a role we can only speculate, because it has escaped media

scrutiny. Andrew Sullivan hopped on this point yesterday, and wrote:

“But we are forbidden from calling AIPAC what it is the way we call the

NRA what it is – because telling the truth about it has been stigmatized

as anti-Semitism.”


It goes beyond AIPAC of course, to establishment institutions more

broadly, and a culture of orthodoxy and omerta re Israel, lately

experienced by Nicholas Dirks, who was compelled to eat his words in

order to get a big job. I always say things are getting better. But they

won’t really change till media begin to put the spotlight on the Israel

lobby, for, say, the devouring of the West Bank, in the way that they’ve

put the spotlight on the gun lobby’s role in the Connecticut massacre.

When Jake Tapper states to the White House that there have been “no

consequences” for Israel’s bad behavior in the West Bank, it’s a great

first step, but he is still not addressing the core issue– Why are

there no consequences? But he as a Jewish American knows, there is an

orthodoxy within the Jewish establishment over supporting Israel, and it

is enforced by whatever means, excommunication, blackmail, bribery,

threat. Which is why I don’t think this knot will be untied without a

serious conversation inside the Jewish community about when we married



(3) 9/11 inside job links Gun control, Police State with War on Terror –

Paul Craig Roberts


From: Paul de Burgh-Day <>

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:50:13 +1100


America’s Descent into Deception and Tyranny: Agenda Prevails Over Truth


By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts


Global Research, December 29, 2012


In the Western world truth no longer has any meaning. It its place

stands agenda.


Agenda is all important, because it is the way Washington achieves

hegemony over the world and the American people. 9/11 was the “new Pearl

Harbor” that the neoconservatives declared to be necessary for their

planned wars against Muslim countries. For the neoconservatives to go

forward with their agenda, it was necessary for Americans to be

connected to the agenda.


President George W. Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil, said

that prior to 9/11 the first cabinet meeting was about the need to

invade Iraq.


9/11 was initially blamed on Afghanistan, and the blame was later

shifted to Iraq. Washington’s mobilization against Afghanistan was in

place prior to 9/11. The George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Afghanistan

(Operation Enduring Freedom) occurred on October 7, 2001, less than a

month after 9/11. Every military person knows that it is not possible to

have mobilization for invading a country half way around the world ready

in three weeks.


The Orwellian “PATRIOT Act” is another example of planning prior to the

event. This vast police state measure could not possibly have been

written in the short time between 9/11 and its introduction in Congress.

The bill was already written, sitting on the shelf waiting its

opportunity. Why? Who wrote it? Why has there been no media

investigation of the advanced preparation of this police state legislation?


Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the

government said was a surprise event does suggest that the event was

engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.


Many on the left-wing are immune to evidence that is contrary to the

official 9/11 story, because for them 9/11 is refreshing blowback from

the oppressed. That the oppressed struck back is more important to the

left-wing than the facts.


The right-wing can’t let go of the fantasy either. America in all its

purity and wonderfulness was attacked because evil Muslims cannot stand

our goodness. “They hate us for our freedom and democracy.” The

right-wing vision of a great and good America wronged is essential to

the right-wing’s sustaining ideology, an ideology that is prepared to

commit violence in order to prove its righteousness.


Implausible stories can be useful to other agendas and thus be sustained

by their use in other arguments. For example, the Obama regime’s story

of the killing of Osama bin Laden is central to Charles Pierson’s story

in the November 16-30, 2012, CounterPunch in which Pierson writes about

the growing strains on the US-Pakistan alliance. Pierson writes that bin

Laden resided next to Pakistan’s largest military academy and that bin

Laden “did go next door every Wednesday to use the pool. If the

Pakistani government was unaware of bin Laden’s presence this would mark

an intelligence failure of heroic proportions.”


Is it plausible that Osama bin Laden, a hunted man (actually a man dead

for a decade), visited the Pakistani army, a bought-and-paid-for entity

used by Washington to launch attacks on Pakistan’s semi-autonomous

tribal areas, to go swimming every Wednesday?


Or is this a fairy tale made possible by ignoring the live interviews of

the neighbors of the alleged “bin Laden compound.” According to

Pakistanis who knew the person living in “bin Laden’s compound,” the

person Americans were told was bin Laden was a long-time friend who

imported foreign delicacies. An eye witness to the “assault” on “bin

Laden’s compound” reported that when the helicopter lifted off it

exploded and there were no survivors. If there were no survivors, there

was no sea burial of bin Laden.


How is it that the US media can produce a story as fact that is

contradicted by the news on the ground? Is the answer that the bin Laden

assassination story served an agenda by providing evidence that we were



Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an

excuse for “progressives” to express their hatred of guns and the NRA

and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those

hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the

murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US

government’s murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. The

Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal

sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state, a feminist hero,

said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half

million dead Iraqi children.


Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to “progressives.”

Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US.


When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened

to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot

cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do

humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead,

inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.


In one of its reports on the Sandy Hook shooting, Time noted that such

events “inevitably reopen debates about gun control, or more tenuously

lead people to complain about American culture itself. Yet on the very

same day, a 36-year-old Chinese man attacked 22 children with a knife at

a primary school in China, suggesting that there is a critical factor

with mass homicides that gets far less attention.” That factor, “the

core of these events,” is mental health and “our failure to address it

as a society.”


That factor remains unaddressed, because the agenda-driven media is

determined to use the Sandy Hook shootings as a means of achieving gun

control. One wonders if there is a “knife control” agenda in China. What

follows is not an argument that the report of the Sandy Hook shootings

is a hoax. What follows is an argument that suspicions are created when

agenda takes precedence over reporting and discrepancies in reports are

left unresolved.


Agenda-driven news is the reason that apparent inconsistencies in the

Sandy Hook story were not investigated or explained. According to some

reports, the medical examiner said the children were shot with a rifle,

but other reports say the accused was found dead inside the school with

two pistols and that a rifle was found outside in the car. The police

capture a man in the woods who says “I didn’t do it.” How would a person

in the woods know what has just happened? Who was the man? Was he

investigated and released? Will we ever know?


Some reports say the school was locked and admission is via security

camera and being buzzed in. Why would a heavily armed person be buzzed

in? Other reports say he shot his way in. Why wouldn’t such a commotion

have alerted the school?


Another puzzle is the video of a father whose child has supposedly been

shot to pieces. Prior to the interview he is caught on camera laughing

and joking, and then, like an actor, he pulls his face and voice into a

presentation of grief for the interview.


The spokesman for the Connecticut State Police is anxious to control the

story, warns social media against posting information contrary to

official information, but provides little information, refusing to

answer most questions. The usual “ongoing investigation” is invoked, but

Lanza has already been declared to be the killer and the number of dead

reported. About the only hard information that emerges is that the

police are investigating where every component of the weapons was

manufactured. The relevance to the shooting of where the components of

the weapons were manufactured is not explained.


The medical examiner’s press conference is weird. He is incoherent,

unsure of what he is supposed to say, hasn’t answers to questions he

should have, and defers to police.


Perhaps the best way to avoid fueling suspicion is for public officials

not to hold press conferences until they are prepared to answer the

relevant questions.


And where are the bodies? Like the alleged murder of Osama bin Laden by

a SEAL,the crucial evidence is not provided. Paul Vance, the Connecticut

State Police spokesman, said that the “victims’ bodies were removed from

the school overnight” and that detectives “were able to positively

identify all of the victims and make some formal notification to all of

the families of the victims.”


Allegedly, no parent wanted to see the body of their dead child, but how

do you know it is your child if you do not see the body? It is a strange

kind of closure when it is provided to parents by impersonal detectives.

Has anyone seen a body other than a state medical examiner and a few

detectives? Where are the media’s films of body bags being carried out

of the school? Why would Obama’s gun control agenda forego the

propaganda of a procession of body bags being carried out of a school?


Perhaps the sensitivity issue prevailed, but with all the suspicion that

already exists about the government and its claims, why fuel the

suspicion by withholding visual evidence of the tragedy?


There are reports that when emergency medical help arrived at the

school, the medical personnel were denied access to the children on the

grounds that there were no survivors and the scene was too gruesome.

Yet, there is a conflicting story that one six-year old girl had the

presence of mind to play dead and walked out of her classroom unscathed.

If the story is true, how do we know that other survivors did not bleed

to death from wounds because the emergency medical personnel were denied

access? Did police exercise more control over the scene than was warranted?


It doesn’t seem to matter that questions are not answered and

discrepancies are not resolved.

The story is useful to the gun control agenda. Progressives, in order to

achieve their agenda, are willing adjuncts of the police state. The

facts of the shooting are less important than the use of the incident to

achieve their agenda.


Probably there are answers to the questions. Moreover, the news reports

that are the basis for questions could be incorrect. But why aren’t the

answers provided and confusions cleared up? Instead, people who ask

obvious questions are dismissed as “insensitive to the tragedy” or as

“conspiracy kooks.” This in itself deepens suspicion.


The Colorado movie theater shooting has its own unresolved

discrepancies. One eyewitness claimed that there were two shooters.

Apparently, the suspect was captured sitting in a car in the theater

parking lot, which seems strange. There are claims that the accused, a

graduate student in neuroscience, was involved with the Defense Advance

Research Projects Agency in mind control research and that he doesn’t

remember doing the shooting.


Do we actually know? Apparently not. Wouldn’t it be preferable to

investigate these claims rather than to leave them as unanswered sources

of suspicion? The loose ends of the Colorado movie shooting contribute

to the suspicions caused by news reports of the Sandy Hook shootings.


A shooting incident occurs. The government puts out a story. Agendas

form and take the place of the story. Unresolved issues disappear in

heated dispute over agendas. Gun control advocates blame guns, and

Second Amendment defenders blame other factors.


When the media permit agenda to take precedence over news, people lose

confidence in the media and distrust spreads deeper into society. If the

media and the government are opposed to conspiracy theories, they should

not foster the theories by mishandling the news.


Neither the right-wing nor the left-wing has an interest in getting to

the bottom of things. The right-wing is aligned with the police state in

order to make us safe from “terrorism”– Muslim terrorism, not the

terrorism of the unaccountable police state.


The American left is so feeble that it essentially doesn’t exist. Its

issues are gun control, homosexual marriage, abortion, and taxing “the

rich.” Such misfocus cannot slow the onrushing militarized police state.

American liberals have such an abiding faith in government that they are

incapable of believing that beloved government would be culpable in

crimes–unless, of course, it was Ronald Reagan’s government.


As tyranny envelops the land, the main goal of the “left-wing” is to

disarm the population.


The American “left” is the enabler of the police state, and the American

“right” is its progenitor.


Americans began their descent into deception and tyranny in the final

years of the 20th century with the Clinton regime’s aggression against

Serbia and murderous sanctions on Iraq. These war crimes were portrayed

by the US media and foreign policy community as great achievements of

Western democracy and humanitarianism.


In the first decade of the 21st century Americans lost their

constitutional protections and had their pocketbooks opened to

indefinite wars. The latest report is that Washington is sending US

troops into 35 African countries.


Worse is to come.


(4) FBI, Homeland Security & the Banks conspired to destroy the Occupy

movement – Naomi Wolf


From: Keith Lampe <>              Date: 31 December 2012 03:57


How the FBI Coordinated the Crackdown on Occupy


By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK


New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally

integrated corporate-state repression of dissent


29 December 12


It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that

the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time –

was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of

Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as

you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to

the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were

injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil

themselves -was coordinated with the big banks themselves.


The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that

should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now

some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties

news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily

searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI,

police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so

completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact,

one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security

Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one

centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short,

show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and

politically disable peaceful American citizens.


The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas

and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city

in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus

police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI,

with the administrations’ knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI

officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private

security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the

road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the

same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of

the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now

remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger,

contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when

there is a threat against a political leader (p61).


As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the

documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges

Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless

designated OWS repeatedly as a “terrorist threat”:


“FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund

(PCJF) … reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy

movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has

obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents

around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the

movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the

establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy

actions around the country.”


Verheyden-Hilliard points out the close partnering of banks, the New

York Stock Exchange and at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI

and DHS, and calls it “police-statism”:


“This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the

iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s

surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors

organizing with the Occupy movement … These documents also show these

federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall

Street and Corporate America.”


The documents show stunning range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of

the FBI and a “Bank Fraud Working Group” met in November 2011 – during

the Occupy protests – to surveil the group. The Federal Reserve of

Richmond, Virginia had its own private security surveilling Occupy Tampa

and Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information

on activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized OWS

activities under its “domestic terrorism” unit. The Anchorage, Alaska

“terrorism task force” was watching Occupy Anchorage. The Jackson,

Michigan “joint terrorism task force” was issuing a “counterterrorism

preparedness alert” about the ill-organized grandmas and college

sophomores in Occupy there. Also in Jackson, Michigan, the FBI and the

“Bank Security Group” – multiple private banks – met to discuss the

reaction to “National Bad Bank Sit-in Day” (the response was violent, as

you may recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state’s Occupy members’

details to the Virginia terrorism fusion center. The Memphis FBI tracked

OWS under its “joint terrorism task force” aegis, too. And so on, for

over 100 pages.


Jason Leopold, at, who has sought similar documents for

more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to

his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of

Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if

you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to

terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the “longterm

plans” of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the



There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI

means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange

was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book.

The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means

that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people’s income

streams and financial records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks,

which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent.


Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be

processed – because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of

PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of one’s personal or

business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy,

criminalizing and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to

label an entity a “terrorist organization” and choke off, disrupt or

indict its sources of financing.


Why the huge push for counterterrorism “fusion centers”, the DHS

militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about

“the terrorists”. It was not even about civil unrest. It was always

about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it

was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.


(5) Second Amendment: not to favour revolts, but to maintain order


From: Keith Lampe <>              Date: 25 December 2012 02:31


The Right’s Second Amendment Lies


A big obstacle to commonsense gun control is the Right’s false

historical narrative that the Founders wanted an armed American public

that could fight its own government. The truth is that George Washington

looked to citizens’ militias to put down revolts and maintain order


by Robert Parry


Published on Saturday, December 22, 2012 by


Right-wing resistance to meaningful gun control is driven, in part, by a

false notion that America’s Founders adopted the Second Amendment

because they wanted an armed population that could battle the U.S.

government. The opposite is the truth, but many Americans seem to have

embraced this absurd, anti-historical narrative.


The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the

Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government

with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down

insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers,

after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly

society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.


The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to

France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual

revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by

the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a

populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles

of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat.


Daniel Shays, the leader of the revolt, was a former Continental Army

captain who joined with other veterans and farmers to take up arms

against the government for failing to address their economic grievances.


The rebellion alarmed retired Gen. George Washington who received

reports on the developments from old Revolutionary War associates in

Massachusetts, such as Gen. Henry Knox and Gen. Benjamin Lincoln.

Washington was particularly concerned that the disorder might serve the

interests of the British, who had only recently accepted the existence

of the United States.


On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information from a friend in

Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in

the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct

verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves

ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”


In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln

about the spreading unrest. “What is the cause of all these commotions?

When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded: “Many of them appear to

be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present

constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as

evidence of insanity.”


However, the U.S. government lacked the means to restore order, so

wealthy Bostonians financed their own force under Gen. Lincoln to crush

the uprising in February 1787. Afterwards, Washington expressed

satisfaction at the outcome but remained concerned the rebellion might

be a sign that European predictions about American chaos were coming true.


“If three years ago [at the end of the American Revolution] any person

had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion

against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I

should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,”

Washington wrote to Knox on Feb. 3, 1787, adding that if the government

“shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must



Washington’s alarm about Shays’ Rebellion was a key factor in his

decision to take part in – and preside over – the Constitutional

Convention, which was supposed to offer revisions to the Articles of

Confederation but instead threw out the old structure entirely and

replaced it with the U.S. Constitution, which shifted national

sovereignty from the 13 states to “We the People” and dramatically

enhanced the power of the central government.


A central point of the Constitution was to create a peaceful means for

the United States to implement policies favored by the people but within

a structure of checks and balances to prevent radical changes deemed too

disruptive to the established society. For instance, the two-year terms

of the House of Representatives were meant to reflect the popular will

but the six-year terms of the Senate were designed to temper the

passions of the moment.


Within this framework of a democratic Republic, the Framers criminalized

taking up arms against the government. Article IV, Section 4 committed

the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but

“domestic Violence,” and treason is one of the few crimes defined in the

Constitution as “levying war against” the United States as well as

giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3).


But it was the Constitution’s drastic expansion of federal power that

prompted strong opposition from some Revolutionary War figures, such as

Virginia’s Patrick Henry who denounced the Constitution and rallied a

movement known as the Anti-Federalists. Prospects for the Constitution’s

ratification were in such doubt that its principal architect James

Madison joined in a sales campaign known as the Federalist Papers in

which he tried to play down how radical his changes actually were.


To win over other skeptics, Madison agreed to support a Bill of Rights,

which would be proposed as the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Madison’s political maneuvering succeeded as the Constitution narrowly

won approval in key states, such as Virginia, New York and

Massachusetts. The First Congress then approved the Bill of Rights which

were ratified in 1791. [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen



Behind the Second Amendment


The Second Amendment dealt with concerns about “security” and the need

for trained militias to ensure what the Constitution called “domestic

Tranquility.” There was also hesitancy among many Framers about the

costs and risks from a large standing army, thus making militias

composed of citizens an attractive alternative.


So, the Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to

keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Contrary to some current

right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular

uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly

aimed at maintaining order within the country.


That point was driven home by the actions of the Second Congress amid

another uprising which erupted in 1791 in western Pennsylvania. This

anti-tax revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, prompted Congress in

1792 to expand on the idea of “a well-regulated militia” by passing the

Militia Acts which required all military-age white males to obtain their

own muskets and equipment for service in militias.


In 1794, President Washington, who was determined to demonstrate the

young government’s resolve, led a combined force of state militias

against the Whiskey rebels. Their revolt soon collapsed and order was

restored, demonstrating how the Second Amendment helped serve the

government in maintaining “security,” as the Amendment says.


Beyond this clear historical record – that the Framers’ intent was to

create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions –

there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young

nation’s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land.

They recognized that a strong central government and domestic

tranquility were in their economic interests.


So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to

believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the

discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In

reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males

– so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax

protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or

slave revolts, could be repulsed.


However, the Right has invested heavily during the last several decades

in fabricating a different national narrative, one that ignores both

logic and the historical record. In this right-wing fantasy, the Framers

wanted everyone to have a gun so they could violently resist their own

government. To that end, a few incendiary quotes are cherry-picked or

taken out of context.


This “history” has then been amplified through the Right’s powerful

propaganda apparatus – Fox News, talk radio, the Internet and

ideological publications – to persuade millions of Americans that their

possession of semi-automatic assault rifles and other powerful firearms

is what the Framers intended, that today’s gun-owners are fulfilling

some centuries-old American duty.


The mythology about the Framers and the Second Amendment is, of course,

only part of the fake history that the Right has created to persuade

ill-informed Tea Partiers that they should dress up in Revolutionary War

costumes and channel the spirits of men like Washington and Madison.


But this gun fable is particularly insidious because it obstructs

efforts by today’s government to enact commonsense gun-control laws and

thus the false narrative makes possible the kinds of slaughters that

erupt periodically across the United States, most recently in Newtown,

Connecticut, where 20 schoolchildren and six teachers were murdered in

minutes by an unstable young man with a civilian version of the M-16

combat rifle.


While it’s absurd to think that the Founders could have even

contemplated such an act – in their 18 th Century world of single-fire

muskets that required time-consuming reloading – right-wing gun

advocates have evaded that obvious reality by postulating that

Washington, Madison and other Framers would have wanted a highly armed

population to commit what the Constitution defined as treason against

the United States.


Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as

dangerous as it is false.


(6) Dr. Peter Breggin’s Testimony to Congress on Antidepressant-Induced

Suicide, Violence and Mania


Dr. Peter Breggin’s Testimony at Veterans Affairs Committee On

“Antidepressant-Induced Suicide, Violence and Mania: Implications for

the Military”


Dr. Breggin’s Testimony Before The U.S. Congress


Read Dr. Breggin’s written testimony here {below}. It was also published

thereafter in the peer-reviewed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.


As you may discover today, medical and psychiatric organizations that

rely very heavily on financial support from the pharmaceutical industry

have unconscionably resisted and even dismissed the FDA’s warnings, and

all the science behind them.


In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence that the newer

antidepressants commonly prescribed in the military can cause or worsen

suicidality, aggression, and other dangerous mental states. There is a

strong probability that the documented increase in suicides in the

military, as well as any increase in random violence among soldiers, is

caused or exacerbated by the widespread prescription of antidepressant

medication. …


(7) One of the best short videos about the link between psych drugs and

school shooters – Gary Kohls


From: Gary G. Kohls <>              Date: 18 December 2012 04:34


Hi Peace Friends […] please watch this 11 minute CCHR video {above}

that does a great job at making the case that nearly all (if not all) of

the school shooters (unless the medical records were sealed to protect

the guilty parties and allow the public to see the unwelcome truth about

the dangers of brain-altering psychoactive drugs) were taking (or

withdrawing from) psych drugs.


Ask yourselves why is this vitally important information forbidden

knowledge and never asked about by mainstream journalists or revealed by

the criminal justice system? Follow the money. Gary


(8) Most American school shooters have been taking or withdrawing from

psychiatric drugs – Gary Kohls


Gary G. Kohls <>           19 December 2012 05:50


The Massacre at Sandy Hook and the Elephant in the Room


By Gary G. Kohls, MD


Thursday Dec. 20th, 2012


Since the most recent American school shooting-of-the-month that

occurred on 12-14-12, thousands of aware mental health professionals,

psychiatric survivors and victims of drug-induced violence have been

watching and listening in vain for any of the major TV or radio networks

to even breathe a single word about the likely possibility that the

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter (widely identified as having had a

very troubled, bullied, but over-privileged childhood) was on

brain-altering prescription drugs.


The well-documented fact is that most (if not all) of the previous

American school shooters have either been taking or withdrawing from

commonly prescribed, legally obtained psychoactive drugs. That reality

seems to have been totally out of the consciousness of any and all of

the talking heads, and their invited guests (which included criminal

justice experts, journalists, concerned community members and mental

health professionals). None of the national or local media outlets that

I watched and listened to during the first 3 days of news coverage, ever

mentioned this critically important issue. I dedicated many hours

listening in vain for some enlightened viewpoints about drug-induced

violence or drug-induced suicide. Psych drugs, which can be calamitous

to the developing brain, were never mentioned once. …


I include below two lists that should give pause to every person who is

interested in what may be motivating the average drug-intoxicated school

shooter. The two lists below have been taken from the Physician’s Desk

Reference, a 3,500 + page book that is on the library shelves of every

medical and psychiatric clinic in America. The PDR contains information

about every FDA-approved drug and is supposed to alert health

care-givers about recommended drug dosages, contraindications, adverse

effects, precautions, warnings and the management of overdoses. Due to

its length and extremely small font size, it is only the rare physician

who has the time and energy to do justice to the book’s contents. As an

example of how daunting is the PDR, Prozac’s recent section is 8

three-column pages long and appears to be printed in font 7 or 8 type!

An online version of the PDR can be accessed at or


<<<Common adverse effects of SSRI “antidepressants”, any of which can be

misdiagnosed as a symptom of a “mental illness”>>>


Agitation, Akathisia (severe internal restlessness that can lead to

suicidality), Anxiety, Bizarre dreams, Confusion, Delusions, Emotional

numbing, Empathy degradation, Hallucinations, Headache, Heart attacks,

Hostility, Hypomania (abnormal excitement), Impotence, Insomnia, Loss of

appetite, Mania, Memory lapses, Nausea, Panic attacks, Paranoia,

Psychotic episodes, Restlessness, Seizures, Sexual dysfunction,

Suicidality (ideation or attempts, ie, thoughts or behavior), Violent

behavior, Weight loss.


<<<Common withdrawal symptoms that can occur during discontinuation or

down-tapering of SSRI “antidepressants”. These symptoms are commonly

misdiagnosed as a “relapse” or “recurrence”>>>


Aggravated Nervousness, Agitation, Amnesia, Anxiety Attack, Apathy,

Anorexia, Auditory Hallucinations, Bruxism, Carbohydrate Craving,

Impaired Concentration, Confusion, Crying, Worsened Depression,

Disorientation, Abnormal Dreaming, Emotional Lability, Excitability,

Feelings of Unreality, Forgetfulness, Insomnia Irritability,

Jitteriness, Lethargy, Decreased Libido, Nervousness, Panic Reaction,



<<<80% of the world’s school shootings occur in the US and US children

consume 90% of the world’s cocaine-like Ritalin>>>


There have been 80 documented cases of school shootings around the world

since 1996. The list can be found at Tellingly, 80 % of them

occurred in the United States, the nation that also dispenses the most

brain-altering psych drugs to its children. Despite representing only 5%

of the world’s population, the US’s children consume 90% of world’s



Equally tellingly, the US is also #1in lethal weapons production,

exports and sales and is also #1 in the number of at risk boys that

compulsively engage in virtual gun massacres through first person

shooter games, simultaneously becoming less and less sensitized to

violence and more and more indifferent to the pain of others.

(Facilitating the making of psychopathic personalities.)


The following two weblinks should be required viewing for anybody who is

still confused about the rather strong links between mass shootings and

psychiatric drugs. Please spend additional time at the CCHR

International site.


Dr Kohls practiced holistic mental health care for the last decade of

his medical career and dealt with nearly 1200 patients, most of whom had

experienced serious adverse effects from psychiatric drugs, including

permanent drug-induced disabilities, dementia and even brain damage from

any or all of the five categories of commonly used psychiatric drugs.

Most of his patients came to see him knowing that they had been sickened

by the drugs, but also addicted to or dependent on them, asking for help

in getting off the medications. Through a combination of gradual

tapering, brain nutrient supplementation, dietary changes and

psychoeducational psychotherapy, many of his patients became drug-free

or capable of living life on a simplified and reduced drug regimen. The

major limiting factor for success was the length of time the drugs had

been used, the dosage strength, the variety of drug combinations used

and the type of drug used (antipsychotics and tranquilizers were the

worst ones to get off of).


(9) Drug-induced Suicides/Homicides – Gary Kohls


Gary G. Kohls <>           18 December 2012 01:43


The media is woefully ignorant (or complicit with BigPharma’s and

BigPsychiatry’s pro-drug agenda, both groups of whom want to keep this a

taboo subject) about the connection between brain-altering drugs and

violence. Guns and drugs don’t mix, whether they are legal

brain-altering drugs or illicit brain-altering drugs. I have been

watching hours and hours of TV and radio coverage and NEVER have this

mentally-deranged shooter’s use of his (psychiatrist’s) prescription

drugs been asked about. His concerned parents, with good insurance, have

surely brought him to any number of “mental health providers”, some of

whom are unaware (or complicit) of the connections.


I have been giving lectures and seminars and writing extensively about

this serious subject but never have any psychiatrists or medical

doctors, journalists ever attended, to my knowledge. Sad situation.


Here are a small number of the PPENs that I have produced over the past

15 years concerning the subject …


Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 216: More on SSRI-Induced

Suicides/Homicides: It Isn’t Just About School Shooters


South Carolina:


Christopher Pittman was only 12 when he shot and killed both of his

grandparents, and torched their home. He blames Zoloft for the crime

that has put him behind bars, as does his family.




Kevin Rider’s death was determined to be a suicide. He had been

attempting to withdraw from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to

his head at the age of 14. Two years later, the investigation into his

death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also aged 14

had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants. The investigation

remains open.




Alex Kim was 13 and small for his age. He was found hanging by a belt

from his closet rack. His prescription of Lexapro had recently been doubled.





Diane Routhier was beautiful, and happily married for 18 years, with two

wonderful boys. She was prescribed Wellbutrin for gallstone problems.

Six days later, after suffering through adverse effects of this drug,

she shot herself.




Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and University of Florida

student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. He didn’t get better.

His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the

family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.





Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter was prescribed Paxil. She hanged herself at

the age of 12 from a hook in her closet.

“…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when

we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some

sort of reaction to Paxil…)


Vancouver, BC Canada



Gareth Christian was an artistic, intelligent young man with a great

sense of humour, excited at the prospect of starting his own

snowboarding company.

So when the 18-year-old Vancouver resident committed suicide in January,

2002, his friends and family were shocked. Gareth had been prescribed Paxil.

(Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and took his life…)





Julie Woodward was a beautiful, intelligent, popular, studious,

disciplined, ambitious, and caring girl. A diagnostic test that she took

at school confirmed what many believed, that Julie was indeed suffering

from depression. Two doctors at the clinic convinced her parents, Tom

and Kathy, to put her on Zoloft. Six days later she hanged herself in

her family’s detached garage. She was only 17.





Matthew Miller was 13 – a slight, fair-haired boy who wore

skateboard-style clothing. He was a Cub Scout and had built the fastest

pine-wood derby car in his age division.

He was having difficulty and school, and a psychiatrist prescribed

Zoloft for him. Seven days after beginning the samples, his mother found

him dead… hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.





Kurt Danysh was 18 and on Prozac when he killed his father with a

shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, hoping to

reach anyone who will listen to him. He has a warning for the world….

SSRI drugs can kill…. You….. or someone else.





Woody died of a Zoloft-induced suicide at age 37. He was not depressed,

nor did he have any history of mental illness or depression. He died

after taking the drug a total of 5 weeks with the dosage being doubled

shortly before his death. He was given the antidepressant from his

general physician for “insomnia.”




Ten year old boy shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was



(10) Peter Breggin MD testifies against drug companies, on drug-induced




Peter R. Breggin, MD, has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry” for

his efforts to reform the mental health field. He has created a new

organization to bring together professionals and laypersons concerned

with a critical analysis of biopsychiatry and with more effective

empathic approaches in mental health and education.


[…]  In the early 1990s Dr. Breggin was appointed and approved by the

court as the single scientific expert for more than 100 combined Prozac

product liability concerning violence, suicide and other behavioral

aberrations caused by the antidepressant. In 2001-2002, he participated

as a medical expert in a California lawsuit whose resolution was

associated with a new label warning for Paxil concerning withdrawal

effects. …


(11) Drug manufacturers’ “prosecutor’s manual” for court cases where

violence is blamed on drugs



Prosecuting for Pharma


Antidepressant manufacturers team up with district attorneys to make

sure the Zoloft defense doesn’t fly.


—By Rob Waters


| November/December 2004 Issue


For all of his 12 years, the only constant and reliable figures in

Christopher Pittman’s turbulent life were his paternal grandparents. “He

loved his grandparents with all his heart,” says his father, Joe

Pittman. “They were his life.” But on the night of November 28, 2001,

Christopher rose from bed and got the pump-action, .410-gauge shotgun

that had been passed down from his grandfather to his father and on to

him. He fired it into the sleeping bodies of Joe Frank Pittman, 66, and

his wife, Joy, 62; then he set their house on fire and fled.


Sometime this year, Christopher, now 15, will be tried — probably as an

adult — in a South Carolina courtroom for first-degree murder. He

admits to the killings, but says he acted in a fit of agitation and

psychosis caused by the antidepressant he had been taking for just three

weeks, Zoloft.


The antidepressant defense has been raised by at least 100 people

accused of violence or murder, but it’s not one that Pfizer, the maker

of Zoloft, wants to succeed — particularly now,


when manufacturers and the FDA are under fire for withholding

information about dangerous side effects of antidepressants. So the

company’s lawyers are doing what they’ve done many times before:

assisting the prosecutors by supplying medical information and legal



In the early 1990s, Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, started the practice

of aiding district attorneys who were prosecuting defendants who blamed

the drug for their acts of violence. Lawyers for Pfizer, the world’s

largest pharmaceutical company, later created a “prosecutor’s manual”

for the same purpose.


The Zoloft manual itself is a closely held secret — and Pfizer has

fought hard to keep it that way. In 2001, a widow sued Pfizer because

her husband shot and killed himself after six days on Zoloft. Her

lawyers discovered in Pfizer’s records a reference to a document called

“prosecutor’s manual,” and requested a copy.


Pfizer fought the request, claiming it was privileged information

between the company and its attorneys. The judge allowed the manual to

be introduced — noting it was designed to prevent “harm to Pfizer’s

reputation” if a defendant successfully raised “a Zoloft causation

defense” — but he agreed to thereafter seal the manual and keep it out

of the public record.


James Hooper, an attorney for Pfizer, says that “in rare cases” the

company’s attorneys have provided the manual to prosecutors if a

defendant “is attempting to blame some sort of criminal behavior on the

medicine. It’s important for the prosecutor to have accurate

information. We’re trying to make sure the truth gets told.” He declined

to provide a copy of the manual to Mother Jones.


GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the antidepressant Paxil — which

Christopher also took briefly — also supplied information to the Pitt-

man prosecution. At a court hearing in June, prosecutor John Justice

said he’d received a manual from GlaxoSmithKline, and that Pfizer

representatives had given him documents and information on a defense

psychiatric expert, Peter Breggin. “I have been given advice on how to

cross [examine] Breggin … and have been schooled on how these drugs

are supposed to work,” Justice told the court.


Until recently, defendants who’ve blamed violent episodes on

antidepressants have rarely succeeded. But as information comes to light

that manufacturers have long had indications that the drugs might

trigger suicidal or violent urges in some people, the legal argument is

gaining traction. …


(12) Empathic therapy: psychotherapy, not psychoactive drugs – Peter

Breggin MD



Blunting ourselves with drugs is not the answer to overwhelming

emotions. Intense emotions should be welcomed. Emotions are the vital

signs of life. We need and should want them to be strong. We also need

our brains and minds to be functioning at their best, free of toxic

drugs. That allows us to use our intelligence and understanding to the

fullest. Thinking clearly is one of the hallmarks of taking charge of

oneself instead of caving in to helplessness.


Empathy is rarely taught in graduate or professional schools, but

empathy remains at the heart of therapeutic life. Professional training

should incorporate a more systematic and conscious approach to promoting

the student’s natural empathy. At all levels of professional

development, empathy should be woven into the other important facets of

pscyhotherapy and human services.


Unfortunately, when health professionals are taught to rely on the

prescription of psychoactive drugs, they are in effect instructed how to

suppress the emotional lives of their patients and clients.


An empathic approach allows a therapist to use the healing power of

professional therapy relationships rather than the mechanical or

chemical manipulation of the brain. The goal of therapy is to help

clients maximize their ability to be empathic and loving toward

themselves and others, to live ethically, and to become autonomous and

self-determining in the fulfillment of all their chosen goals and

ideals. In contrast, biological psychiatry views people as objects and

suppresses their feelings with brain-disabling treatments, thereby

interfering with the development of empathy and love, and the ability to

take rationally determined actions based on sound values.


(13) Psychiatric drugs and your child – Peter Breggin MD



Throughout his career, Dr. Breggin has been especially concerned about

the psychiatric abuse of children and the failure to provide more

effective solutions through improved parenting, educational reform and

community resources. As the drug companies and organized psychiatry have

sought larger markets for pharmaceutical products, children have come

under extensive from the psychopharmaceutical complex. The first great

assault took place in the form of diagnosing children with ADHD and then

medicating them with stimulant drugs. Soon millions of children were

defined as mentally dysfunctional or defective and were submitted to

brain-damaging psychoactive medications.


A new pattern emerged as doctors began to treat the adverse drug

reactions to stimulants—including over-stimulation, insomnia, agitation,

behavioral abnormalities, depression, suicidality and violence, mania

and psychosis—with increased numbers of additional psychiatric drugs.

They usually did this without explaining to the parents that the drugs

were causing the newly developed symptoms. Nowadays, many children come

to Dr. Breggin for consultations when they are taking four or five

psychiatric drugs at once.


Not satisfied with this huge expansion of the drug marketplace,

psychiatrists advocating on behalf of drug companies recently began to

diagnose thousands of children with bipolar disorder. The purpose? To

justify giving more “mood stabilizer” and “antipsychotic” drugs to

children. The FDA has cooperated by approving Risperdal for some

diagnostic categories in childhood.


As An overall result, millions of children are growing up with

drug-intoxicated brains. They are given no hope that they can learn to

control their own behavior and grow up to be effective adults—goals they

will never achieve with medication-drenched brains.


At the same time, parents and teachers have become indoctrinated into

believing that they cannot effectively raise or teach the children in

their care and must instead resort to medical management by “experts.”

This massive disenfranchisement of parents and teachers has huge

consequences in terms of depriving children of the care they need and

depriving parents and teachers of the opportunity to exercise their

skills and authority, and to improve their approaches to individual

children, families and classrooms.


Many drug-treated children will suffer from irreversible brain changes

that hamper their mental life. In the case of stimulants, many will have

their growth stunted and become prone to cocaine addiction in young

adulthood. As a result of neuroleptics like Zyprexa, Risperdal and

Abilify, many will suffer from development delays and from tardive

dyskinesia with its irreversible abnormal movements that impair and

stigmatize them. Dr. Breggin has evaluated dozens of children in his

practice who have developed tardive dyskinesia from the newer

antipsychotic drugs.


Of all the harmful actions of modern psychiatry, the mass diagnosing and

drugging of children is the most appalling with the most serious

consequences for the future of individual lives and for society.


All of the issues that are summarized here are discussed in more depth

with scientific citations in Dr. Breggin’s two new books, Medication

Madness (2008) and Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (2008).

Several older books deal even more extensively with improved parenting

and educational approaches to children, including The Ritalin Fact Book

(2002), Talking Back to Ritalin (2001), and Reclaiming Our Children (2000).


Peter Myers


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE