Showing posts with label Giant Killers Organization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giant Killers Organization. Show all posts

Sunday, December 1, 2019

The Creation of the Giant Killers Organization

How and Why I started Giant Killers Organization

image of a penny with 'In God We Trust' The most amazing thing happened to me on my way to my middle years, I embarked on the creation of an enlightening website designed to shed light on the political and economic corruption that all of the world is subject to. It was 1995, and I suddenly became aware of a danger that had no specific direction assigned to it.
Unlike prior dangers to me in my life--dangers that had a direction and an actual, discernible point of origin--this one was coming at me from all directions.

I'll tell you now that I'd never felt such a feeling before that day. I was laying down, perhaps at the beginning of my day when it came my way, like a wave of anxiety crossing over my mind and body. A sense of immediate, pending danger--not doom--and I began to focus on where it was emanating from. Because it was coming at me in all directions I eventually decided that it had to be a spiritual force--an evil force.

In those early days I prayed to God for an answer to what it was I was facing. I followed the lines of force in a 360-degree manner and it intersected with both people and a political machine that we know as the United Nations. The machine might be centered there--at 760 United Nations Plaza, Manhattan, New York City--but the apparatus that comprises this enormously power machine stretches in all directions across the entire Earth.

It was then, in the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency that I felt a growing need to express, to voice my personal opinion on a wide assortment of subjects. A friend of mine was involved with an Internet hosting company called Micro Village who gave me space, and actually started what was a personal WebLog. I eventually purchased Web tools that enabled me to learn how to do the source code myself.

I eventually moved my WebLog to another server, one that I rented and controlled. Along with this, I began creating websites for other people, and eventually TpromoCom was born.

Having just switched from Socialism to Capitalism in 1992, three short years before this, I was slowly being primed with a sense of urgency that almost demanded that I get involved in the good fight in some manner. Giant Killers Org was borne out of that sense of commitment and dedication to this nation, a nation that I came to understand was made possible by the love and commitment of God to us, his prized posession in a creation that was not always receptive to Him.

I or about 1995, I began to build Giant Killers Org (GKO). It became a force to recon  with for the enemies of freedom and  the American Way. I'll write more about GKO in the near future. For now, you are invited to review it if you wish: click here!


For the serious researcher:
ToganX.Info

Copyright©2019/Allan B. Colombo
www.alcolombo.us / blogger@tpromo.com
(Permission is given to republish blog posts providing
my contact information and copyright notice are included.)

Subscribe

Be sure not to miss each and every blog comment by subscribing to my email service. Every time I publish a comment or an update, you will be the first to know. To sign up, enter your email address in the email subscription box on the top right of this page. Thank you!
Where and how to follow Al Colombo via TpromoCom:
get books for free

To contact Al Colombo, click here.

Friday, October 26, 2012

The Untimely Death of 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale

The connection between children killing children
and the modern instrument of visual/audible
communication called the
television.

I read with great sadness the demise of 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale, a young girl allegedly murdered by two teenage brothers in New Jersey. This young girl was to turn 13 this coming week.

The very thought of what was done to her (strangulation) causes me a good deal of anguish, especially when I think of the parents and grandparents. As a grandfather of 15, I cannot imagine what the family is feeling right now.

The Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office hasn’t identified the teens because they are juveniles, but neighbors and relatives have identified them as 17-year-old Dante Robinson and his 15-year-old brother, Justin Robinson. (click here)

If you think about this crime, you have to admit that there is only one way such things take place at the hand of such young assailants for it's impossible for them to have come up with such a horrid thought on their own. The culprit behind this and all such acts of violence is "example." The murderous thoughts that took place in their young minds had to come from outside of themselves for young children are not, or should not be predisposed to such thinking on their own without some outside agency at work.

Another way to put this is: Monkey see--Monkey do!

Violence on Television

The question is, can repetitive visual exposure to violence on television and in the movies cause young people to commit acts of violence themselves? According to Leonard Berkowitz, author of Impulse, Aggression and the Gun, the answer to that is "Yes."

"Two series of experiments that my colleagues and I have performed on impulsive aggression bear directly on these questions. The first series indicates that even so small a matter as the casual sight of a gun can sometimes stimulate aggressive behavior. The second suggests that, contrary to what the so-called catharsis theory predicts, the sight of violence can increase the chance that a viewer will express aggression himself." Source: Impulse, Aggression and the Gun, Leonard Berkowitz, Readings For General Psycholoby, PL202/PL252, Instructors Office Of Military Psychology and Leadership, Xerox College Publishing, Lexington, Mass.

Source: The Daily CommentaryCatharsis: Psychiatry, psychotherapy that encourages or permits the discharge of pent-up socially unacceptable emotions.

In the first experiment, a group of students from the University of Wisconsin were told that the experiment was intended to measure students' physiological reaction to stress. The students were divided into two groups. Each group was exposed to a series of electrical shocks in response to a series of marketing ideas that they had presented. One group received a low number of shocks while the other group received a much larger number of shocks, irregardless of the quality of their marketing ideas. The group that received the maximum number of shocks were what Berkowiz called "our angry group."

The Daily CommentaryIn the final phase of the experiment, Berkowitz says that some of the students from both groups were exposed to the consequential sight of a .38 cal. handgun and 12-gauge shot gun. Students were told that the guns were left there from a previous experiment and the administrator merely pushed them aside. Each student had a partner who was actually a plant. The roles were then switched where the students were asked to administer the same electrical shocks to their partner who had previously administered the shocks to them. Within the group who had seen the guns, a significant number of students showed more aggression than the control group who did not see them.

Berkowitz says,

"It is quite conceivable that many hostile acts which supposedly stem from unconscious motiviation really arise because of the operation of aggressive cues. The aggression can even be thought of as a conditioned response to the stimulus. If a gun can be that stimulus, then it is a double-barreled threat--an immediate cue that also presents the aggressor with a deadly means of aggrression."

Berkowitz adds a very important point that this experiment brought out. "With our subjects, the guns did not enhance aggression unless the students were angry to begin with."

In the second experiment, young children were encouraged to play with older children who were asked to remain neutral. Berkowitz says there was no fighting or fussing going on. Some of the children were given toy guns to play with while others talked and had fun. The younger children were then told that the older children had built block houses on a series of tables in another room and that if they pressed a button on the table, these houses would shake and come to ruin. According to Berkowitz, despite the fact that all of the children hadn't quarreled and were not angry, those who had played with the guns invariably pressed these buttons, demonstrating more violent behavior than the other group who had sat and talked and simply played.

What do these experiments tell us about children and guns?

"Even given high frustration and an immediate cue, violence will not erupt unless there is a third factor as well: low inhibitions. The 'normal' level of inhibitions to violence in our society is not particularly high. We take a lenient attitude toward what is sometimes called defensive aggression," says Berkowitz.

"Nowhere is violence in the cause of good more consistently and more enthusiastically touted than in movies and on TV. Fictional representations of violence are often defended, by people in the industries that sell them and also by many consumers, on the grounds that they serve a cathartic purpose."

Berkowitz says that some psychologists still believe that it is better to enact violence while others believe that witnessed violence can actually cause children to act out violent behavior. He adds that "a little aggression, like a snowball, can gather momentum and grow."

"Results like this present an awkward problem to TV and movie censorship agencies, and to producers who want to make violent films without encouraging real violence. The modern censorhip agencies generally insist that crime and violence be used not just to entertain but to teach a lesson--'crime does not pay,' for example. How the lesson should be taught is left vague; scriptwriters usually follow the maxim of 'an eye for an eye'," says Berkowitz.

If society is really serious about curbing school violence, then they will look more to the television and movie houses than to the availability of guns. Sure, the sight of a gun on dad or mom's night stand (it ought to be locked up other than at night when mom and dad are in bed) is enough to suggest violence, but, as Berkowitz's research bares out, this alone is not usually enough to trigger violent behavior.

Take the young children experiment where those who played with toy guns reacted more violently than those who did not. At first glance, it's easy to blame the toy guns for the aggressive response of the children. However, it is the significance of the toy gun to these children that actually caused their more violent behavior, not the gun itself. What do I mean by that? Simply that by witnessing violence on their parents' television sets, they knew what the gun was for and they associated violence with the gun before them. Was it the gun itself that caused them to become more violent or was it the violence on their parents' television sets that they associated with the gun?

If you have an opinion on this issue, I welcome your input. Please use the comment portion of this post, email me (allancolombo@gmail.com), or call me at 330-956-9003.

Al Colombo

Editor's Note: A portion of this commentary appeared in the Daily Commentary on the Giant Killers Organization (GKO) website on May 18th, 2001. (click here)