The Miligram Experiment - decadent obedience and authority


ingrahmm

New member
It’s amazing that many LEOs scoff at citizens’ concern that police are becoming increasingly militant against them. The internet is replete with ‘caught-on-camera’ examples of police using unnecessary force against detained persons in relatively benign situations; police using language to actually incite individuals into anger in order to raise the level of security and justify warrantless searches – and many other manipulative and unconstitutional police actions, unheard of thirty years ago. Sure, it’s the internet and we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes. But after weeding out the suspected contrived videos and stories remains a mountain of visual and testimonial accounts that police are not driven by a love for the Constitution, nor the “people.” Jobs are hard to get – government jobs are packed with monetary perks and holding this carrot over the heads of many law enforcement personnel renders the age old response, “just doing my job.”
From Germany came Nicolaus Copernicus, Albert Einstein, Anne Frank, Ludwig van Beethoven, Pope Benedict XVI, Johann Bach, Catherine II, Max Earnst and hundreds of other great creators, producing a great culture. Yet the German people, as well as the "Church," largely capitulated to the silver tongue of Adolf Hitler. Why do we smirk to think American authority is immune and exempt from the same social degradation?
Are you aware of the “Milgram Experiment” in 1961? It’s a disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience and how ordinary people can swiftly turn into Geheime Staatspolizei, or Gestapo. With the most ambiguous president and Marxist-leaning administration in American history holding office, to think that domestic authority will stay true to the US Constitution, is naïve. This well documented and retested Miligram Experiment explains the issue of perverted obedience and authority. Milgram Experiment - The Milgram Obedience Experiment
 

Last edited:

Peggy Reist

New member
As much as I despise the ever-present surveillance cameras and people recording everyone's life on their cell phones, I have to admit those cameras have managed to catch a lot of police brutality. Even though it can be manipulated and taken out of context, it's still pretty difficult to refute the evidence. As more and more cops are caught on tape, so to speak, we may start seeing less attacks on citizens. But a lot will still depend on how well they're prosecuted.
 

ingrahmm

New member
re: you say: "more cops are caught on tape less attacks on citizens..." I like your optimism and hope you're right. But I'm afraid the indoctrination is deep and older than we think. The false flags continually generated by the government, the general distrust of police authority by the people, etc., we've crossed the Rubicon.
As much as I despise the ever-present surveillance cameras and people recording everyone's life on their cell phones, I have to admit those cameras have managed to catch a lot of police brutality. Even though it can be manipulated and taken out of context, it's still pretty difficult to refute the evidence. As more and more cops are caught on tape, so to speak, we may start seeing less attacks on citizens. But a lot will still depend on how well they're prosecuted.
 

MI .45

MI .45
As much as I despise the ever-present surveillance cameras and people recording everyone's life on their cell phones, I have to admit those cameras have managed to catch a lot of police brutality. Even though it can be manipulated and taken out of context, it's still pretty difficult to refute the evidence. As more and more cops are caught on tape, so to speak, we may start seeing less attacks on citizens. But a lot will still depend on how well they're prosecuted.

You hit it right on the head, Peggy Reist... prosecution. Regretfully, there appears to be a dearth of that even in many of the most egregious circumstances. The blue line of silence, prosecutorial acquiescence, and the current political climate will prevent any real changes taking place any time soon. I firmly believe that the police state is here to stay and it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
 

Nightmare45

NRA LIFE MEMBER
Are there bad cops? Yep, are there bad guys? Yep. Is there a 2ns Amendment and a massive amount of supporters? You bet.
 

Rich kid

New member
I have felt for quite a while that we have a crisis in law enforcement. While I believe there are serious problems in the hiring profile, there is also a lot of validity in the milgram hypothesis. I am happy to see other people realize there are big problems in the law enforcement community but I don't expect much support from this rabidly pro-cop forum.
 

MI .45

MI .45
I have felt for quite a while that we have a crisis in law enforcement. While I believe there are serious problems in the hiring profile, there is also a lot of validity in the milgram hypothesis. I am happy to see other people realize there are big problems in the law enforcement community but I don't expect much support from this rabidly pro-cop forum.

I suggest that you read some of the previous entries concerning this topic. You'll find that there are far less "badge polishers" (many having seen the light of overwhelming evidence) and far more members that see the reality of the situation at hand, and the role that over militarized police forces have and will play in America's future social upheavals.
 

Rich kid

New member
In my experience on this site, the sentiment here is strongly pro-cop. While there are several comments in support of the original post, the reality lies in the number of comments, which is frighteningly small when you consider the serious nature of the post. How is it that idiotic posts dealing with topics like whether you should carry with a round chambered get page after page of comments while this post has yet to fill a page.
 

ingrahmm

New member
Yep, they know where each of you are - probably connected with the admin of this forum, and can shut you down in two minutes before the sun rises. Bravado is worthless against this government. Our guns, even less worth. Survival will be by stealth and wit.
Are there bad cops? Yep, are there bad guys? Yep. Is there a 2ns Amendment and a massive amount of supporters? You bet.
 

Warbirds

New member
Yep, they know where each of you are - probably connected with the admin of this forum, and can shut you down in two minutes before the sun rises. Bravado is worthless against this government. Our guns, even less worth. Survival will be by stealth and wit.

The "bad cops" and government are in league with Luke and and if we speak up we will have to go into hiding before the next sunrise? Am I understanding that correctly?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Yep, they know where each of you are - probably connected with the admin of this forum, and can shut you down in two minutes before the sun rises. Bravado is worthless against this government. Our guns, even less worth. Survival will be by stealth and wit.

Do you know something about the owner/Admin of this forum that those of us who have been here for several years don't know?

In reply to Rich Kid, this kind of idiocy is the reason there's not more replies in this thread. There are pro-cop and pro-liberty people on this site. And yes, I personally consider those two as pretty strict dividing lines that are not easily occupied by the same person holding both sets of values at the same time, but here's the deal: It's an open forum. You have to really try pretty hard to get banned from here, which means that it is one of the freest forums on the interwebs. We have many differences, but they're all allowed to be expressed as long as a modicum of manners and decorum are maintained. It is not set up to be a pro-cop or pro-liberty website per se, it's set up to allow the free exchange of ideas. It's set up as a bastion of free speech. Someone who thinks there's too much police state being empowered in this country should appreciate that fact rather than criticizing the fact that free speech, including pro-cop speech, is even allowed here in significant numbers, numbers BTW, that I think you vastly over-estimate.

Blues
 

Rich kid

New member
In the brief time that I have been on this site I have seen three people get banned. One of which was banned for being critical of the nra.
 

ingrahmm

New member
I don't know. But you're nuts if you think it not possible. It's a perfect reservoir to harvest weapons owners information, weed out those who speak out too much against the government, etc... It's not difficult to link IP addresses to real persons. You haven't thought of it? Read the Milgram Experiment (link above) only takes 3 minutes - a well documented case showing how quickly ordinary and honest people will cave to authority with minimal incentive. How old are you? You may remember the old Soviet Union was replete with snitches and amateur KGB tattlers. They were guaranteed at least a few perks and easier work load. I see the same dynamic developing here in the USA. LEAs have been ramping up the outreach to 'report anybody suspicious.' That's a pretty broad category of people that this NSA/police state wants to know. I'd guess that the odds this forum, and a couple of the large similar gun forums, feed the government all the info they want is 60/40 - 60 that they are. You asked me my opinion, I told you. I may be blocked from now on after this opinion so, see ya! lol

The "bad cops" and government are in league with Luke and and if we speak up we will have to go into hiding before the next sunrise? Am I understanding that correctly?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 

ingrahmm

New member
you say: "badge polishers" lol, I like that and will use it if you don't mind. You may be right and I hope you are.
I suggest that you read some of the previous entries concerning this topic. You'll find that there are far less "badge polishers" (many having seen the light of overwhelming evidence) and far more members that see the reality of the situation at hand, and the role that over militarized police forces have and will play in America's future social upheavals.
 

ingrahmm

New member
There's more idiocy as you say in presuming low replies is single-factor based. You'd never make it as a professional writer if you need a daily dose of thumbs up, lol, gotta be tougher than that. You can't go around looking for affirmation from everybody else.

Do you know something about the owner/Admin of this forum that those of us who have been here for several years don't know?

In reply to Rich Kid, this kind of idiocy is the reason there's not more replies in this thread. There are pro-cop and pro-liberty people on this site. And yes, I personally consider those two as pretty strict dividing lines that are not easily occupied by the same person holding both sets of values at the same time, but here's the deal: It's an open forum. You have to really try pretty hard to get banned from here, which means that it is one of the freest forums on the interwebs. We have many differences, but they're all allowed to be expressed as long as a modicum of manners and decorum are maintained. It is not set up to be a pro-cop or pro-liberty website per se, it's set up to allow the free exchange of ideas. It's set up as a bastion of free speech. Someone who thinks there's too much police state being empowered in this country should appreciate that fact rather than criticizing the fact that free speech, including pro-cop speech, is even allowed here in significant numbers, numbers BTW, that I think you vastly over-estimate.

Blues
 

ingrahmm

New member
BlueStringer, I'm not trying to get on your good side but I think you misread me.
Oh, one more thing regarding your first question, sorry I missed it the first time. Here's my reply to 'Warbirds' to the same question.

I don't know. But you're nuts if you think it not possible. It's a perfect reservoir to harvest weapons owners information, weed out those who speak out too much against the government, etc... It's not difficult to link IP addresses to real persons. You haven't thought of it? Read the Milgram Experiment (link above) only takes 3 minutes - a well documented case showing how quickly ordinary and honest people will cave to authority with minimal incentive. How old are you? You may remember the old Soviet Union was replete with snitches and amateur KGB tattlers. They were guaranteed at least a few perks and easier work load. I see the same dynamic developing here in the USA. LEAs have been ramping up the outreach to 'report anybody suspicious.' That's a pretty broad category of people that this NSA/police state wants to know. I'd guess that the odds this forum, and a couple of the large similar gun forums, feed the government all the info they want is 60/40 - 60 that they are. You asked me my opinion, I told you. I may be blocked from now on after this opinion so, see ya! lol


Do you know something about the owner/Admin of this forum that those of us who have been here for several years don't know?
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
In the brief time that I have been on this site I have seen three people get banned. One of which was banned for being critical of the nra.

I don't believe you that one of them was banned for being critical of the N R A. Know why I put spaces between the abbreviations? So it won't insert the auto-link to the recruiting page. I am as critical of the N R A as anyone who's ever been on this site. Just do a search on my user name for the key words "gun-control" and chances are, those two words will be in the same sentence, paragraph and/or thought describing the N R A as a gun-control organization. Yet here I am, so simply being critical of that .org is not enough to get someone banned. I know that first-hand and for an indisputable fact.

The other two that just got banned last week, like I said, had to try pretty damned hard. One of them was banned before and didn't have the manners or self-control to stay away from where he wasn't wanted by the property owner. The other one was his brother who stepped up to defend his trespasser-brother's trolling when he was called out on it.

I'd like to know how you would, or even could, know why someone was banned anyway? I didn't know why the above-mentioned troll was banned when it happened to him, at least not the specific offense that was the last straw. Only after his return and he admitted to his offense did I have an inkling what caused it.

So where is your evidence that the owner of this site bans people just for being critical of the N R A? And consider this too: IF he did pull the trigger for such a petty crime, he would have every right in the world to do it, and those, like me, who have challenged nearly every N R A member on this site to explain how and why they aren't a gun-control .org, would have to choose between continuing those challenges or stifling ourselves if we wanted to stay here. If this were really a pro-cop site, people like me again, and I guess like you, who don't have a lot of great things to say about cops, would have to make the same choice again. But I criticize cops at nearly every turn, so no such choice is necessary.

Telling stories out of school, like you knowing why someone got banned when the overwhelming odds are that you don't really have a clue, might get you banned, but simple criticisms of the N R A or cops most certainly won't.

BlueStringer, I'm not trying to get on your good side but I think you misread me.

Umm, I certainly have no illusions about you trying to get on my good side, but no, I didn't misread you, and your subsequent replies prove it. You're pulling statistical odds out of your butt that the one and only Admin/owner of this site is some kind of government shill, passing along IP info, and heck, while you're at it, why not play the odds that he's providing government with our registered email addresses too? A 60/40 lie that you have a clue what you're talking about is still a lie.

Sorry, it is complete idiocy to join a site and within only seven days start throwing around accusations about its owner that you can't back up with even a scintilla of evidence. If you do get banned, it won't be because you expressed an anti-government opinion, it will be because you expressed a personally offensive opinion about someone of whom you know nothing, and it just so happens that that person is the one and only person on this site with the authority to put a stop to your personally offensive speech on his own. That's why I call it idiocy.

BTW, I couldn't care any less whether or not I get "Likes" for what I say, but it just so happens that I've got close to twice as many "Likes" as I've got posts, and you've got less than 1/4 the number of "Likes" to your number of posts. I don't even know why you brought that up, but there's the facts, unlike just pulling something out of my butt to say something about you when I don't have a clue as to its veracity.

Blues
 

Rich kid

New member
Blues, I will refute the irrefutable. I saw first the exile of a poster immediately following his criticism of the national rifle association. You are obviously irrational and delusional, so I won't waste my breathe attempting to raise your level of ignorance.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Blues, I will refute the irrefutable. I saw first the exile of a poster immediately following his criticism of the national rifle association.

Then link to it. Prove what you're saying. That's how it's done. You make an unsubstantiated claim, someone challenges you to substantiate it, and you substantiate it. Simply repeating the unsubstantiated claim is devoid of substance and reeks of more blowin' smoke about someone having taken an action for reasons you neither have, nor could have, any knowledge of.

Substantiation works like this, like if I said that I routinely criticize the N R A, I should be able to link to posts that prove it, right? Try here, here, here, here, here, here or here, and those are just a few that I could link to, all replete with copious amounts of documentation, cites and links to back up every allegation I make against the N R A. I certainly won't be surprised if you can't bother yourself with actually reading any of that well-documented research and commentary, as obvious as it is that you are hardly receptive to actually learning something from someone so obviously irrational and delusional as I am.
pajenry_by_laoperz.gif


You are obviously irrational and delusional, so I won't waste my breathe attempting to raise your level of ignorance.

Pffft. Again, got a link to back up what you say? Anyone can spew unsubstantiated insults. But it appears that you did say at least one accurate thing here - allowing your playground-level insults to bait me into responding in kind would indeed make me more ignorant, whereas, you could actually learn something useful if you read even one of the links I supplied you.

Blues
 
E

ezkl2230

Guest
Then link to it. Prove what you're saying. That's how it's done. You make an unsubstantiated claim, someone challenges you to substantiate it, and you substantiate it. Simply repeating the unsubstantiated claim is devoid of substance and reeks of more blowin' smoke about someone having taken an action for reasons you neither have, nor could have, any knowledge of.

Substantiation works like this, like if I said that I routinely criticize the N R A, I should be able to link to posts that prove it, right? Try here, here, here, here, here, here or here, and those are just a few that I could link to, all replete with copious amounts of documentation, cites and links to back up every allegation I make against the N R A. I certainly won't be surprised if you can't bother yourself with actually reading any of that well-documented research and commentary, as obvious as it is that you are hardly receptive to actually learning something from someone so obviously irrational and delusional as I am.
pajenry_by_laoperz.gif




Pffft. Again, got a link to back up what you say? Anyone can spew unsubstantiated insults. But it appears that you did say at least one accurate thing here - allowing your playground-level insults to bait me into responding in kind would indeed make me more ignorant, whereas, you could actually learn something useful if you read even one of the links I supplied you.

Blues

Wasting your time, Blues.

***EDITED***

RK is among the new crop who believe that it isn't necessary to provide documentation for anything they say. Just saying it is sufficient for them. If you can't accept the self-evident nature of their truth, then you are delusional or ignorant beyond hope. He knows everything there is to know about LEO's from his extensive time working at the doughnut shop, and he is such a keen observer that when he says someone was banned for speaking against the NRA, it must be so; there COULDN'T be any other explanation. For proof of what I am saying, I refer you to the last couple of posts he left for our enlightenment on this thread.

And, no, I haven't taken him off my ignore list, I can see his posts quoted in the responses others have left for him. Makes him a little difficult to ignore.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,384
Messages
622,977
Members
74,198
Latest member
bretmcphilips
Top