Discovery Channel hostage crisis ends with gunman’s death
September 2, 2010
James J. Lee, who was protesting what he said was the network’s promotion of overpopulation, was fatally shot by police after taking three people captive at the company headquarters in Maryland.
Silver Spring, Md.: Police shot and killed a gunman after he took three people hostage Wednesday afternoon at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters here, officials said.
A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing said authorities had identified James J. Lee as the likely suspect.
Lee, 43, who was upset with the channel over its programming, entered the building about 1 p.m., wielding a gun and wearing “explosive devices,” and took a security guard and two other employees hostage, police said. The rest of the company’s nearly 1,900 employees were evacuated from the building.
After several hours of telephone negotiations, Lee pulled out his gun and pointed it at one of the hostages, police said. Tactical officers then took aim at Lee, killing him. It was unclear whether Lee had been able to fire his gun, but all three hostages were able to escape safely, according to officials.
“I know that he had some history with folks at Discovery Channel,” Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said at a news conference after the shooting.
According to electronic court records, Lee was charged with disorderly conduct in 2008 and served 46 days in jail for a protest he staged in front of the channel’s headquarters. He said he was protesting that Discovery’s programming had little to do with saving the planet.
“He didn’t think we were environmentally sound,” said David Leavy, a spokesman for Discovery Communications, adding, “there had not been any communication from him in the last couple of years.”
A lengthy posting that could be seen Wednesday on a website registered to Lee expressed anger against the Discovery Channel and said it promoted overpopulation, according to a report from the Associated Press.
He said the network and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.” Instead, he said, it should air “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”
“NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis,” he wrote.
“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so,” he wrote. “I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.”
Discovery Health and TLC, both owned by Discovery Communications, spearheaded America’s fascination with prodigious families.
TLC is perhaps the most recognizable in the large-family genre of reality television with its one-time flagship series “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” which at its peak garnered 10 million viewers. Its spin-off, “Kate Plus 8,” premiered with 3.4 million viewers in June.
TLC’s other bountiful brood includes The Duggar family in “19 Kids and Counting.” The network has also aired “Table for 12,” and “Kids by the Dozen,” which featured a number of families with 13 to 16 children each.
Lee posted a manifesto at savetheplanetprotest.com, but his re-purposing of the web page he’d owned since 2008 was only the latest step in Lee’s on-and offline crusade to draw attention to his cause and gain notice from the Discovery Channel. Posts with his email address and name can be found online dating back to 2006.
Lee’s original website was worldguardianvoices.com. An archived version of the page shows he was in San Diego in early December, 2006. Using the contact email “firstname.lastname@example.org,” Lee posted a notice dated December 11 that year stating he would be “meeting at Border’s Bookstore Downtown San Diego Gaslamp area” with “prospective people who want to do something.” He described “World Guardian Voices” as “a movement designed to educate the masses on the impending cultural collapse from overpopulation, global warming, animal extinction, pollution, and exploitation.” As with his manifesto discovered today, Lee made it clear in 2006 that his efforts were inspired by the works of Daniel Quinn, an author popular among environmentalists and anarchists. There was no mention of Discovery or any of its historically affiliated networks on Lee’s old site. Lee made no mention of the science-themed cable network 11 days later, when he made a pair of mysterious posts in a group forum on Myspace.com. Lee wrote:
I believe that it is totally possible to save the world. Not because I am a delusional maniac high on something, but because I had a practical idea on how to do it. A vision you might say, a solid idea that was very possible. The idea is not so unusual that it could not fail. I believe that there is a possibility that it could fail, like anything else.
BUT, I believe it so strongly in this idea that I am willing to put all my retirement money on it and risk ending up living on the streets like a hobo begging for handouts.
I can’t tell anyone all the specifics about my idea, because we are in competition with other environmental groups that mean well, but serve the needs of the River. If I tell you exactly what it is, the idea could be lost forever and I’ll just go off into retirement while I watch the world consume itself, so don’t ask me to be too specific about my idea.
Lee later wrote what appears to have been a response to a question since deleted from the thread. His second post was guarded, ending with, “If the idea matures to a successful execution I will call you and tell you the complete idea, because at that point you will need to know. At that point you can refuse. You can refuse at any point and quit at any time. You are under no obligation to continue even once you have started. It will roll on it’s own after that.” He then added his his “misterfifteen” hotmail address.
His Manifesto is loaded with demands to the Discovery Channel, it is Lee writes:
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s
“My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done,
by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy
human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order.
Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human
overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS
and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!
2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.
7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!
8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s you resposibility because you reach so many minds!
0. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. ..
For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease! It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices.
Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES!
Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too.
The humans? The planet does not need humans.
Now where have we heard that before???? Babies as Parasites??? No more humans – how about the abortion/population control crowd, starting with Darwin and moving to Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Peter Singer to name just a few.
For some interesting history about Darwin, Eugenics and how that mentality is being used for population control today- watch Maafa21 (clip below)
Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely
Vodpod videos no longer available.
In the 1970s, author of the Bible on population control the Population Bomb” and known as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.
In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
“If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”
Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human”
Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.
It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.
Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.
When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?
Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.”
In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses South African philosopher David Benatar who said we should have humans sterilized . Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”
“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.
EUGENICS IN THE USA?
In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich.
Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.
Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown
In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.
Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked. ”
In this Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite) Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” . Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.
What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?
The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,
” Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“
Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide
What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”
Here are some of the “ideas” John Holdren published in his book Ecoscience:
Where do people like Lee get their “Humans as Parasites” ideas???? Perhaps it is from Planned Parenthood’s founder- Margaret Sanger:
Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had boards members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?
Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.
“ I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950
Maybe from videos like this on YouTube:
University of Texas Biologist Eric Pianka -Population Control: Professor “HIV would be too slow!”