Thursday, February 13, 2020

Open letter to Police

I've known a few police officers in private life over the years and none of them were oppressive extremists, and I have no doubt that most police officers intend to do exactly what they're allegedly hired to do, "to protect and serve," as the slogan goes. However, when I see what many police do on the job I often wonder who they're supposed to protect and serve; and whether they're more concerned about following orders from a corrupt political system than they are "protecting and serving" the majority of the public.

The highest profile issue that has been in the media about conflicts with police is almost certainly the high number of people they kill every year, which is clearly over a thousand, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. There've been a large number of claims that Black Lives Matter have been responsible for increases in murder rates in some cities, although this has been discredited by many sources including the New York Times which explains that Black Activists Don’t Ignore Crime 08/05/2016 and they're often involved, at the local level, with efforts to reduce crime and additional studies have shown that this has often been very effective, making cities safer for everyone including both African Americans & police.

Unfortunately these studies, grassroots organizations, and many of the best academics that can explain how to reduce violence, get little or no attention from the mainstream media, especially Cable News which gets far more viewers than print or internet articles, and politicians do little or nothing to help support these organizations, often pushing policies that increase leading causes of crime, including poverty, income inequality etc., by allowing corporations to suppress wages, shipping jobs over seas, cutting education, pushing charter schools, and many other policies that benefit campaign donors at the expense of the majority of the public.

This is just one example of many where people at the grassroots level organize to stand up to corrupt activities by governments or corporations, but they get little or no media attention and politicians often pass laws that are strictly enforced to prevent them from informing the public about corruption that is leading to epidemic social problems including massive environmental destruction, fighting wars based on lies, epidemic levels of corporate fraud, increasing poverty, depriving people of health care and many other issues.

There are numerous studies showing that pollution is killing millions of people every year, and activists around the country routinely protest against this; in a functioning democracy politicians respond by addressing their concerns and standing up to corporation profiting by the pollution. In our country politicians accept massive amounts of campaign contributions from these corporations and the media sells them massive amounts of air time for their propaganda minimizing education about the subject. They only cover candidates that collect these donations and make promises during campaigns then break them once in office.

As far as the establishment is concerned "Hope and Change" is just a broken promise from politicians that they push long enough to get elected.

Then when a small percentage of the public does their research through more reliable environmental sources, that are often ignored by mainstream media, and carry out protests, when media routinely ignores them they eventually get frustrated and obstruct something, peacefully, to draw attention to what amounts to negligent mass homicide at best. Only then are police instructed to enforce the law, not to prevent billionaires from profiting by polluting and killing millions of innocent people, but by arresting peaceful protesters so they can intimidate them and discourage them from acting on behalf of their communities.

When this happens they're not "protecting and serving" the vast majority of the public as, I'm sure, many of them intended to when they joined the police force; they're preventing corporations from being held accountable and enabling them to continue with their fraud and environmental destruction, even though that's not what many of them intend to do.

The same goes for one issue after another, including some that have some direct, or indirect link to reducing violence. When we fight wars based on lies the people telling those lies, like Bush, Cheney, the Clinton's and many more including generals, media pundits & the vast majority of congressmen or women aren't held accountable; those trying to expose them, like Phil Donahue Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei are fired or no longer allowed access to the media to warn public they're being deceived.

However, when a scandal that's so bad, like Abu Ghraib they feel they have to blame someone because they can't spin their way out of it, they blame the people that are trained to blindly follow orders, because they follow illegal orders; but those that gave the orders aren't held accountable. and those that disobey illegal orders are also charged for disobeying, including when entire war is base don lies like Iraq or Syria and many more.

Despite all the hype about how they respect their troops they routinely damn them if they do or if they don't; even though most veterans avoid being charged for either obeying or disobeying illegal orders they're routinely abandoned when the military no longer has a use for them; while they lavish enormous amounts of money on large corporations enriching wealthy people that donate to campaigns and don't have to worry about sending their own children to wars based on lies.

And, of course, anti war protesters are routinely arrested as well, instead of holding those accountable that start these wars base don lies or sell weapons to just about every tyrant in the world at one time or another, often that are being turned against us, after former allies turn against us and our government suddenly starts admitting that they were tyrants all along like Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and many others.

The political class also routinely demands arrests for protesters on many other issues, without addressing legitimate grievances, including about suppressing wages by shipping jobs overseas, demanding respect for Oligarchs subsidized by the government including Walmart, closing schools, depriving people of health care while giving corporations massive subsidies in the form of monopolies through patents, enabling insurance companies to control who gets health care and much more.

This is all justified by the claim that this is a democracy, or so they say; however, a real democracy has to have access to accurate research to base their decisions, and the vast majority of the public doesn't know where to find that, thanks to the consolidation of the media. we also need to hear from all applicants for political office; however, consolidated media only covers those they support ensuring that the vast majority of the public never hears form most honest candidates since they never develop name recognition.

The media is now controlled primarily by six large corporations that dominate over 95% of the national news and the next biggest half a dozen or more media outlets are also owned by billionaires or multi millionaires catering the same small fraction of one percent of the public.

And amazingly, many of these people that you often arrest are trying to solve these social problems, and have often learned to seek out alternative news sources or research that isn't covered by mainstream media. In many cases these activists are actively educating people on the most effective ways to reduce crime, which often means standing up to corrupt corporations.

The wealthiest parts of the country routinely make all the political decisions, rigging the economy in their own favor, while the poorest people routinely pay the highest price, often being deprived of the education and economic opportunities they need to get ahead. According to The Myth of Rags to Riches 07/11/2012 "only 4 percent of those raised in the bottom 20 percent ever climb into the top 20 percent." and even worse for minorities, "Fifty-six percent of blacks raised in middle class families fall to the bottom two quintiles as adults." This article doesn't go into the reasons why this is happening but given time there are plenty of sources that can show that the economic system is clearly rigged against the poor, especially minorities, and this is a major contributing cause of violence. One of the best sources showing how the economic system is rigged against many of the poorest minorities is "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol and there's many more where this came from. I could easily point out dozens more books providing additional details, assuming anyone was interested in checking them; although I suspect the ones most interested are already doing this on their own.

And on top of that some of the most effective solutions are being implemented at the grassroots level in many communities, not by the traditional political or media establishment. I've often tried to point out many of the best academics that teach about leading causes of violence, and how to prevent them. These academics practically never get much if any media coverage so they can educate the public as I've pointed out recently in Must We Hate? Must We Beat Children? and Burying Solutions to Prevent Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso Shootings as well as a series of studies starting with Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows and ending with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit which summarizes the articles and concludes that when people are educated more at the local level about the issues and how to reduce violence they're better able to hold their political leaders accountable, and this enables them to keep violence down in their own state or local areas.

I still have no doubt that crime could be greatly reduced if we addressed many of these social problems, and frankly some good police officers ahve made statements indicating that they agree with me including former Dallas Tx. Police Chief David Brown and former Madison Wisc. police chief David Couper, who both advocated for major reforms in policing and even though police chief Brown focused mainly on reforming the police he also made a good point during his speech when he said:
Not enough mental health funding, let the cop handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding, let’s give it to the cops. Here in Dallas we have a loose dog problem. Let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail, give it to the cops. 70 percent of the African-American community is being raised by single women, let’s give it to the cops to solve as well. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems. I just ask other parts of our democracy along with the free press to help us.

I would think that most police officers would agree with this part of his speech although apparently there's a lot of disagreement with some of his other reforms. I would also think that this would be followed up by a reversal of cuts in social programs that address these problems which lead to violence; yet, it's been almost four years since this speech and little has been done to do that, at least that I know of. Many of the most effective programs are implemented at the local level, and they get little or no media coverage, which could help educate people about how to implement this on a much larger scale.

In some cases the Black Lives Matter organization has been involved in implementing solutions including the Wheel Chairs Against Guns organization which is afiliated with BLM as indicated in the following excerpt from their web page:

Black Lives Matter New York | We Protect Inner City Students‎

The Problem

Bullying, gang activity and gun violence is rising at an alarming rate in schools across the country.

According to statistics gathered by and Gun Violence Archives, there have been 290 school shootings since the Sandy Hook tragedy in 2012.

And although not every incident received national media attention, there have been more than 36 school shootings in 2018 alone.

The Solution

As survivors of gun violence, the members of Wheelchairs Against Guns (WAG) have come face-to-face with the violence epidemic plaguing America.

Understanding the best way to end violence in our schools, is by preventing it before it happens, the WAG team focuses on teaching New York City students about the dangers and consequences of violent behavior in a way they can relate to.

WAG’s solution is a series of interactive violence prevention workshops that teach students:

Conflict resolution strategies
Critical thinking techniques
How to build and maintain positive self esteem Complete article

Other community organizers including Samuel Sinyangwe are also trying to educate public about effective ways to reduce violence, which will also make confrontations with police less likely, he pointed the following study which shows that local community organizations often help reduce violence, confirming some of my own conclusions in my reviews:

Community and the Crime Decline: The Causal Effect of Local Nonprofits on Violent Crime 2017

Largely overlooked in the theoretical and empirical literature on the crime decline is a long tradition of research in criminology and urban sociology that considers how violence is regulated through informal sources of social control arising from residents and organizations internal to communities. In this article, we incorporate the “systemic” model of community life into debates on the U.S. crime drop, and we focus on the role that local nonprofit organizations played in the national decline of violence from the 1990s to the 2010s. Using longitudinal data and a strategy to account for the endogeneity of nonprofit formation, we estimate the causal effect on violent crime of nonprofits focused on reducing violence and building stronger communities. Drawing on a panel of 264 cities spanning more than 20 years, we estimate that every 10 additional organizations focusing on crime and community life in a city with 100,000 residents leads to a 9 percent reduction in the murder rate, a 6 percent reduction in the violent crime rate, and a 4 percent reduction in the property crime rate.


Largely overlooked in the theoretical and empirical literature on the crime decline is a long tradition of research in criminology and urban sociology that considers how violence is regulated through informal sources of social control internal to communities. The “systemic” model of community organization and crime focuses on the set of actors, organizations, and institutions that influence the level of social cohesion within a neighborhood and the degree to which communities are able to solve common problems and realize shared objectives (Bursik 1999; Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Sampson 2012; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). This model has been extremely influential in the study of cross-neighborhood variation in violence and crime, but it has been largely missing in debates about what caused “The Great American Crime Decline” (Zimring 2006).

In this article, we incorporate one key dimension of the systemic model into the literature on the crime decline by presenting national evidence on the role that local organizations played in reducing crime. Our focus is on local nonprofits formed to confront violent crime and build stronger communities. Our goal is to present causal evidence on the impact of these organizations on crime and violence in U.S. cities.


Local Organizations and the Fight against Violence from Within

The focus on external forces that contributed to the crime decline stands in contrast to many observers’ accounts that document extensive efforts by local organizations and community leaders to organize residents in an effort to confront the problem of violence. These examples typically come from case studies conducted in specific communities. But considered together, they reveal a local mobilization against violence that has been largely ignored in debates about the national drop in violent crime.

Von Hoffman (2003), for instance, documents the work of community activists in South Central Los Angeles who organized to hire and train formerly incarcerated residents to clean up sidewalks and maintain the streets, build over 100 units of affordable housing in their community, and coordinate 57 block groups to ensure that street alleys were not used for dumping or drug dealing. Putnam, Feldstein, and Cohen (2004) interviewed residents and leaders from organizations like Valley Interfaith in the Rio Grande Valley and the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) in Boston to understand how years of organizing and advocacy had slowly generated change in their communities. The DSNI built affordable homes designed for community residents, provided jobs to young people in newly-developed community gardens and a greenhouse, and waged campaigns to clean up abandoned lots, build new community centers, and stop outsiders from dumping trash on the streets of the Dudley Triangle. These efforts were designed to change the neighborhood from a dangerous, run-down, anonymous set of streets into an urban village, where the streets were clean and safe, and where people knew their neighbors and looked out for each other (see also Medoff and Sklar 1994).

Journalist Robert Snyder (2014) describes how community groups worked to transform Washington Heights in Manhattan, a section of New York City that was overtaken by gang violence and drug distribution. Organizations like Alianza Dominicana, the Community League of West 159th Street, the Dominican Women’s Development Center, and the AsociaciĆ³n Comunal de Dominicanos Progresistas organized and marched to bring resources and political attention to the fight against violence. Mothers Against Violence, Friends of Fort Tryon Park, and the New York Restoration Project worked to clean up, maintain, and retake public parks within Washington Heights that had been dominated by drug dealers and addicts. Complete article

The conclusions of this study may be over simplified, as they often do in statistical studies that can't consider all the details that are addressed at the local level with some communities doing a better job than others with their local organizations, but the point is sound we need more effort to teach people about the leading causes of violence and how to prevent it and many of these local organizations are trying to do that with little or no help from mainstream media which doesn't report on good research or politicians who are constantly trying to push policies to enrich campaign donors.

I'm sure that many police would argue that this isn't their responsibility; however, this is only partly correct. It should be the responsibility of the mainstream media to report on the best research that can reduce crime and address many other social issues where we have good research to solve many problems. It should be the responsibility for politicians to base their policy decisions on the best science available, instead of studying how to manipulate their constituents to turn them against each other and against you.

However they're clearly not doing their job and many of these protesters that you routinely arrest for obstruction, trespassing, or other incredibly petty charges, at the orders of corrupt politicians, are trying to address legitimate concerns, which should be considered a basic function of democracy.

John F Kennedy once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable," and rightly so. Right now by only covering candidates that are supported by big money from corporations the media is ensuring that honest ones never get name recognition to be elected, and those that do get elected routinely betray one promise after another to the public to benefit their campaign contributors. The lawyers that benefit from this corrupt system claim there's no quid pro quo presumably because they don't want to see one.

Our political establishment has proven to be incredibly corrupt and there can be no justification for allowing a small fraction of the richest people in the country to control over 95% of the media giving them an enormous propaganda advantage enabling them to corrupt the political establishment. Fifty years ago Stanley Milgram conducted an Obedience to Authority Experiment which he claimed was to understand why the Germans blindly obeyed orders during the Holocaust so that it can be prevented in the future. There's often outrage when people co pare things to Hitler and the Holocaust, but there's a gradual build up to these atrocities, and even though nothing that extreme has happened since many of the activities preceding it have, so it's important to recognize this progression before it gets to too much of an extreme.

The alleged message was that we need to learn when to disobey illegal orders. However as I indicated in a previous article, Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize this research was supported by the Office of Naval research and they're not in the habit of teaching their recruits to question orders, in fact they do the opposite, and Milgram's research can help them understand how to improve their indoctrination tactics.

Another famous experiment was also done to allegedly study why guards become so cruel with many similarities as I reported in Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment. This research was financed directly by the Office or Naval Research & it shows how training can lead to indoctrination and cruelty. Zimbardo also admitted to similarities to boot camp indoctrination as if he was trying to stop this but it was financed by the organization that developed those boot camp indoctrination tactics teaching to blindly obey orders. And the same tactics are used in many police academies. David Couper reported about how it teaches cadets to be abusive in his article Hazing and Bullying in the Police Academy 12/16/2013 and provided more background in his accompanying book.

Instead of teaching blind obedience to police when orders are coming down from corrupt politicians enabled by a corrupt media establishment, police should be taught to "protect and to serve," as the slogan goes, as well as do your part to defend the democratic process. When corporations profit off pollution while the media minimizes coverage of the causes of it and makes an enormous profit selling propaganda ads; then the political establishment demands that you arrest protesters, instead of those polluting and killing innocent people, if you obey orders your not protecting and serving the public or defending the democratic process; your enabling epidemic corruption and negligent mass murder. The same goes when you arrest community activists that are trying to educate about the most effective ways to prevent violence or exposing wars based on lies.

And in some cases in addition to passing up opportunities to reduce violent crime, pollution related deaths, war based on lies and other social problems, the police pay a heavy price for it when there is blowback by angry people that strike out when they see their own government hasn't been protecting them, insome cases the same people the government trains to fight in wars based on lies that learn they've been betrayed.

the tow mass shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge killing eight police officers were both done by veterans who were sent to wars base don lies and trained to use violence to solve their problems instead of seeking other alternatives. They also took place in cities that have been abandoned by the political establishment with murder rates at least two and a half times the national average, which is already higher than most developed countries. Chris Dorner, who was trained by both the Navy and the police department to protect us, also struck out violently when faced with racism and corruption in the police department. Even though his response was clearly ineffective and unjustified, ignoring the corruption that leads to a hostile work environment and was a contributing factor won't help solve the problem. This has proven that John F Kennedy's quote has come at least partially true, although these irrational attacks hardly qualifies as a revolution.

And there are many more attacks on law enforcement, often by troubled people that didn't get access to quality education economic opportunities or protection from an abusive upbringing. Some of these attacks may have been partially motivated by previous abuse from police; there are certainly plenty of stories like the video of a Seabrook NH police officer arbitrarily slamming a prisoners head against the wall while other cops laughed that surfaced a few years ago. People living in the poorest cities know about many more of these stories, and they know they're not all being made up because they often see them first hand, it's only because of increases in technology that so many are becoming public lately. There's a strong chance that the Las Vegas shooter at CiCi's Pizza and Walmart may have been a victim of police brutality. Even a quick look at the police officers memorial board shows that there are more deaths in areas with high crime and murder rates than those without them, although like all sociology statistics there are some exceptions.

Your unions routinely fight tooth and nail to prevent police officers from being held accountable for the most abusive obvious shootings that are taken to extremes. the police officer that was caught red handed slamming an handcuffed prisoners head against the wall even demanded his job back while denying wrong doing. I'm not talking about the shootings where there's someone shooting at you first, I know the majority of fatal police shootings probably fall into this category, but there are many that are clearly way out of line especially when the target is unarmed and there's no reason to believe he was armed.

If you can negotiate for this you can demand not to be used for political purposes when politicians refuse to address political grievances or when the media refuses to cover good research that shows how violence can effectively be reduced. You can engage with these community organizations and invite politicians to attend meeting s as well. If they begin to realize that they may not have police officers willing to suppress some of the best informed citizens in this country then they may realize they'll have to do the job they were supposed to do in the first place.

As long as the political establishment thinks they're uncountable then they'll use you to suppress us, even though I have no doubt that this isn't what the best police officers ever intended. the media and, perhaps even the protest movement seems to have developed some kind of myth about how getting arrested to protest political and corporate corruption shows that democracy is working; when it does the opposite. Not that the protesters are carrying out counterproductive activities; they're exposing the flaws. However, when the political establishment repeatedly has people arrested without addressing legitimate concerns, this doesn't show how democracy works, it shows how the illusion of democracy works, and it's important for us to recognize that. Democracy works when politicians are forced to stop ignoring legitimate concerns from the people.

If they can't count on police to blindly obey orders to suppress legitimate grievances then they'll have to address legitimate concerns.

Of course more will have to be done to ensure that the media reports the best research that teaches how to reduce crime and solve other social problems; however without police helping suppress activists from trying to solve these problems as well that will be much more likely.

Blindly obeying orders from a corrupt political establishment isn't staying out of politics; it's participating in it on behalf of corrupt politicians.

For additional sources to this article see the following:

For additional research from Samuel Sinyangwe see Tweet string: Invest in alternatives to police as crime prevention strategies. Every 10 additional organizations in a city: - Reduces the murder rate by 9% - Reduces violent crime rate by 6% - Reduces property crime rate by 4% The Research: 10/05/2019

Black Lives Matter Week of Action | Teaching Tolerance 12/04/2018

East St. Louis is perhaps the most violent city in america with an average murder rate about sixteen times the national average with some years rising to twenty times the national average. There are dozens more cities including many much larger that have murder rates at least three to four times the national average, and over a hundred that ahve more than double the national average. Our national average is five times the rate of many European nations that take care of social problems much better and ban corporal punishment, a leading cause of long term violence, both in the schools and in homes. We have research to show how to make this far less likely.

The media chooses not to report on this research and the political establishment chooses not to base their decisions on this research and when community activists recognize this and speak out they may risk being arrested instead of getting their concerns addressed.

East St. Louis, Illinois murder rates Average from 2005-2018, excluding 2013 was 84; four of those years had rates above 100. Population: 26,662 median household income: $20,888

Wayback Machine Archive many be more complete from May 1st 2013 to July 31 2018 Killed By Police 2017: 1,194

Killed By Police current administration has slightly fewer deaths for 4 complete years that old administration recorded, although I didn't go through them all to see if there was redundancy or missed deaths.

Pollution kills 9 million people each year, new study finds 10/19/2017

An estimated 12.6 million deaths each year are attributable to unhealthy environments 03/15/2016

Does air pollution really kill nearly 9 million people each year? 03/12/2019

Watch the March on the RNC 08/27/2012

Suppressing protests from people that want to participate in the Democratic process isn't new; during World War I when mobs attacked women for demanding the right to vote police stood by doing nothing. During the Vietnam war when protesters that recognized that it wasn't fighting to defend democracy were violently oppressed in many cases by police or the national guard.

Friday, February 7, 2020

Has "The Coming Anarchy" arrived On Schedule?

There have been hundreds of doomsday prophecies throughout the centuries, including some that have come partially true, even if the so called prophets didn't predict all the details as many skeptics think they should to be considered paranormal or supernatural. However many of them weren't intended to be paranormal or supernatural in the first place; they were often intended to be rational and scientific, even if they weren't completely rational or scientific!

At least some of these are coming true, although like the ones that are considered magical, they also have their flaws. In at least a few cases the people making these predictions are also making the decisions that create disasters, and instead of trying to avoid them seem to be trying to do it intentionally, although they don't phrase it quite that way. One of the most extreme examples is Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," by Samuel Huntington which I covered years ago, explaining that Samuel Huntington ignores the most fundamental principles of Democracy and ignores the fact that many of our past wars have been fought based on lies then goes on to recommend a course of action that's clearly designed to bring about the disasters he's predicting, although, like many other prophecies, he doesn't get specific details right.

Robert Kaplan, author of "The Coming Anarchy" 2000 (A book consisting mostly of articles originally published in the Atlantic or other magazines in the 1990s) was almost as bad, and so are numerous other academics including Zbigniew Brzezinski, who also wrote a similar book predicting a disaster & recommending a course of action that would bring it about, although he wasn't quite as specific as Kaplan or Huntington; or Milton Friedman, who to the best of my knowledge didn't predict disasters, but according to the "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein he prepared a plan that would enable fanatical "Free Market Capitalists" to use shock tactics in the aftermath of disasters to suppress democratic processes and force an authoritarian economic system that would privatize functions carried out by the government in the hands of for profit oligarchies, that are not "free market" at all, and force suppression of human rights, environmental rights and many other rights supported by the majority of the public for the benefit of wealthy corporations.

At time Robert Kaplan seems to understand the basic principles of Democracy much better than Samuel Huntington; however, he still recommends the same military and espionage efforts to address the problem and doesn't get some of his far-fetched predictions right when they get to specific like the following one about The United States gaining territory from Canada:
This and many other factors will make the United States less of a nation than it is today, even as it gains territory following the peaceful dissolution of Canada. Quebec, based on the bedrock of Roman Catholicism and Francophone ethnicity, could yet turn out to be North America's most cohesive and crime-free nation-state. (It may be a smaller Quebec, though, since aboriginal peoples may lop off northern parts of the province.)

This prediction must have seemed kind of silly when he first made it in his 1994 article and now twenty six years later it's still hard to imagine why he would make a baseless prediction like this that hasn't come true nor does it seem likely to in the future. However, may of his general predictions of coming problems are close to the truth as long as he doesn't get too specific.

He does a far better job citing some of the most important causes of past present and future conflicts than Samuel Huntington does, although he doesn't follow up with them by recommending some of the most obvious solutions like the following excerpt about how education is a major contributing factor:
..... Another woman complained about the schools. Though her children had educational options unavailable in the village, they had to compete with wealthier, secular Turks. "The kids from rich families with connections—they get all the places." More opportunities, more tensions, in other words.


.... Only when people attain a certain economic, educational, and cultural standard is this trait tranquilized. In light of the fact that 95 percent of the earth's population growth will be in the poorest areas of the globe, the question is not whether there will be war (there will be a lot of it) but what kind of war. And who will fight whom?


In other words, a nation-state is a place where everyone has been educated along similar lines, where people take their cue from national leaders, and where everyone (every male, at least) has gone through the crucible of military service, making patriotism a simpler issue.

As I explained in the previous article about "The Clash of Civilizations" the fundamental of democracy start with an educated public that understand the issues and has access to accurate news to base their decisions. Kaplan acknowledges that "people take their cue from national leaders" and that males go "through the crucible of military service, making patriotism a simpler issue," but doesn't go into detail about how this also applies to many people in the United States, although military service isn't nearly as high as it used to be. However, the media is still controlled by a fraction of one percent of the wealthiest people in the country and they routinely lie about leading us into war, including omitting reporting about Vietnam's declaration of Independence so support for that war wouldn't be hampered by the knowledge that they wanted to choose their own leaders and we were trying to stop them or the fact that the CIA conducted a coup in Iran in 1953 then supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war enabling him to build up the military, or many other wars based on lies both before his article first appeared and after.

Nor does he recommend improving education of challenging the lies of our government, in most cases, although he does make some exception including objecting to the bombing of Cambodia by Nixon and Kissinger. He makes a similar mistake when it comes to the environment in the following excerpt acknowledging the threat it could bring but comes up short when it comes to recommending solutions:
Mention The Environment or "diminishing natural resources" in foreign-policy circles and you meet a brick wall of skepticism or boredom. To conservatives especially, the very terms seem flaky. Public-policy foundations have contributed to the lack of interest, by funding narrowly focused environmental studies replete with technical jargon which foreign-affairs experts just let pile up on their desks.

It is time to understand The Environment for what it is: the national-security issue of the early twenty-first century. The political and strategic impact of surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh—developments that will prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts—will be the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate, arousing the public and uniting assorted interests left over from the Cold War. In the twenty-first century water will be in dangerously short supply in such diverse locales as Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, and the southwestern United States. A war could erupt between Egypt and Ethiopia over Nile River water. Even in Europe tensions have arisen between Hungary and Slovakia over the damming of the Danube, a classic case of how environmental disputes fuse with ethnic and historical ones. The political scientist and erstwhile Clinton adviser Michael Mandelbaum has said, "We have a foreign policy today in the shape of a doughnut—lots of peripheral interests but nothing at the center." The environment, I will argue, is part of a terrifying array of problems that will define a new threat to our security, filling the hole in Mandelbaum's doughnut and allowing a post- Cold War foreign policy to emerge inexorably by need rather than by design.

The obvious follow up should be that we should stop using so much oil, increase conservation, renewable energy and stop obsessively buying things that we don't need; which is what many good environmental activists including Naomi Klein argue that we should do, but Kaplan doesn't go much further than this and his book actually encourages additional military activities which are making things worse. The good researchers get little or no media attention and often can only be found on alternative media outlets; even though Kaplan may seem more liberal than most of the mainstream media pundits, for brief periods of time, he comes up short; then he often pushes blatantly authoritarian pro-war propaganda.

In his second essay in this book he even argues against spreading democracy, as if that's actually what the United States has been trying to do. He also hints at the motive, which is defending our supply of oil instead of trying to develop cleaner energy:
Of course, our post-Cold War mission to spread democracy is partly a pose. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, America's most important allies in the energy-rich Muslim world, our worst nightmare would be free and fair elections, as it would be elsewhere in the Middle East.

Most of the media establishment, including Robert Kaplan, routinely try to portray Islamic terrorist as religious fanatics that don't have any other motive; however, even though religious fanaticism is a contributing factor our interference in their affairs propping up tyrants to do the will of our corporations is also a major factor. Osama bin Laden was previously supported by the United States when he was part of the mujaheddin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, which is routine, Saddam was also our ally before he became our enemy, yet establishment pundits including Kaplan are quick to forget this. Osama bin Laden made it clear that the reason he was against the west was because of their interference in the Middle East and wanted the troops out of Saudi Arabia, which if you accept the mainstream narrative that he carried out the 9/11 attacks was clearly his motive; however the mainstream narrative conveniently ignores this fact.

Kaplan also remains silent about epidemic levels of arms sales around the world even though many of the weapons we sell are routinely turned against us when our former allies turn into enemies or lose control of where the weapons go!

He also ignores the best research about the leading causes of violence both at home and abroad often acting as if people are born evil, without recognizing early childhood education and how it leads to escalating violence when kids are abused or development of critical thinking skills when they're raised well, and abling large reductions in violence where this is recognized. This includes genocide which in WSJ: Robert Kaplan Idealism Won't Stop Mass Murder 11/14/1997 he doesn't seem to recognize the long term cause as indicated in the following excerpts and even seems to accept some genocide for ideological reasons:
In this case, progress in global education: if only Americans spread our values and international community holds spectacular tribunals of war criminals, then genocide might become a thing of the past. Such an approach is both noble and naive.


..... In the 1980s, we supported the Khmer Rouge as a wedge against the Soviet Union after they had murdered over a million people, and policy that while despicable was not irrational given the Cold War.


Alas, protection against evil is surest when man is assumed to be wholly unimprovable. That is a dilemma that liberal internationalism, which subscribes to Progress, has never satisfactorily dealt with. The policy that best incorporates such a bleak view of humanity is "balance of power" or more precisely, balance of fear and intimidation. ......

For Israel, after all, is the only nation in history whose state system directly incorporates the lessons of mass murder. And what are those lessons? The need for an advantageous balance of power in the region, and a powerful military, but also for lethal security services that both provide early warning and instill fear of the kind civil societies do not tolerate. In fact, the very intelligence services that we often denigrate and, in some cases, want to dismantle would be precisely what we need to warn us in advance of the threat of genocide.

Remember that for Israeli policymakers, war crimes trials are a weapon held in check for rare occasions only. When they're used, it is as an accessory to the daily actions of the country's military-security machine. And when Israelis say Never Again, they mean never again to Jews: Other people will have to take care of themselves.

But many Americans think that it may be possible to afford some protection to all those other people. If so, I fear that we may have to be very ruthless indeed.

Amazingly he acknowledges that Israel is only interested in protecting themselves from another genocide, not any other people; and he doesn't seem to raise any objection to the oppression of the Palestinian people in a state of apartheid where they're constantly stealing their land, in what could approach another genocide if it escalates even more, and many people already consider it genocide already.

Zionist often refer to all criticism of Israel as Antisemitism; however, many of the strongest critics are other Jews; and even though they had legitimate grievances for thousand of years culminating with the Holocaust, that doesn't give them the right to respond by using the same tactics against the Palestinians, who weren't responsible for Nazi Germany or for evicting the Jewish people almost two thousands years ago from Israel. Apparently Robert Kaplan is Jewish and once fought with the Israeli army and supports their cause, including the occupation of the West Bank, and presumably forcibly stealing land, yet he seems to consider this democratic.

Robert Kaplan, like many, or perhaps most establishment pundits seems to think that man is "wholly unimprovable" and doesn't seem to understand how vicious people become so vicious. For some reason the media is extremely reluctant to report on some of the best research on this subject and on some of the few times where it is mentioned in the mainstream media it's often demonized or misrepresented. It's far easier to find good research in libraries than the mainstream media; alternative media often does a better job; but they focus far more on wars based on lies or corporate corruption, which is a contributing factor to violence, than they do on child abuse and how it leads to escalating violence, which may be even more important.

The vast majority of the media establishment acts as if adults are born either good or evil, without acknowledging how early childhood education and upbringing has on how they behave as adults. Occasionally the media, especially on talk shows like Jane Velez Mitchell or Nancy Grace, will bring it up as if it's an excuse for horrible crimes, not an explanation that could help learn how to prevent it. They typically respond to it by shouting "that's no excuse" or saying that"yea but lots of us were abused and we didn't turn out to be murderers," and end the discussion on the subject with that. But in most cases they don't even mention it at all as a contributing factor, at least not on TV.

However a review of some of the biggest mass murderers shows that many of them have been abused much worse than the vast majority of us; and even if many other people have also been abused as well, without turning onto mass murderers, they often have other emotional problems as a result of the abuse. Denial is one of those problems so many people are reluctant to acknowledge the damage it does. early child abuse leads to escalating violence throughout life including increased amount of bullying, hazing, domestic violence as an adult, and even murder. It impairs the development of critical thinking skills and teaches children to blindly believe what they're told and obey their leaders.

I've gone into this in many previous articles including Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?; a series of articles that reviewed this as well as other contributing causes of violence and ended with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit which explains that lcoal communities that do a better job learning about the leading causes of violence and addressing the social needs of their own people have less violence and more recently Must We Hate? Must We Beat Children? which points out some effective programs that help reduce violence including the home visitor program. There are nineteen states that still allow corporal punishment in schools and presumably use it more at home as well; and these states provide some strong, straight forward evidence of how much damage it does; for the past ten or eleven years the states still allowing it have had from 22% to just over 32% higher murder rates; the biggest difference was in 2018 which was the last year calculated.

This should be a clear indication that stopping child abuse and banning corporal punishment is a very effective way of reducing all violence; but there's much more evidence where that came from, although the media ignores it.

Some of the good researchers that I've found on this include "For Your Own Good" by Alice Miller (Free complete online copy) and Philip J. Greven: Spare the Child who both provide enormous amount of evidence indicating that early child abuse, including the use of corporal punishment does an enormous amount of harm. Another good researcher and author of Kids Are Worth It! and The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander 2008 does much more to advise on early child rearing tactics that are much more effective and helps address many social problems in the long term, although the media and even most of the academic world is reluctant to acknowledge how much damage abuse does and how many problems can be solved by preventing it.

Barbara Coloroso also draws a direct connection from bullying to genocide as part of the escalation of violence desensitizing children to abuse and even making mass murder more likely as indicated in the following excerpt from another of her books:

Barbara Coloroso "Extraordinary Evil—a short walk to genocide" 2007

Rather than give a talk only about school yard bullying, I used the opportunity to demonstrate that the concept of genocide in general, and the Rwandan genocide in particular, are macrocosms of the drama known as bullying—a theme alluded to but not fully addressed or developed in my book on childhood bullying. I suggested in that lecture that genocide is not an unimaginable horror—that, on the contrary, every genocide throughout human history has been thoroughly imagined, meticulously planned, and brutally executed.

That said, I must agree with Claude Lanzmann, the maker of the film Shoah, who is adamant about the “obscenity of the very project of understanding [genocide].” I don’t think it is possible to fully understand such evil, nor would I want to. That should not prevent us from studying it. Genocide is not outside the realm of ordinary human behavior. At the same time it is not normal, natural, or necessary. It is the most extreme form of bullying—a far too common behavior that is learned in childhood and rooted in contempt for another human being who has been deemed to be, by the bully and his or her accomplices, worthless, inferior, and undeserving of respect. The progression from taunting to hacking a child to death is not a great leap but actually a short walk. To begin to examine genocide is to first examine those steps.

The day before I gave that lecture, an administrator at a prestigious girls’ school in Kigali shared with me an incident that occurred at the end of the 2005 school year—eleven years after the genocide. A fifteen-year-old girl had found under her pillow a not from a classmate to the effect that the job of “cutting the trees was not yet completed” and that her long neck would soon have a necklace of machete cuts. Step one.

The pain of the “moral world turned on its head” does not begin with the machete cuts of Hutu Power, the gas chambers of the Nazis, the death marches of the Young Turks. The tragedy of genocide has many rehearsals that weaken moral inhibitions against violence, publicity that spreads bigotry and intolerance, a backdrop that establishes the climate, ominous sounds that signal the beginning and the end, scripts that heighten the tension and fuel the contempt, six scenes that seal the victims’ fate, a slew of character actors, and an international audience that either fails to hinder or actually helps to energize the performance of acts of extraordinary evil by ordinary people. Additional excerpts

For more from Barbara Coloroso see her nineteen minute talk at From school yard bullying to genocide: Barbara Coloroso at TEDxCalgary 02/20/2014

Bullying isn't the only contributing factor to genocide, of course, but it is one of the most important ones especially when combined with other forms of abuse that escalate to mass murder including early child abuse by adults that teach bullying behavior to kids in the first place, which is actually a form of bullying and they typically learned it from their own parents going back generations. I haven't read all of "Extraordinary Evil" but she also addresses other major contributing factors in her previous books, including early child abuse, and teaching development of critical thinking skills which helps address many social problems including constantly fighting one war after another based on lies, some which even include genocide, although she doesn't focus on that.

Alice Miller also made a similar argument in her book "For Your Own Good" (online copy) where she claimed that early child abuse of children was a major contributing factor to the Holocaust, including genocide, although neither Alice Miller or Barbara Coloroso filled in all the details in their books, nor would I expect them to, since most researchers focus on specific fields and they have to be crosschecked against each other; however there's much more additional supporting evidence in the academic world and in libraries. Unfortunately the best academics aren't featured often if at all on mainstream media nor is their work used to base political decisions. Instead supporters of the dominant political faction, which happens to be wealthy multimillionaires and billionaires that are controlling the media and interview process enabling them to give overwhelming preferential treatment to candidates for public office they support.

Most good academics that study this subject make very similar arguments, and I assume they would agree with most of what she writes; however there are at least a couple of critical reviews of her book, although I'm skeptical of them especially this one, Calling the Holocaust "Bullying" Is Offensive 05/18/2016, which appears to be an appeal to emotion and doesn't seem to address the content of Barbara Coloroso's book. After making what appears to me to be an emotional argument he says "In fact, it’s more accurate to say, 'The anti-bully movement is a short walk to genocide.'” without seeming to make a credible case for this conclusion; it sounds more like a childish version of someone throwing back an accusation at someone reversing it without addressing the issue. at this point I noticed that he doesn't even mention the name of her book, which was odd since that is how I found the article by Googling it, instead citing this article, 'Nazis were the biggest bullies in history' (retrieved from Wayback Machine) which although I don't disagree with the conclusion it doesn't provide as much content as Barbara Coloroso to back it up.

I also found the following reply which was apparently submitted by Barbara Coloroso:
Submitted by Barbara Coloroso on June 13, 2018 - 5:21pm

Dear Izzy, you appear not to have not read my work, Extraordinary Evil (or did not understand it) and I know you have a distaste for my book The Bully, The bullied, and The Not-So-Innocent Bystander. I have never said genocide is a form of bullying. I have stated that is a short walk from the hateful rhetorical of verbal bullying to hate crimes to crimes against humanity--the gravest being genocide. I have studied genocide for thirty years and have worked in Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide there.

Once someone begins to treat another (or a group of "others") with contempt, that person can do anything to them without shame or compassion because those they treat with contempt become to the perpetrator an "it," "vermin", "cockroaches," "animals" or in the case of the Rohingya--"fleas." We only have to look around our country today to see this dehumanization process happening. The "Trap of Comradeship" that Sebastion Haffner wrote about in "Defying Hitler" explains how others get caught in the trap and begin to work in consort with the perpetrators.

When asked by Senator Markley if they were concerned about the impact that family separation would have on children at a detention center where young children are being separated from their parent at our border, people working there answered: "We simply follow orders from above." (From Michelle Goldberg, First They Came For The Migrants, NYT June 12, 2018) In no way do I make a comparison of bullying to genocide as if they were equal--they are not, but I will not deny the short walk, as we have seen these steps in history and are seeing them in motion today.

Apparently he provided a long reply where he acknowledges that he didn't read her book saying the following:
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. Though I disagree with you on fundamental matters regarding bullying, because you are presenting the view of the anti-bullying field that I criticize as fundamentally flawed, I have great respect for your abilities and accomplishments, and am honored to have you correspond with me.

No, I haven’t read your book on genocide, as I can’t possibly read all books. I've only articles about that book. I have read your book on bullying and on parenting. They are both extremely well written, and the content of the latter I consider to be very good. Have you read any of my books? If not, I will be happy to send you complimentary copies.

....... As I documented thoroughly in the article, Hitler killed my relatives not because he felt like bullying them but because he believed that they were the bullies and needed to be eradicated. He was the ultimate an anti-bully activist. .......

Almost all of us are capable of engaging in genocide under the "right" circumstances. All it takes is for our leaders to convince us that we are victims.

To read his full reply see go to the top of the article click on the blurb next to E-mail notification listing at least 20 and scroll about four or five down. Apparently not only didn't Izzy read her book but he doesn't seem familiar with a lot of the other background on the subject. Otherwise he might have understood that abused children are much more likely to become paranoid and assume others are out to get them whether they are or not. this is one of the characteristics that both Alice Miller and Philip Greven point out in their books. They often can't blame their abusers, who are often their own parents or caretakers so they blame others often irrationally.

I have no doubt that we're not all capable of engaging in genocide under the right circumstances, as Izzy claims, and Alice Miller has pointed out that some people did stand up to the Germans, although they were often killed, concluding that these are the people that were raised in a much more compassionate manner without abuse. Furthermore, claiming that the anti-bullying movement, including academics like Barbara Coloroso, who are trying to prevent child abuse and bullying before they escalate, a potential contributing cause for future genocide is mind boggling, to put it mildly, especially from someone that is supposedly a "Nationally Certified School Psychologist."

Another Review of Extraordinary Evil: by Elizabeth Yeoman is partly critical of her although it's much more reasonable, agreeing with some of it, saying: Calling genocide "the most extreme form of bullying", she describes the latter as "a far too common system of behaviors that is learned in childhood and rooted in contempt for another human being who has been deemed by the bully and his or her accomplices to be worthless, inferior, and undeserving of respect" (Coloroso, undated). ..... "The more one does good, the easier it becomes to do more good [and] the more one acts cruelly, the easier it is to be cruel again" (p.141),

Elizabeth Yeoman doesn't seem to be optimistic about preventing genocide as an "attainable goal;" however, I have little doubt that it is an attainable goal as long as all the contributing causes are addressed including early child abuse bullying and improved democratic process with a media that covers the best research so that we can elect politicians that will look out for our best interests instead of maintaining a permanent state of war which our politicians and Robert Kaplan seem to want as long as they're not the target of that war. Not that actually carrying out all the related tasks to educate the public about reducing violence is easy or quick.

Yeoman points out that Barbara Coloroso's book was removed from the curriculum by the Toronto Board of Education after a complaint from the Turkish community "on the grounds that Coloroso was not a historian" as if that's the only criteria that is applicable. However, she has much more background on applicable fields than most historians, with the possible exception of Philip Greven, who is a historian and focuses on early child rearing tactics by Protestants and is one of Coloroso's sources for some of her work. This includes Samantha Power, author of "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" 2002 who also appears to have some historical background and is recognized as a specialists in genocide; however, even though she's familiar with the history of genocide as indicated in her book, she doesn't appear to benefit from Alice Miller or Barbara Coloroso's background at recognizing the root causes of violence, including genocide.

Like Robert Kaplan, Samantha Power only seems to address military solutions to stop genocide without recognizing long term factors that might make this unnecessary; in all fairness, in many cases, when those concerns are not addressed in time then the only possible solution may be military, or to allow it to happen. One example is the Rwandan genocide, which Samantha Power and numerous other academics claim that it could have been prevented if there were only a few thousand troops to serve as a deterrent.

There's some indication that all the people were willing to blindly obey orders in most if not all of these genocides, including the Holocaust and the Balkans; Samantha Power points out that when Tito was in power and maintained an authoritarian regime they weren't killing each other, but their hated appears to have been suppressed; and again when they were in the custody of the U.N., according to Samantha Power they were able to live together without fighting each other. There was more problem with Serbs fighting each other to pressure their own people to remain silent about the atrocities so they wouldn't provide evidence.

When they were under the control of an authoritarian power they were apparently taught to obey orders, and that's what they did. Some of the same abusive child rearing tactics teach escalating violence also teach blind obedience as I pointed out in Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiment. This is another major contributing cause of mass murder and teaching the masses to trust incredibly corrupt politicians. The same states that I previously pointed out that allow corporal punishment in schools and have higher murder rates, on average, also have higher problems with corruption and many other social issues because they blindly believe their leaders.

The Balkan genocide, which Samantha Power also writes about would have been much tougher since they were much better armed; Samantha Power seems to think that the air war for that was satisfactory way of solving the problem, although it did an enormous amount of damage, often referred to as "collateral;" however, I get the impression that most military experts believe that they could have saved many more lives without killing innocent people with air bombing if they had used troops on the ground, but some of those would inevitably have been killed. I don't know how many would have died perhaps one military troop for every dozen to a hundred lives that might have been saved, but this wasn't considered politically worthy to Bill Clinton or the rest of the political establishment.

However, this is based on the assumption that we don't address the long term causes of violence before it becomes necessary to use military force. Neither Samantha Power or Robert Kaplan seem to acknowledge this; and Robert Kaplan goes even further arguing for increased use of espionage which he refers to as "intelligence" and even defending a permanent state of war warning against "The Dangers of Peace."

In Robert Kaplan "Special Intelligence" February 1998 Kaplan argues:
....... But media criticism of the CIA is so constant and blistering that it suggests a hatred of the intelligence profession itself -- or at least a feeling that spy agencies are obsolete in a post-Cold War information age. That is ironic, because the intelligence industry is sure to become even more necessary for our well-being, and therefore more powerful within government.


For an army that will have to act secretly, unconventionally, and in advance of crises rather than during them, intelligence is critical. Indeed, the growth of Special Forces might be a crude indication of the collapse of any distinction between our military and intelligence services. Yes, the CIA itself might be done away with. What the CIA does, however, will not only grow in importance but also have the support of armed troops within the same bureaucratic framework.


Ever since the ancient soothsayers of the Delphic oracle there have been intelligence agencies of one sort or another. Spying is as old as war itself. Moses sent spies into Canaan. an important factor that led to Pearl Harbor was lack of enough good intelligence: The CIA, in its current form, may eventually pass out of existence, but in a world in which borders are dissolving and bad guys conceal bombs in their pockets or steal millions by means of computers, the intelligence business is set for a golden age.

However, he ignores the long term causes of violence that could address this all along, and he also ignores the incredibly long history of espionage agencies leading us into war, including the Vietnam War, coups in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and many other countries, as well as arming of both sides of Iran/Iraq war; these were even major contributing factors to the 9/11 attacks which was at least partially in retaliation for our own foreign policy practices. After the 9/11 attacks apparently Kaplan was an adviser to the Bush administration, and strongly supported the attack against Iraq which he later admitted turned out to be a disaster and it was partly a result of fake espionage information, which they refer to as "intelligence," that was exposed by Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei before the Iraq War. If they wanted to know that this war was based on lies ahead of time they would have and could have prevented it.

In the conclusion of his book he adds a new essay which I assume was not previously published titled "The Dangers of Peace" 2000 where he seems to claim that war is necessary for human progress and that it's "noble" assuming your not the one being killed or tortured, and that you accept the "just war" hypothesis, without acknowledging the research that can solve many social problems without resorting to war:
Until World War I, war was a respectable endeavor, even a noble one, for war as well as peace meant progress. What would humanity have become without rebellions! World War I delegitimized war. Its horror was too vast to be justified by any result, especially one so meager. .......

Peace enlarges the scope and intensity of such phenomenon, because with nothing of truly life-and-death importance at stake, the media requires less accountability. And because the media increasingly lack both irony and a sense of the past, they concentrate on public scandal, unaware that a system with little or no corruption would likely be tyrannical: Hitler's Germany, Mengistu ... Corruption, infidelity, and stupidity in moderate doses are, like occasional wars, evidence of humanity.


.... Therefore, a reduced standing army will likely result in an increase in gang activity and other forms of violent behavior. for example, militias were far less popular during the age of conscription because when everybody had to serve, khaki ........

Of course, we can lower our crime rates (as we have) by making potential victims less vulnerable -- through more prisons, electronic surveillance, and gated communities. One can see the pattern, though: true peace, of the kind many imagine, is obtainable only through a form of tyranny, however subtle and mild.


And because morality is unachievable without amoral force, the re-authorization of assassination by the U.S. Congress might do much more to contain evil than enlarging the Security Council to include nations such as India and Brazil .......

The U.S. should pay its dues and, in essence, without declaring it, take over the U.N. in order to make it a transparent multiplier of American and Western power. That, of course, may not lead to peace, since others might resent it and fight as a result; but such ......... against Saddam Hussein, the U.N. has always been most credible when it was an accomplice of U.S. foreign-policy goals.

It's hard to imagine where to begin with this; for starters, there were plenty of atrocities long before World War I; if he wants to check history he can find out about them and there are also plenty more disasters as a result of each war, often setting stage for future wars or plagues and riots that often follow wars like the McCarthy era following World War II, and the mostly forgotten American Protection League and other riots that followed World War I and more riots following the Civil war as well as many other similar incidents throughout history.

There's also the simple fact pointed out by Eugene Debs a hundred years again "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives." This was true when he said it; and it's still true today.

His claim that a reduced standing army will result in increased gang activity is seriously flawed, since, for starters, many gangs have encouraged some of their younger members without a record to join the military so they could come back and teach them their tactics and as I pointed out in Teach a soldier to kill and he just might there have been many veterans that have gone on mass murdering sprees. Furthermore, the parts of the country with the least amount of violence aren't the parts of the country with lowest recruitment rates; they're the parts of the country that do the best job addressing social problems that leas up to escalating violence at the local level.

His plan to lower crime with "more prisons, electronic surveillance, and gated communities" has already been taken to a bizarre extreme; and if you check the crime rates you'll find that there are places around the country with much higher rates of murder surrounded by wealthier communities with much lower rates of violence. He's not arguing for reduced crime for everyone equally, instead he's arguing in favor of increased apartheid tactics that enable a small group of people to make the political decisions that ignore the best research on any given subject and to push policies that enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.

His call to reauthorize assassinations is equally reprehensible as we recently saw with Donald Trump ordering the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani who was previously an ally against ISIS, although the media didn't remind us of that unless you checked alternative sources that retrieved old media stories about it. His recommending that we should pay our U.N. dues solely so that we can take it over and ensure that it does our bidding is equally undemocratic and reprehensible.

The bottom line is that the academic world has plenty of good research to show how to prevent these wars base don lies and solve many other social problems; yet the entire political establishment isn't willing to listen to the most credible academics. Instead they only listen to academics that support their ideology which seems to be surrounded by the quest for "Power For The Sake Of Power" as George Orwell wrote in 1984; but they have enough research available to themselves so that they should know that this will inevitably even destroy themselves, especially with climate change leading to escalating conflicts and as Robert Kaplan and many of their own academics acknowledge it will lead to the destruction of their own power; yet instead of listening to the academics that have much more effective solutions they dig in their heals knowing it will b\ring about their own destruction.

there's little or no doubt that most wars base don lies are knowingly and intentionally started and that even the ones that weren't were also a result of past incompetence like arming dangerous tyrants that inevitably turnout to be future enemies, including Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein, who April Glaspie was telling that they had no position on his border dispute with Kuwait just a few weeks before he invaded and also recommending that he hire public relations people to help improve his image. Then just a few months later they were trying to rewrite history forgetting about their former support and demonize him!

There's no doubt that something insane is going on but just how insane? Are they willing to self destruct just to hold onto power for a little longer? or do they have something much more bizarre in mind?

Robert Kaplan has expressed outrage at Donald Trump like many other mainstream media pundits; however, his own policies aren't much if any less fanatical than Trump's and by ignoring research that can address many social problems and refusing to educate the public about this; the political and media establishment have enabled him to be come president one way or another just as they've set the stage for one war after another that could have been avoided.

We go into a panic when he brings us to the verge of war repeatedly and then nothing happens like when he threatened North Korea with "Fire and Fury" like they've never seen before; then did nothing before eventually arranging a clownish summit to declare peace to some degree, then again when they threatened Iran repeatedly, and nothing happened as I went into in "Wars and rumors of Wars" Are Here Today for One Reason Or Another which even speculates about the possibility that this could be part of some bizarre long term ancient aliens conspiracy, which sounds insane; and the version presented by the History Channel certainly is insane. However, even though I try to be a rational skeptic and advise others to do so as well, they should keep an open mind, especially when evidence does come up to show that something big and unexplained is happening.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that there has been something major going on for thousands of years is the ancient megaliths weighing well over fifty tons, some over seven-hundred tons, moved over four-hundred miles, allegedly with ancient technology, despite fact that experiments using that same technology failed miserably to move anything above ten tons without cheating, those between ten and forty tone cheated to get the megaliths on a sledge then moved them very short distances, at best, breaking many ropes, and having many other problems, with an enormous number of people, and they didn't even try any experiments over forty tons.

On top of that there are many other major unsolved mysteries, most of which aren't nearly as clear cut, so reasonable discretion is advised; however they are worth a close look at and in many cases the close I've looked the clearer it is that we don't have a full explanation. Perhaps the most important example is claims by Philip Corso best selling author of "The Day After Roswell" which claims that he shared technology retrieved from alien craft with corporations for decades after the Roswell crash and numerous other incidents where they allegedly retrieved additional technology. I'm not recommending people believe this without checking facts, however there is enough evidence to show that either there's some truth to it or there's a massive effort to make it seem true, even when it's not.

If there's something to this theory then one potential motive for aliens might be research into Climate change & geoengineering and into many other things including medical issues, as I pointed out in Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory and Spectacular Heart Transplant for Sophia But at What Cost. Theories about Geoengineering are becoming increasingly more credible with additional mainstream academics claiming it's possible, one example is U.S. geoengineering research gets a lift with $4 million from Congress 01/23/2020; and there have been many more stories like this, some from credible sources like this one which should be taken seriously, and many more from questionable sources which should be looked at skeptically.

This includes attempts that go as far back as the sixties when Lyndon Johnson made a speech to Congress about the subject, as I pointed out in the previous article about this. you would think that at that time they wouldn't have been close to considering such a possibility, and most reports seem to indicate that their attempts were incredibly incompetent and not much better than rain dances; however, if they had made contact with aliens they would have access to some of their educational background. Furthermore, as I've explained previously, if this theory turns out to be viable they're almost certainly intentionally putting out an enormous amount of disinformation to confuse the issue, and encourage people to stereotype the subject, instead of looking at it scientifically, which would explain why both high profile supporters of this theory and skeptics make an enormous volume of mistakes so obvious that they should have caught them.

If on the other hand, there's nothing to this theory, as no doubt many people will believe then there has to be another explanation for the major unsolved mysteries, and they shouldn't have to spin, distort or censor to distract from them. More important, the vast majority of important research that is being done in the academic world to reduce violence or prevent environmental disaster, sin't being done by advocates, either for or against this theory, that I know of, and I suspect most of them would be skeptical. So these solutions will work whether or not the Ancient Aliens theory is true or not.

You don't have to take my word for this at all, if you haven't been reading good non-fiction books about these subjects yet start doing so and compare them to the educational material that is presented on mainstream media. One people start seeing what they're missing they're much more likely to recognize how incredibly incompetent the media is; and there are many more people that have come to the same conclusion, some that came to this conclusion decades if not over a hundred years ago like Mark Twain who said, "If you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read them you're misinformed."

For additional sources or some more select excerpts from Robert Kaplan's book see the following:

Wikipedia: Robert D. Kaplan

Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things) Jan./Feb. 2012 Kaplan admits that he was wrong about Iraq in this article but he doesn't retract the vast majority of his war mongering recommendations and beliefs.

Robert Kaplan "The Coming Anarchy" February 1994

Robert Kaplan Was Democracy Just a Moment? December 1997 My point, hard as it may be for Americans to accept, is that Russia may be failing in part because it is a democracy and China may be succeeding in part because it is not. .......

The very fact that we retreat to moral arguments—and often moral arguments only—to justify democracy indicates that for many parts of the world the historical and social arguments supporting democracy are just not there. Realism has come not from us but from, for example, Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, an enlightened Hobbesian despot whose country has posted impressive annual economic growth rates—10 percent recently—despite tribal struggles in the country's north. ........ A coup in Azerbaijan was necessary to restore peace and, by developing Azerbaijan's enormous oil resources, foster economic growth. Without the coup Western oil companies would not have gained their current foothold, which has allowed the United States to increase pressure on neighboring Iran at the same time that we attempt to normalize relations with Iran "on our terms."


Foreign correspondents in sub-Saharan Africa who equate democracy with progress miss this point, ignoring both history and centuries of political philosophy. They seem to think that the choice is between dictators and democrats. But for many places the only choice is between bad dictators and slightly better ones. To force elections on such places may give us some instant gratification. But after a few months or years a bunch of soldiers with grenades will get bored and greedy, and will easily topple their fledgling democracy. As likely as not, the democratic government will be composed of corrupt, bickering, ineffectual politicians whose weak rule never had an institutional base to start with: modern bureaucracies generally require high literacy rates over several generations. .......


According to Hobbes, ...... Enlightened despotism is thus preferable to democracy: the masses require protection from themselves.


I believe that Pakistan must find its way back to a hybrid regime like the one that worked so well in 1993; the other options are democratic anarchy and military tyranny. ......

Peru offers another version of subtle authoritarianism. In 1990 Peruvian voters elected Alberto Fujimori to dismantle parts of their democracy. He did, and as a consequence he restored a measure of civil society to Peru. Fujimori disbanded Congress and took power increasingly into his own hands, using it to weaken the Shining Path guerrilla movement, reduce inflation from 7,500 percent to 10 percent, and bring investment and jobs back to Peru.


The world's most efficient peacemaking force belongs not to the UN or even to the great powers but to a South African corporate mercenary force called Executive Outcomes, which restored relative stability to Sierra Leone in late 1995. (This is reminiscent of the British East India Company, which raised armies transparently for economic interests.) Not long after Executive Outcomes left Sierra Leone, where only 20.7 percent of adults can read, that country's so-called model democracy crumbled into military anarchy, as Sudan's model democracy had done in the late 1980s. ......

Of the world's hundred largest economies, fifty-one are not countries but corporations. While the 200 largest corporations employ less than three fourths of one percent of the world's work force, they account for 28 percent of world economic activity. The 500 largest corporations account for 70 percent of world trade. Corporations are like the feudal domains that evolved into nation-states; they are nothing less than the vanguard of a new Darwinian organization of politics.


We are entering a troubling transition, and the irony is that while we preach our version of democracy abroad, it slips away from us at home.

Google Books: Robert Kaplan Idealism Won't Stop Mass Murder

WSJ: Robert Kaplan Idealism Won't Stop Mass Murder 11/14/1997

Robert Kaplan Special Intelligence February 1998

Robert Kaplan And Now for the News: The disturbing freshness of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. March 1997

Robert Kaplan Proportionalism: What should the United States do in the Third World, where there's too much to do and too much that can't be done? August 1996 Or A Realist Approach to Foreign Policy as titled in his book.

Robert Kaplan Kissinger, Metternich, and Realism June 1999 TIME changes reputations. The current favorable reconsideration of Henry Kissinger may have less to do with the recent publication of his final volume of memoirs than with the lackluster quality of his successors at the State Department.

Robert Kaplan Conrad's Nostromo and the Third World 03/01/1998

Robert Kaplan "The Dangers of Peace" 2000

"The golden age of intelligence is before us" 09/21/2001 Robert Kaplan says fighting terrorism will require new rules for spying, but he predicts that fighting an "almost comic book evil" will lead to a revival.


You have written about Islamic fundamentalism as a challenge to regimes in Egypt, in Pakistan. To people who say the U.S. got attacked because of its policies, particularly toward the Middle East, what do you say?

First of all, that's not why we got attacked. But that doesn't mean we're not going to have to make certain concessions in order to appease Arab moderates in order to help us in our struggle. We'll get help from a regime, and they'll ask us to put pressure on Israel over settlements, for instance.

The real cause of the attacks is that the terrorists have an existential hatred of the modern technological world, even though they use its toys. And that hatred exists because they see our world as the real challenge to Islam in a way that communism never was. Because communism was a failure, it was never seen as a challenge to them.


You have traveled around the U.S. trying to understand where the country is headed. How do you think the attacks will change us as a country? What strengths and vulnerabilities have you observed?

Because we have had the dumb luck of geographical circumstance, until now we have been able to indulge ourselves in freedoms that other countries have not. We don't have to carry identity cards with us, like most Europeans. But we also tend to confuse convenience with liberty. And because of these freedoms, we tend to be that much more exposed. Historically, we have tended to denigrate the very parts of the bureaucracy like the intelligence services that have historically prevented these kinds of attacks.

The CIA functions badly because it's not been respected for decades. And when something's not respected, the best people are not attracted to join. What I see coming out of this is a kind of reform and resurgence of the CIA, like we saw in the U.S. military in the decade culminating in the Gulf War.

But there were umpteen television shows glorifying the CIA already set to air on the TV networks in the fall, before these attacks.

It's like pissing in an ocean. First of all, the Vietnam syndrome is over. The '60s are over. Assassinations will come back. Because there are no military targets. Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic had water and electricity grids to bomb. I mean, once we kept Belgrade out of running water and power for a week, Milosevic surrendered. We are dealing with an enemy now where there is nothing to bomb. You have to kill people.

As I said in the Atlantic, the next war is going to be all about intelligence. The great golden age of intelligence is before us, and the greatest spies are just being born now. Future wars are going to be based on the size and quality of the intelligence services. Because in a world of complex, variegated cultures, understanding intent is more important than satellite photos. We need people who can melt into societies.


What's your prediction for the coming days? Are you optimistic?

I'm very optimistic. If you look historically at America, America was coming apart into partisanship and hatred in the '30s -- Huey Long, Father Coughlin, all that. And then Hitler and Tojo came along, and it saved us. After World War II, the U.S. has experienced 50 years of dynamism. Out of World War II came the GI Bill, civil rights, the erosion of anti-Semitism -- all of this came out of World War II.

Without it, America would have rolled into decadence. But we have been a very lucky country. Every few decades, we are faced with almost comic-book evil. You are going to see: A lot will change.

I was not surprised by the tremendous civil spirit in New York for two reasons. The little reason is because New York has happened to have a very good mayor for the last eight years, not just for the last eight days. Rudolph Giuliani has spent the previous eight years restoring a sense of civil spirit in New York.

Kaplan is right about some of the advances after World War II; however, he's wrong about his belief that it couldn't have happened without the war. The reason why it didn't happen until then was because a small fraction of the public controlled the entire economic, media and political system and was using this to rig it for their own benefit. when these improvements did happen it was as much if not more as a result of grassroots activism and some of the better aspects of socialism, which our government demonizes could have accomplished this without war by having government subsidize research and social programs instead of war. this would require getting the details right, of course; many version of socialism have been as disastrous as capitalists claim they are, including corporate socialism, which is what we have now despite their propaganda, where the risk is routinely adopted by tax payers while profits are given to the wealthy with political connections.

"Clash of Civilizations," Samuel Huntington

Second part of review on the "Clash of Civilizations"

Conclusion of review on the "Clash of Civilizations"

Alberto Fujimori

Review of Extraordinary Evil: by Elizabeth Yeoman "The more one does good, the easier it becomes to do more good [and] the more one acts cruelly, the easier it is to be cruel again" (p.141),

Calling the Holocaust "Bullying" Is Offensive 05/18/2016 In fact, it’s more accurate to say, “The anti-bully movement is a short walk to genocide.”

Wikipedia: Robert D. Kaplan

Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things) Jan./Feb. 2012

Small Genocides By Justin Podur 08/14/2014

Coloroso changes the subject: Extraordinary Evil: A Short Walk to Genocide