The most dangerous man alive is not the President of the United States or a terrorist. He is not thought of as a mass murderer, and he is not a Premier or a military dictator. The often referenced Adolf Hitler was only known to have killed one person, and that person was himself. Osama Bin Laden did not kill anyone. Stalin did not kill anyone. Pol Pot did not kill anyone. This is not to say that these were good men. They were not. They were sociopathic monsters. But they were impotent without the help of the most dangerous man alive. They were probably, of their own accord, cowards.

The most dangerous man alive killed all the Jews who died during the holocaust. He was the one who killed all the innocent civilians on both sides of World War II and all other wars. He dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and he flew aircraft into the World Trade Centers. This man is known as The Troop.

The Troop kills.  The Troop is not necessarily strong or intelligent, although he can be both.  The Troop has no conscience, or if he does have one, he does not use it. The Troop believes.  Facts that contradict The Troop’s beliefs are considered false by definition.  The Troop has a weakness for sociopathic monsters. The Troop follows orders and has never heard an order he will not try to obey.  The Troop dominates, and uses force to ensure that others cannot do as they please.  The Troop works for money.  The Troop finds what he does to be glorious.

The Troop is self-replicating.  His actions lead to the creation of other Troops. The Troop obeys the laws of physics. For every Troop there is an equal and opposite Troop.  In spite of his penchant for violence, The Troop needs lots of support. He is particularly bolstered by unconditional praise and small tokens of gratitude from anyone, including people who do not know him or anything specifically he has done.  The Troop is parasitic. He lives off the sweat of taxpayers.

On some possible future night, when there is a knock on your door and a man in a uniform holds a gun to your head and demands your computer, that man will be a Troop.  If someone destroys your home with a bulldozer, or your village with artillery and missiles, that someone will be a Troop.  When people die in a drone strike in a far away land, a Troop pulled the trigger.  When prisoners are tortured, a Troop attached the electrodes to the testicles and flipped the switch. When your freedom is gone, The Troop will be the enforcer. If you are killed for resisting, The Troop will be the killer.

Like Zombies, Troops start out as normal people.  But Troops are real-life.  As horrible as it may seem, your son or daughter, or your best friend might become a Troop.  To prevent this from happening, it is best to get to Troops while they are still normal people.   That is when they are most open to reason.  One must be vigilant. Almost any normal person between the ages of 18 and 35 can become a Troop. The initial warning signs can start much earlier.

To be successful in stopping Troops, it is important to know what things can cause a normal person to become a Troop.  Sociopathic monsters, who are often found in high governmental positions, need Troops to be their henchmen. For this reason, they use the resources of government to attempt to turn normal people into Troops.  Government advertising makes becoming a Troop sound lucrative and adventurous and glorious. The government will claim to provide valuable training to normal people that become Troops, and also claim that becoming a Troop will give one discipline and direction.

Let your loved one know that the government propaganda they hear is, after all, produced by sociopathic monsters.  Given them real-life examples such as, Waco, Texas or Tiananmen Square, or the occupied West Bank to prove your point.   Point out the remarkably small percentage of high ranking politician’s children who are Troops.

A person who is looking for glory or adventure is at risk of becoming a Troop.  If your child or friend is looking for glory or adventure, talk to them. Let them know that it is not glorious to be a henchman for a sociopathic monster. Offer to go on a camping trip to an underdeveloped country with them.   Get flying or sailing lessons for them.  Explain to them that these things can be done without the need for killing other people.

If your loved one needs discipline or direction, show them how to polish their shoes.  Have them do some pushups.  Have them sleep on a cot.  Show them that one does not have to join the armed forces to do these things, and that with a little imagination; they might get discipline and direction by doing something entirely different like attending college or learning a trade.

Your loved one might be looking for camaraderie.  Don’t be afraid to show them the love you have for them. Do things together.  Demonstrate how fulfilling it is to spend time with one’s family and friends.  Remind them that you love them and want them to remain close to you and safe, and not in some faraway place killing or getting killed.

Money is probably the most common reason a normal person becomes a Troop.  A man has to survive and provide for his or her family by whatever means is necessary.  This is where the government, with its virtually unlimited financial resources, has leverage.  Talk to your loved one about self-respect and self-reliance.  Assure them that as friends or family you will stick together and ensure each other’s well-being.  Explain to them that someone with the motivation and the willingness to sacrifice that they have demonstrated will find a way to provide for themselves and their family, and that they won’t have to sacrifice their morals or self-respect to do it.

The task is not easy, but working together, the people of our world can cure Troopism in our lifetime.  With love and perseverance we can prevail.  As the number of Troops worldwide decreases, so will the incidence and extent of war.  Sociopathic monsters will still exist, but they will be impotent and easily managed by traditional law enforcement.  Ultimately, a world without troops would truly be a world without war.  In that glorious day, together we will have stopped the most dangerous man in the world.

Written by David Wiggins

Flickr user US Army

MEDIA ROOTS — Doubtless, many have heard of the U.S. targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki under Obama.  But many may not know that al-Awlaki wasn’t the last U.S. citizen arbitrarily killed by the state, as investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill recently reported:

“You know, President Obama authorised strikes that resulted in three U.S. citizens being killed within less than a month in Yemen:  Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico; Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son; and then Samir Khan, who was another U.S. citizen from North Carolina and was the editor of Inspire magazine, the English-language publication of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  All three of those U.S. citizens were killed within one month.” 

Obama drone strikes have arbitrarily killed hundreds of civilians worldwide including three U.S. citizens without conviction, trial or due process.  One might expect more public outcry.  Yet, in light of a recent Washington Post ABC News poll revealing that 77% of self-proclaimed liberal Democrats approve of Obama’s drone policy, it seems most progressives are prepared to re-elect Obama or sit idly by as he purchases a second term. 

But while we’re all indignant about the profoundly disturbing killings by the U.S. under Obama in Yemen and elsewhere, we forget the U.S. establishment is killing many more in the U.S.  Many U.S. citizens, such as Kenneth Harding and Oscar Grant, are gunned down daily by the state, igniting uprisings of a different sort in this country. 

Jeremy Scahill recently joined Amy Goodman to discuss U.S. intervention in Yemen and the arbitrary state killings of U.S. citizens.  However, it seems important to broaden discussions to allow investigative journalists to reflect upon U.S. violence abroad as well as state violence domestically.  The state killings of Anwar al-Awlaki and Oscar Grant are related, because they are all manifestations of the police state violence necessitated by U.S. imperialism under capitalism.

Mickey Huff, of Project Censored, has recently noted how the rise of U.S. targeted killings stems from the rise of torture perpetrated by the U.S., as the citizenry becomes increasingly complacent toward its continued use in a post-9/11 sociopolitical climate.  It may also be argued the rise of torture is, really, a continuation of poorly reported domestic torture of U.S. citizens, particularly people of colour and/or low-income.

The bold-faced tyranny of the state shows itself quite plainly, if we observe the historical record against labour, civil rights, and activists throughout U.S. history.  As Naomi Klein noted, it’s important to look at history and roots to survive the shocks intended to derail nations.  But then what are the people to do?  Protest or petition our masters?  Petitions are easily ignored, but also part of proving the futility of working through the system.  Protests are ignored, downplayed, or distorted by the United States’ mostly corporate-owned media machine, which reaches the most U.S. minds.  Protesters are intimidated, bullied, beaten, arrested, and worse for exercising their inalienable rights.  Yet, they must endure. 

Voltaire wrote:

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannise will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Something is glaringly amiss beyond the Election 2012 hyperbole—our political discourse sorely lacks a culture of resistance to the two-party electoral system underpinning U.S. imperialism.  Today, many seem to enjoy an apathetic stance toward electoral politics because the only two choices are owned by the same corporations.  Yet, political parties rule this nation, in the Legislative and Executive branches, some would even say in the Judicial.  And although the people need a grassroots people’s party to pose a serious Left challenge, U.S. progressives throw their lot in with their chosen political organisations, which may focus on advocacy but leave electoral politics in the unchallenged hands of Wall Street. 

A serious debate about U.S. democracy must be undertaken.  Virtually everyone says they want democracy, but few vote and less do so from an informed perspective.  Progressives put their faith in the Democrat Party and get swindled every time.  We lack a culture of reflection to learn from the past.  Perhaps, new generations of progressives are fooled by Democrat Party promises because older generations do not own up to the consequences of supporting the two-party system.  We have a captured political system or, perhaps, a subservient and brainwashed body politic.  Both yield similar results.

Observing the U.S. in its youth, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

“The instability of the administration has penetrated into the habits of the people: it even appears to suit the general taste, and no one cares for what occurred before his time. No methodical system is pursued; no archives are formed; and no documents are brought together when it would be very easy to do so.”

They say, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve or allow.  If one doesn’t like the choices one can work to change them, or open up the process to consider alternative candidates like Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party in 2012.  Otherwise, how can one complain about the next Democrat’s policies when one supported, or acquiesced in, that candidacy?  In the U.S., too many are more committed to their favourite celebrity or sports team, than they are to the political candidates or parties they choose or ignore and which impact their working lives. 

Progressives must analyse this question of apathy towards electoral politics or leave the task of influencing electoral politics to the highest bidder, which always hedges its bets between either side of the same two-party coin.

Written by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

Photo by Flickr user Mark Z

***

MEDIA ROOTS – Several hundred psychologists, as well as numerous psychological associations around the country, are united in calling for the annulment of the American Psychological Association’s report on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS).  The 2005 report is an APA endorsement of the highly suspect intelligence-gathering procedures used in US military detention sites such as Guantánamo Bay and Bagram, Afghanistan.  The demand for its immediate suspension and public review is called not by the APA Board or Ethics Committee, but by its general membership as well as several scholar-activists such as Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky.

Flaws in the PENS process have been apparent from its inception.  The creation of a presidential task force consisting of nine psychologists was specifically assigned to adopt the official psychological guidelines for interrogation by US intelligence agents.  Unfortunately, the task force was composed primarily of psychologists already working within the military and intelligence communities, and many have been involved in instances of suspected prisoner abuse.  Additionally, PENS was never offered for discussion among the APA membership, the press, or the general public, and it was approved in a highly suspect emergency vote that deviated from standard APA procedures.

The closing of Guantánamo Bay is on hold, and Bagram is expanding in size to incarcerate up to 5,500 suspected ‘terrorists’ by the end of 2012.  Both detention sites do not offer detainees due process as outlined in the Constitution and violate international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions.  As these criminal gulags continue to operate unabated, psychologists worldwide are becoming increasingly aware that the APA was simply used as a promotional propaganda tool by the White House in order to justify its rendition and torture program.

MR

***

COALITION FOR AN ETHICAL PSYCHOLOGY – Over the decade since the horrendous attacks of 9/11, the world has been shocked by the specter of abusive interrogations and the torture of national security prisoners by agents of the United States government. While psychologists in the U.S. have made significant contributions to societal welfare on many fronts during this period, the profession tragically has also witnessed psychologists acting as planners, consultants, researchers, and overseers to these abusive interrogations at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, Bagram Air Base, CIA “black sites,” and elsewhere. Moreover, in the guise of keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective,” psychologists were used to provide legal protection for otherwise illegal treatment of prisoners.

The American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2005 Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (the PENS Report) is the defining document endorsing psychologists’ engagement in detainee interrogations. Despite evidence that psychologists were involved in abusive interrogations, the PENS Task Force concluded that psychologists play a critical role in keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective.” With this stance, the APA, the largest association of psychologists worldwide, became the sole major professional healthcare organization to support practices contrary to the international human rights standards that ought to be the benchmark against which professional codes of ethics are judged.

Read more about the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology’s call for annulling the APA’s PENS Report.

© 2011 Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

***

Photo provided by Flickr user The National Guard.