Deradicalization Techniques & Hans Scharff Info

here are a few links for deradicalization papers and information as well as the book on Hans Scharff:

The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe
Wiki article on Hans Scharff


Articles on modern Deradicalization:
Article on Deradicalization # 1      -You have to download the PDF.
Article on Deradicalization #2



If you haven't seen my podcast on Hans Scharff you can see it here.

Apocalypse Now

Are we living in a spiraling death cycle as many would have you believe?

I advise you to watch that link posted above if you're interested, but I fall firmly in the camp that of worried non-believers in global catastrophic events anytime soon. For years and years scientists have been telling us "the sky is falling!", but it hasn't. Well, that's debatable as the Great Depression and both World Wars may disagree. What I'm talking about is something of that nature. One that is apocalyptic in scale and destroys our way of life as we know it.

Now, to be an economist, believe in the free market, and think that it will suddenly completely pull our feet out from underneath us is foolish. It may have a hiccup, and the market may even seem to completely collapse, but there are very few ways that it could completely give out. New oil reserves are constantly being found, tapped, or expanded. Green energy technology is pushing forward at breakneck speed, nuclear war is unlikely, and the most pressing problem, the debt, is unlikely to kill millions. The US is able to pay the debt back and we have no current problems doing that bit by bit. Furthermore, companies don't feel afraid to lend to the US and that is reflected in incredibly low interest rates. Politicians are beginning to try to hash out solutions (a long problem) and the government doesn't look like defaulting any time soon. The economy would have to get better before interest rates went up (because of better investments) and that would mean future debt would simply become more expensive. That would also make the current debt easier to pay off with a larger income from taxes. Certainly, if the government today defaulted on all of its debt the nation would be put into a crisis, but that won't happen. Anything else is to make a critical mistake about the market.

The Word Feminazi

I hate and love the word Feminazi. I hate that it was created by Rush Limbaugh. I hate that it is often a term used to beat women into a second class position. I hate that it's been used to attack women from Gloria Steinem to Michelle Obama. And yet the term has stuck in my brain as something that does describe a certain theme of the modern American zeitgeist. The women's movement (God bless them) can roughly be divided into two camps: the camp that welcomes both men and women to explore and understand sexuality of both genders and the camp that has its doors locked with a sign saying "no boys allowed". This is the group that demonizes men and turns them into monsters.

It is not that some men don't deserve to be demonized; basically 100 percent of rapes are carried out by men, most murders are carried out by men, and both the political and the financial sectors of society are dominated by men. Still, to carry assumptions to another person based on statistics is wrong.  It is not that women shouldn't be smart and go out with groups at night, or that women should put their faith entirely in the hands of some stranger. I just don't like it when it is proclaimed (sometimes in front of me) that "men are pigs".

Let me also say that I have never met a feminazi. I have no friends, enemies, or acquaintances that preach this. Even books such as The End of Men by Hanna Rosin comments more how the differences that are present in women lead them to do better in the current environment. However, the simple phrase "The End of Men" reminds me of this second camp. Clearly it's not the End of Men - and it will never be the end of men - as none of Hanna Rosin's numbers have hit zero percent for male participation and it would be ludicrous to suppose that they ever will. Some boys do well in a "girl's world". Perhaps young boys do better when they have a more active system of learning that doesn't pin them to a desk. I've always been one that has to walk while talking. It gives some of my friends strong callouses on their feet, but studies do show that male mental activity is higher when engaged while learning. Perhaps young men should be taught while on the treadmill? I grew up listening to history while riding my bike around town and it has turned into a lifelong passion.

The debate between what is feminist sexism, what are facts, what is male sexism, and what are the correct differences between males and females. Differences in the brain, body, and thought process are all there, but most of these are just averages or trends and do not justify the individual cases. The word Feminazi, in the end, is a worthless word used mostly by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. However, while nobody I know is an out and out Feminazi by saying that women are better than men, there is a tendency to make judgments over individuals by what group they are in.


If you want to hear a fantastic debate on the subject from NPR: click here and then watch the full audio and not the broadcast version.

Chick-fil-A and Fascism

So I was doing some research for my podcast yesterday on fascism, and I saw in the Google search list a link to a story on Chick-fil-A and fascism. I was quite perplexed how fascism and Chick-fil-A had anything to do with one another, but it was one in the morning and I wanted to finish up the podcast, so I didn't read the article. Today I saw that same article posted by one of my good friends (and a very jolly, good, well-mannered person), so I thought I'd indulge in a little look.

The article states two things:
1. Denying a business a license to operate for a political belief is fascism.
2. Moreover, a community pressuring people not to go to a business is fascism.

Both of these points are absurd with the second one being horribly out of touch with modern political lobbying. But let me first say what I agree with him on, as common ground should be the first thing two parties try to find instead of finding what they disagree on. When he says that denying a business a licence is fascism (which he never actually shows to be true and I very much doubt), I think he means "bad" and not really "fascism" as fascism would imply something very different from what he says. I agree that would be "bad" as political entities could weigh in on certain political issues and punish those with opposing views. It would perhaps be something a fascist state would do, but so could a communist state, a democratic socialist state, or even a liberal state such as the USA if a call was made. Let me give an example: you have a deli that gives money to Al Qaeda or an Irish Pub giving money to the IRA. They are supporting a political view, but that view happens to be labeled as "terrorist" in nature and therefore the US government could close down the business and even jail you. So, in conclusion, Chick-fil-A is not Al Qaeda or anywhere close to that, so rejecting a business licence is "bad", but not fascism.

Now for point two. We, as consumers, have one way to influence the market: our money. If we don't like the actions a business takes (oil spills, corruption in Mexico, libor fixing, etc) we don't buy their product. For instance if I don't like the effect that South American ranching has on the Amazon I cut back on meat. If I don't appreciate the ways that diamonds proceeds are often used to fund African militias that use child soldiers I don't buy conflict diamonds. If I don't like what a company does I don't use it. When Chick-fil-A uses its profits to influence politics I have every right to stop using that product and to tell my friends not to use that product. A classic historical example of a group using its economic muscles was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Now would that be "fascism" or even the act of a "fascist" party or state? When Chick-fil-A gives 2 million dollars to anti-gay lobbying and political groups I have the right to freely decide where my money goes and to say what I want about that product. Fascism......psh..........

Ideally, this could all be made better if America had a split between business and politics. Businesses can influence politics for their own profit to create solutions that might be pro-business, but anti-market. Just as the US has a split between church and state, we today need a split between business and state. The only forms of campaign finance should come from individuals. I could care less what Chick-fil-A's CEO thinks as long as he gets me some good chicken. However, when business begins to interfere with politics and starts to determine my political rights I don't get too happy about it.


Oh, and if you haven't listened to my two podcasts on Fascism you can view them on Itunes or here.

Capitalism and the Cold War

What won the Cold War? The traditional narrative is that free markets and capitalism won the war for America over the Soviet Union who could not match the US buck for buck in military spending. Furthermore, the civilian economy produced so much awesome stuff that the civilian population of Russia didn't really have a choice. It had been beat by capitalism and shruggingly admitted defeat and joined the West....kinda.

This is the story we all know and love, but in reality it wasn't such a simple struggle of East vs. West or Capitalism vs Centrally Organized Communism. Confused? Let me give you and example: who built the atomic bomb? Well, the US built it, but was this the product of capitalists coming together to produce a good that was driven by the market forces of supply and demand? No, it was the product of a centrally organized top-down military project designed to help the nation win a war. It arrived too late to be of use in the Second World War, but it was produced en-mass to create a arsenal that could destroy the world and then some.

As you can see this was not a contest of the free world versus the communist world, but rather a horse race where the riders were the centrally organized states and militaries of the US and USSR riding a free market economy and a centrally organized economy. Although if it was a centrally organized state riding a centrally organized economy it was more like a rider and a horse versus a very big rider on foot. Analogies aren't always perfect....

The story becomes more complex as the US recovers from the Vietnam War, a crippling defeat for the hero of the story. During the war President Nixon makes a critical decision and removes the draft. The US has since had an entirely professional military instead of a military largely based on the draft for the vast source of its fresh bodies. When I was first parcing this out in my mind I thought this was a rather capitalist step to take by the American military. The Army, Navy, and Air Force now had to compete for labor in the markets like Microsoft, IBM, McDonald's, or any other company. However, I realized this is just like any other bureaucracy. With the draft gone the military became something that was akin to any other government bureaucracy with professional bureaucrats who had this as a career. Now, it's not to say the US didn't have these military bureaucrats before, but they made up a smaller part of the whole as in war the US would rely on draftees. The change Nixon made irrevocably changed the entire way that the US fought wars. However, from a sociological perspective the Army suddenly became much less democratic that did not send a nation to war, but rather a bureaucracy to war.

Amazingly, this new way of fighting has been an undeniable success. The Gulf War, police actions in Yugoslavia, and the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were beyond compare in the history of warfare. When you add the word professional and career to military it seems that it is a good combination. In the First Gulf War the US deployed 500,000 troops, took 300 casualties to hostile fire, and cost an estimated $80 billion while the Second Gulf War in 2003 saw the deployment of only 250,000 troops, 84 casualties to hostile fire and cost around 20 billion dollars.* Quality did have an edge over quantity....or so it seemed.

Today we have seen the dull edge of the modern sword. While fire-power was overwhelming fighters, satellites, and helicopters struggle against an insurgency where boots on the ground is the best cure. The US also faces challenges to keep the costs under control, something that Rome found difficult with its own professional military.

The Roman example is a fantastic one to look at in comparison to our current system. Like the American Military, the Roman Army was a professional force that completely destroyed everything in its wake carving an empire out of the Mediterranean Sea and surrounding regions spreading from Britain to Iraq. Paying the troops increasingly became difficult and the Legions would back different powerful individuals who could promise them pay. They became chips that allowed violence to become a bought and sold commodity. Today, mercenary forces in Iraq such as Blackwater (renamed Xe and then renamed Acedemi) have brought America toward a capitalist military as their services become a commodified good that can be publicly traded. Personally I am slightly wary of both the professional and private forms of military that our country has relied on in the past decade with a much much greater fear of the private than the professional.

The reason I don't fear the Roman case happening to the US is the military is quite well compensated for their service and does not rely on booty, treasure, and loot for payment. This means they will more that likely never put their services up to the highest bidder. There is also a culture that is prevalent in the military of strict obedience to the elected President. I don't see a military coup in America's future. What I do fear is rising military costs getting out of control to keep this professional force in the field. Both of these fears are more nagging doubts than full-blown fears, but there is still something.

As for the private forces that have been used by the US. I hope they do not signal another shift in the sociological workings of the fighting forces in the US. That would not bode well for any of us.











*"The New American Way of War" by Max Boot in Volume 82 of Foreign Policy Magazine 2003.

Today, on Memorial Day I would advise reading a good article by a friend of mine about how we should appreciate veterans who put so much on the line. Click here for the article.

Power

I love Game of Thrones. As a little boy I grew up with Lord of the Rings (and am currently rereading it for the tenth time), and I am happy that fantasy, as a genre, has not died out and continues to develop. Game of Thrones is an excellent example of fantasy literature with deep adult themes being successfully brought onto the big screen. This has been quite the season of new shows for me as I’ve been asking for a zombie series that looks deeper into the human nature in the state of anarchy.

Now, the reason I mention this is that in the season opener there was an interesting scene that seemed like it was written by a political scientist. The scene begins with the queen, flanked by guards on either side, talking with Baelish, a rich man whose web of spies runs deep in the series. He states before her that one should not forget that knowledge is power. The queen then tells her guards to kill him, but right before the blade is called back to the scabbard inches from his throat. She has her guards turn around, step away, and close their eyes. “Power is power”, she states.

By this she refers to the ability to control others. To make others do what you want and to have your orders obeyed to the letter. The ability to control itself can be broken down piece by piece. The first aspect of power is the ability to control yourself. The question of do you have control over your own body is an ongoing debate among philosophers and political scientists. The argument by existentialists is the individualist one. According to existentialist philosophers you are the supreme power over yourself. Outside of you there are all of these raging forces. You have your family, your friends, your culture, your music, your parents, your government, and all of the things that have been imprinted into you by both nurture and nature. Despite all these forces YOU are the master and commander of your own soul. You are the one that makes all decisions and are responsible for all of your failures and successes.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum we have political scientists who identify you as being unable to resist being a part of your own culture. Even if you make a different decision or have some sort of crisis it’s simply because of conflicting cultural pressures.

Here’s an example: Who is responsible for the death of the Jews at Auschwitz? Was it Hitler, anti-Semitism, or the guy who actually pulled the lever that sent gas into the chamber? After a class I took on existentialism I tried to tell my professor that all the responsibility was in the hands of those who pulled the proverbial trigger. My professor, a brilliant guy leaned over the table at me and said, “so you’re telling me Hitler had no responsibility or power?” Of course I stammered and I stuttered, but I was…..schooled…..quite literally.