discuss this book and you can watch that program online apple tv.org. sixth is killing lincoln by bill of right o'reilly and eat and run, the book is seven. eight is robert caro's passage of power. his fourth volume of years of lyndon johnson. mr. carroll has had several appearances on booktv. you can watch those programs i booktv.org. next on the list is cronkite, a biography of walter cronkite. at 10:00 o'clock, joan rivers reflects on her life and career with her book, i hate everyone, starting with me. you can find more on these bestsellers by going to a newer times.com, and clicking on arts. >> in an event ordered by the mk gandhi institute, paul chappell

lays out his plan for a more peaceful world. this is just under two hours. >> hello, i have the good fortune for serving here in new york for the mk gandhi institute for violence in new york. it is a privilege to introduce paul chappell. i have read all of his books. i am an honest man. he has been here since last night come and we have had wonderful conversations. there was an article about paul a year ago in the sun magazine and i'm going to read you a little bit about it. paul chappell was born and raised in alabama, the son of a korean mother and half white, half african-american father. who served in korea and vietnam. though paul had seen his father affected by serving in the

military, he chose to go into the military because of his own focus on wanting to understand more about violence in the world. he has written three books, one just came out, peaceful revolution. and i have never been more excited to have someone come and be a gandhi lecturer. please welcome paul chappell.hln [applause]j [applause] >> can all of you hear me in the back? can all of you hear me? okay. how about now? okay. if you can't hear me, please raise your hand. could you all take the quote from your chair. it is a quote from douglas

macarthur. i will go ahead and read it out loud. douglas macarthur, west point graduate, he said that you cannot control war, you can only abolished it. those who show their stripes are idealistic are the real enemies of peace. the real warmongers. those who records to try new approach on none others have succeeded fail the test of leadership. here, he talks about a new approach to provide security for the country. in the approach that we will talk about tonight, as gandhi continued to pioneer, it must be continued. another interesting thing about this clumsy talks about abolishing more. the abolition of war, the end of politically organized violence between countries, a former popular name known as world peace.

we tried to type to talk about world peace in our country. when you say world peace, when most people think? what is the reaction enact people think about what comes to mind. you would think idealistic. you would think about it being idealistic but is it? that is what we are going toooo talk about tonight. please raise your hand if you think will peace -- world peace is not posble. raise your hand if you think world peace is not possible.

research and if you're not sure. those hands go up to the record we will talk about that tonight and i will tell you that they didn't grow up in the peace movement. i thought that world peace was a naïve dream. >> i got very skeptical of world peace. i grew up very conservative. i used to listen to right-wing radio religiously. i believe in war -- war makes a safe and protect us. war makes the world safe. listen to president bush, or president obama, they both say that war makes a country save, it helps people in the middle east and building a more prosperous future. if we want to really talk about where there is another path or if world peace is possible, we

have to ask a deeper question. the question is about national violence and natural peace. it would be naïve to assume that while these could ever happen. if human nature is actually peaceful, we have to be trained and conditioned of violence and world peace just might have a chance. please raise your hand if you think human beings are naturally violent? okay. a few hands went up. reserved and if you think that human beings are naturally peaceful. recent hand if you think both. most hands go up on that one. when we talk about that, and i'll ask you a few questions, the first one, one of the greatest problems of the army in world history, no matter what time period, can any of you guess what that problem is?

can any of you guess what that problem is? it is a hard answer. we will talk about this problem in a few minutes. what a great answer. any other thoughts? a great answer. that is a very big problem. there is an even bigger problem than that. the greatest problem every army has is not getting soldiers to kill, it is getting soldiers to die. the problem is when a battle begins, how do you stop them from running away? in combat, or flight response is more powerful than our fight response. most people's natural reaction when we try to stab them or shoot them with a rifle, it is a runaway assesses they can come as far as they can.

ask anyone who has been in combat and they will tell you it is terrifying. anyone who says they're they are not afraid in combat is a liar. if i went out on the street and pulled a knife on someone, most people would be terrified. the incident to run would be more it powerful than the instant to fight. what i said one of you in the audience, i give you knife, and we are in a knife fight. not a very appealing proposition, right? flight is more instant as opposed to fight. here you are telling me, 5000 soldiers on towards you, and these people want to cut your head off. how do you get them to fight? how do armies make soldiers fight and not retreat? what is the most effective method that armies have learned and used to make soldiers fight and not retreat? >> propaganda?

>> what kind of propaganda? >> hatred? >> hatred for the enemy. great answer. a lot of people won't die for hatred, they might kill for hatred, but they might not die for it. pardon? conditioning is a great answer. brotherhood is a great answer. it is actually much simpler than we realize. it. here's a question to make this into very clear. what would all of you die for? raise your hand if you would risk her life to protect your family. i see every hand goes up. that is why armies have this band of brothers and camaraderie. that is like everyone in human history is about protecting family. i think the chinese flusser said that by being willing, we are capable of being brave. the greeks believed that if they

are protecting their friends and family and loved ones, they will not only fight, but they will that affect their lives. because our instinct to protect loved ones is more powerful than self-preservation. think about how you would react if you saw a family member in danger. think about how you would rush to protect them. a few years ago -- is the microphone -- visit our? pardon? you can hear me? okay. a few years ago, i heard a story about a woman on the radio she was walking down the street. there was a loose pit bull running toward her. would your instinct be to fight the people or run from the people? run from the people. or flight response is far more powerful than your right response one when a couple is

running at you. this woman is walking on the street, a loose pit bull running towards her, but she has a little pool with her. the people ran up and bit her poodle, and the 80-year-old woman that down and bit a couple on the neck. she actually bit the piffle. now imagine a pit bull attacking your friend or grandparent or sister or brother -- he would go berserk. whatever you could become you would grab and hit the pit bull. no military training, and you'd put yourself at their personal risk to help your loved one. that is where armies require camaraderie and brotherhood in order to function. they require camaraderie and brotherhood in order to unction. at west point, i learned a passage from henry the fifth, which says we are a band of brothers, for he that is with me

shall be my brother. they also taught me that your military family is your family. the army puts you even situations where you have to protect each other and you can't get anything done without cooperation. that is a very strong balance of people, and in combat from your putting the situation where if you retreat from the people who become your family will die and you have to fight to protect the people you care about. love of comrade is very important. anybody see the movie for some? why did he risk his life to save bubba? they are best friends, so he always make sure to protect him. yet on 10 other psychological technique is love of country. have any of you heard of the battle of the mark me under?

have you seen the movie 300? most people would refer to that movie. realistic, but same guy. during the persian war, it was not the battle that would spark war against the persians. imagine how frightening it is to have one person trying kill you, and imagine being outnumbered three to one, 14 at one, five to monde. in regards to saving your lives, your children, your country. most people will die to protect their loved ones. i think any of you would protect your loved ones. they were ready to fight to the death. and i think that that has been

used by every government since then. not word for word, but essentially. every time they go to war, they have to protect our freedom and fighting to protect out loved ones were some noble ideal. how many wars have there been in human history? how many wars have there been in human history? >> thousands, maybe. too many to count. do you know in all world history and military history, there has never been a single war, not one more word national leader would fight for oil or gold or freedom. they're fighting for protecting foreign ideal, freedom, or liberating people. those who are being oppressed by barbaric treatment for a ruthless dictator. mcarthur, general macarthur said that virtually all people want peace. all conscientious people want peace. every country and every area.

the yearning for peace is so powerful that whenever a dictator goes to war, he always fights a great piece. think of hitler. funding to create peace in your. look at the roman emperors and any government, even democracy and when they go to war, they are always fighting to create peace or preserve the peace or bring back the peace. if you look at the rhetoric. imagine you are a farmer and the roman emperor says look, i want to go toward and the worst-case scenario for you is the children become orphans and your eucom at after farm. you're going to say, are you crazy? i'm not going to fight in any war. if you don't fight, they will take away your family and loved ones. what does it do to the human

mind and brain? what does prolonged exposure due to the brain? ptsd. what is that? , trauma. have you ever heard anyone say war is hell? even people in support wools say that war is hell. it is the hardest thing that a human being can go through. but if you are not violent, why would you actually knock on the war and come away healthy? we haven't had enough -- why did ward draw so many people insane and white dwarf caused so much trauma? and why would we go to war and -- the army did a study. there were two medical doctors in the army. they did a study in world war ii found that after 60 days that

90% of soldiers become psychiatric casualties. 90% of soldiers suffers psychiatric -- psychiatric trauma. how long was the battle of gettysburg? how long was the battle of gettysburg? three days. then they took the night off. in the 20th century, world war i, world war ii, and going on, soldiers were trapped in combat and it was constant combat. day and night, artillery bombardment. tuxedos and longer. what happened to the human mind, when human beings are in that kind of situation -- two medical doctors found that after 60 days, that 90% of soldiers suffer psychiatric. 2% of soldiers can be exposed to war for long periods of time and kill and kill and never go

insane. why is that 2% different than the 98%. wanting to present be exposed and never go insane, and why can the other 98% not? they were already insane before they went to war. of course come in the study from the majority of people in that 2% were psychopaths. they are having a good time. fortunately, for the 2%, the 98% is higher. during world war ii, what percentage of soldiers in combat who had a chance to shoot at the enemy actually fired directly at the enemy? oh, exactly. about 15%. how did you know that? >> [inaudible] >> great answer. it is from a book called on killing. he has another book where he has

another study that supports that. about 50%. during the vietnam war, what percent of soldiers in combat who had a chance actually fired at the enemy? was it higher or the same or lower? >> you would think it would be lower. because during world war ii we were fighting menotti's and japan attacked us on our own soil. what did the vietnamese ever do to us? but it was hard. how much harder you think it was? >> 98%. dramatic change. if you look at world war ii, about 50% of soldiers in combat, about 55% in the vietnam war,

about 100% today. what happened to cause that change in a shorter time. not the same thing. great answer. keep in mind, it is not just the weapons technology. it has to do with the willingness to fire a weapon. if you look at the weapons from world war ii, to vietnam, if you look at the infantry soldier, the weapons were not that much different. the rifles, semi automatic rifles, it wasn't dramatically different. but it would've had to do with training. great answer. the training changed. the army got better at training people how to kill. the key term is training people how to kill. killing is not nearly as easy as most people think.

most people think that killing is a simple process if you watch hollywood, right? it makes killing look easy. it is actually much more difficult. the army recognizes that. the army changes its training. the army got better training people how to kill. and this goes back way before world world war ii. in the civil war, soldiers spent 90% of their time loading the rifle and 5% of the time firing the rifle. most of them -- after the battle of gettysburg, there were about 24,000 rifles. 90% were loaded, 12,000 rifles had more than one bullet loaded in the barrel, 6000 of the rifles had three to 10 bullets in the girls come in one of the rifles had 23 bullet loaded in the barrel. do you see what is happening? what is it about military training that makes soldiers

such effective killers? desensitizing. that is a big part of it. very close, are there any other answers? dehumanizing? great answer. keep in mind that a lot of us are trained to kill without these innovations. we will talk about the humanization asked. you hit the nail on the head. simple repetition. something called reflex training. i will give you a quick example of how reflex training works. let's say that i go into the street and i try to punch a random person in the face and the person had no martial arts training or boxing. what are 98% of people going to do? they are going to flinch. initial reaction is to flinch. your initial reaction is to

flinch. that is your natural reaction and a very smart reaction because your eyes are very vulnerable and so is your face, faith, you want to protect your face and eyes, protect your body. let's say that every day for a year i hit a punching bag for an hour a day. every day for a year i had a punching bag for an hour every day. now, what do i do if someone tries to hit me? i am going to flinch? the punching bag and never hit me back. i can hit harder and i have more powder content power, but the punching bag never hit me back. in addition to hitting the punching bag an hour a day. what about an hour a day per year i have a training power content partner. we simulate punching. we counterattack. were you can really get realistic training.

now i can react. i can react using that training and i can counterattack. it has become a new reflex. it has overridden the new reflex. you have to reprogram the people, right? reflex training is so powerful. here is a story to illustrate that. the author on killing talks about two police officers. the one police officer, he got his training partner, pulled out a gun, the training partner pulled a gun again, disarmed it, give it back to him, he disarmed it, give it back to him. over and over again, thousands of times, it became a reflex. one day they went to a convenience store and there was a robbery or the police officer went around the corner and the

criminal stood there. and so the police officer pulled the gun into sunday. [laughter] that is why when the police go to a firing range, they have to distinguish between armed threat and unarmed threat. you go to a pistol range as a police officer. a guy pops up with a shotgun and you shoot, a woman with a baby you don't shoot. a guy with a cell phone, don't shoot. the army is using the old training, still. this is why drums so dramatically from world war ii to vietnam. in world war ii, they were firing their weapons background paper targets. but they had never been a country in history that had brown paper targets. in the vietnam war, over and over again, it became a reflex.

that is what makes soldiers such effective killers. you see it in martial arts and boxing and any defensive martial arts or any kind of thing. think about that. if human beings are violent, why would every army have to train people how to kill? if you are naturally violent, most people show took to boot camp and automatically want to kill people. another question, have any of you read the book on killing? a really excellent book. the book is called "on killing", the psychological costs of training killing for society. his book is part of the fbi academy, marine corps commandant's required reading list. it was required at west point and programs at berkeley and in quaker and other places.

his basic premise, and the military history, it is unnatural for human beings to kill other human beings. his evidence is all the military history. it is unnatural for human beings to kill other human beings. and he says that other animal species have aversions to killing their own species. for example, a snake will bite every other animal on the planet with its veins -- thanks. if you look at king cobra, if not only bite other animals, they actually eat other snakes. you look at, any animals with horns. when it is another animal, they try to attack. when it is their own species, they try to go from the face. when they fight their own species they try not to go for

stimulation. not all animals have this version, but many do. why is that, though? why do buffalo fight by trying to hit in the ribs and why do african buffalo fight each other when they fight head-to-head, which is the least lethal form of combat? why is that? >> preservation of species. great answer. preservation of the species. african buffalo's spent 99% of the time the law. they fought each other the way they have fought lines, -- human beings spend most of the time around animals. it makes sense that we would have a natural aversion to killing other human beings. the other evidence we have is all military history. all of military history supports this. with "on killing", colonel grossman says you must betray the enemy in a certain way. every country in history must do this and has to do so without

exceptions. how must the country per tray and opposing group of people in order to wage war against them? what must the country due? you must be humanized. you must you must demonize them. too many to count. there has never been a human war and history, not one war where there has not been dehumanization. there has never been a war where people see the other side is like that. i learned about this book, "on killing", at west point. here this guy is saying that we are not and we have evidence to back it up. there are three kinds of distance he talks about. the first is the psychological distance. that means to train people are human. this is often done through derogatory name-calling. and dave grossman talks about the train people that are human.

what did we do with the names for the germans that we fought? what about the japanese? multiple race has racial slurs for every drew. i am half korean, a quarter white, and what do we call people in the middle east? what we hear in the media? terrorist. that is a racial connotation. when you think of a terrorist, you think a white person or muslim? you think of the unabomber? you think of timothy mcveigh? do you think of muslims? it has a racial connotation.

if a muslim is in his own country, we call him a terrorist. we call him a terrorist. it is a racial connotation. when the man shot congresswoman, we call him a gunman. when the guy in norway killed his people, we called him a gun man. a muslim is in his own country, he is a terrorist. there is the racial connotation to the word. all right? things we have to think about. if you go back to ancient greece come up what do the ancient greeks say? barbarians. do any of you know where the word barbarian came from? >> [inaudible] >> exactly. it came during the greek era. the greeks believe if you weren't speaking greek when you talk him it sounded like you were saying bar, bar, bar.

the word barbarian was making fun of how people talk. the way how people make fun of middle eastern people and injure people thought. there is a way people talk. what is the most infamous dehumanization word in history? my father, going back to slavery, they were part black and the most infamous dehumanization word is [bleep]. if you want to oppress people, you can say that they are like you, you can't think that they are like your children. if you want to have segregation and lynchings and slavery, that is why the word [bleep] is the most infamous in american history. dehumanization can be very subtle. and it can be very overt. like illegal alien or illegal.

very subtle. really important for us to think about because the these things are used by people in power to manipulate, dividing us as human beings. the second form of distance is moral distance. while distance means that i'm good, you are evil, and god is on my side. that is why the civil war is so ugly. in civil war, you have the same traditions of them, this is used to make people believe if you kill the enemy, you are expelling evil from the world. if you look at the iraq war, you saw a lot of worldliness. if you listen to president bush speaking, he said the iraqi people are just like us. they want democracy and freedom and their women are like our women. we have to liberate these poor people from the tyrannical dictator. these evil people who have terrorists, these gangsters trying to oppress the people. we have to liberate these people. if you look at afghanistan, they are like our women and they want to go to school and they want

education and they want to vote. and we have to liberate these afghan women from the evil taliban and the terrorists. but yet it is harder to dehumanize people that used to be. that is why the propaganda has been much more sophisticated. to counteract that. the third form of distance is mechanical distance. it means that it is easier to drop a bomb from 10,000 feet then a rifle at 300 yards. it is easier to shoot a rifle that it is to stab at close range. the other way you are, the easier it will be to kill them. it is easier to kill people if they look like ants at 10,000 feet. and if they look like people, like your own family. why did nazis use the gas chamber? >> because shooting their victims were too psychologically difficult on the troops.

>> exactly. shooting the victims was too psychologically different for the soldiers involved in the executions. rate answer. there is a myth out there that do not nazi used a gas chamber, what is horrible making them dig their own grave and shooting them with bullets -- the nazis killed nearly a million people with fire squads. prior to gas chambers being the main form of execution. so many were becoming traumatized. many of them had sisters, some of them had daughters, so imagine killing women and children everyday for 10 hours a day. a lot of people can't handle it. some people can, you have the 2% they that can, but most people can't. if you look at at hunter killer and the main people in charge, heinrich himmler, their main

mission was to protect the executioner. when people are being executed, whether it is a firing squad, hanging, or elected chair, wire their faces covered? why is that? it is because the people watching will become traumatized. when things took execute people, what do they almost always shoot? the back of the head. the back of head. gangsters, hard criminals shoot people in the back of the head because they don't want to see people's faces when they die. it shows you how universal this thing is. in addition to the mechanical distance of the gas chamber, the nazis also used psychological warfare. they also call people evil,. a massacre as big as a holocaust requires all three forms of these dehumanization. psychological, moral, etc. if human beings are naturally violent, why would every war in

history from every country in history, without a single exception or one exception have to be be humanized when it comes to the enemy. why would it be so hard for her to fill someone if you see that person a human being. if you think a person is like me, it is very hard to tell them. if you look at someone and think that person feels pain like i do and fear like i do, they have a family like i do, it is very hard thing for them to kill. i think the idea that we are not naturally violent, i think the idea that we are not naturally violent is very uplifting, it is also the idea that our poor that we are not so bad after all. and that there is some hope for the human race. what does dehumanization come from? where does dehumanization come from? george orwell said one of the most horrible features award, one of the most horrible

teachers is that all the hatred and the lies -- all the propaganda always come from people like politicians, media, that is typically where the propaganda comes from. that is just a fraction of the evidence that we are not actually violent. in the qa session, please ask me any counter arguments you can think of. there is a lot more evidence. i understand that it's very counterintuitive, and i understand that. i can give you a couple of other ideas. if you were to go back 2000 years ago, and try to convince someone that the earth goes around the sun, would that be an easy or hard thing to do? 2000 years ago, to convince someone that the earth goes around the sun. it would be nearly impossible. because of the earth goes around the sun, why don't we kill any movement? when we feel an emotion? it doesn't electorate is moving, right? even today, we still say the sun

rises and sets. the sun doesn't actually rise, but it looks like that from our perspective. if you were to go back 2000 years ago and convince people of the earth was round, would that be easy or hard? it would be nearly impossible. one of the people on the bottom falloff? is the world is round, why don't the people on the side slide up? it is actually very counterintuitive. our daily experience tells us well, we are not moving, we are not falling off, the earth is flat, the earth is standing still. the idea that we are not actually violent is very counterintuitive as well, because we are not naturally violent, why is there so much more insomuch murder and genocide. if you look at the united states, we live in and of violent cultures in history. it is about violence being up there coming mostly system it is relatively rare unless you have war. which is one thing that work on.

so, many people asked me as a soldier, how did i become interested in peace? as a child, growing up living with my father was interesting with his behavior. many people ask me, if i wanted war to end, why did i join the army? i think i join reason which is the same as others. we want to stop violence. how does spiderman, superman, and batman protect humanity? a punch people in the face, right? they use violence as their method. we are taught the need violence and war. most soldiers actually want peace. if you look at world war ii, if you look at world war ii, for for example, most soldiers join the army thinking that they were going to defeat hitler and stop imperial japan,.

recruiting into the military is high, many eagerly joined the army. when you look at the vietnam war, it was much more difficult to get people into the military. after september 11, when we were attacked, it was said that we need to protect freedom and democracy, and recruitment went out. when people believe they are fighting for good cause, it is easier to get them into the military. most soldiers want peace, but peace is the objective. not the means of arriving to the objective. how can we create a new message for arriving at peace? how can we convince people and show people that peace has to be not as the objective, but also the means for that objective? in order to explain that, i learned a few things at west point that changed how i saw the world, and i will share the things with you. the first thing i learned that really change my attitude was west point west point coming in the 21st century, the nature of

war is drastically changing. it is changing in a way that many people don't realize. how is the nature of work drastically changing in the 21st century? west point coming in in the 21st century, it is all about winning hearts and minds. that became popular in the vietnam war. what it means means you can no longer kill your way to victory. 1000 years ago, you kill enough people and you win the war. 500 years ago come in the same thing. body count. you look at ancient wars. kill enough enemy combatants or terrorize the population and u.n. but it is different now. why, when you kill to many people come you can always make your country against you. if you look at technological changes and war, with

technological innovations have changed more so much that killings can actually make you less pardon? >> media coverage. the coverage is the dramatic change. something we use everyday. iphone, youtube, television. internationally newspapers. 500 years ago, nobody would have known about the killings. no freedom of speech or the press or reporters. no media. now, you kill a couple of people and that is all over national news, people can sit see it in the paper and people get really angry. it is like the burning in afghanistan recently. it drove up resentment for the killing of a 16 afghan civilians. if you look at one of the most disastrous things to happen to american foreign policy, which

put every american in danger. the military knows this. i was watching 60 minutes and a marine terminal in afghanistan said if you kill 1000 taliban and two civilians, it is a loss. why did he say if you kill 1000 taliban and two civilians, and his loss? >> why did he say that? >> [inaudible] >> would happen if the british killed american citizens. we would react and we would be upset, right? people don't like that. the marine colonel in afghanistan said if you kill 1000 taliban and two civilians, it is a loss. in other words, you will lose. promote war to until today --

the majority of people killed our civilians. ..

we have to look at the masters of winning hearts and minds. gandhi, martin luther king, nelson mandela. these people were masters. nelson mandela was able when he was in prison, right? people are winning hearts and minds. gandhi with strategically brilliant. gandhi was more great than napoleon. think about. gandhi was able to defeat the most powerful empire on earth, the british empire, without firing a single bullet. i think he would have been in all because gandhi thought tactically and strategically.

he called his supporters an army of peace in the called at the most powerful weapon. gandhi said it had to choose between violence and not fighting, he would rather choose violence. that was waging peace. so here's a good example. two allen schick how much warfare had change. how powerful information is now. here's a question to illustrate that. what is more dangerous to the american government? 5000 taliban fighters or wikileaks? wikileaks is a lot more dangerous, right? especially if you don't want your people to know what you are doing. it shows how dangerous information is. one thing i learned at west point is in the 21st century wars are fought on cnn, fox news, al-jazeera and the internet as much as on the battlefield. if you listen to admiral mullen's come he talks about the future of war for is all about perception. how do you win perception, how do you convert peoples

attitudes? that's what the future of warfare is all about. the battlefield has changed and most don't know what. let's talk about waging peace. what does that mean, waging peace? what does that sound like? [inaudible] stick resistance, right? if active though. it's active. it's a verb, an action. it's an action, taking action. empathizing, great answer. what are some specific examples of movements or people who wage peace? civil rights movement, great answer. what else? peace marches. white house. sit ins. gandhi, nelson mandela, to two, civil rights movement, women's

rights movement. countless example. howard zinn said between war and apathy there are 1000 hospitals. a thousand possibilities when bombing people into nothing and those possibility our waging peace. let's talk about a few misconceptions. what did the founding fathers talk about? no taxation without representation. what does that mean? no taxation without representation. that was what the revolution was fought over. no taxation without representation and the people who governed have to give the consent of those their governing. so what does that mean? the need to can't tax man let you give me a vote. can't tell you what to do image give me some political participation. that's a very reasonable, a very reasonable concern. you don't want people telling you what to do if you don't have any participation. but up until the 1820s, prior to the 1820s, prior to the

1830s, 50 years later, less than 10% could vote in national election. women couldn't vote, african-americans couldn't go, native americans couldn't though. white people couldn't vote in most places and less they owned land. women couldn't vote or own property. how did women get the boat -- the right to vote? how did non-land owners get the right to vote? did they fight a war with land owners? and you look at the civil war. the civil war kept the union together but it took a peaceful mood in the 1950s and 1960s before african-americans truly got their human rights. before they went hearts and minds it did take that peaceful movement later on. and how many european countries had to work to free the slaves? zero. not a single european country had a war to free the slaves. so our lives have been impacted in would've realistic as a part of our history that is not taught. all these changes that have happened that we are not taught

about. so, another question. one thing i learned at west point is how much waging war in waging peace have in common. many of the things you need for waging work you also need for waging peace. what are some of those things going what do they have in common? you need lots of people. recruiting, personal. what else do they have in common? strategy. unique strategy whether it is a campaign in war or whether it is a nonviolent movement for civil rights or women's rights. you need a strategy for a strategic approach. what else? unity. solidarity. what else? motivation, right. whether you are waging war our waging peace, any camaraderie, strategy, tactics. you need to win hearts and minds. we're trying to win hearts and minds in vietnam.

martin luther king was trying to win hearts and minds in america. he did a better job. there are two differences between waging war and waging peace. what is different about waging war and waging peace, what is differen what you mean by economics? [inaudible] >> pardon? [inaudible] >> yeah, you see that in some ways a similar because you look at many nonviolent movements, if you look at the civil rights movement they had almost no funding. they had very little funding, they were a very for moving. if you think of it like this, here's a way to explain it, if you look at the civil rights movement, the people who oppose civil rights, they control the money, they control the government, they control the military, they control most university. they controlled institutions. they controlled almost everything. what did the civil rights movement have on its side? they had the truth.

it is true that african-americans are human beings and african-americans are not subhuman to whites. they had the truth. people say there's no such thing as truth but it is true of african-americans are human beings and the equal to right. if you look at the women's rights movement, that is a huge power struggle. been in control all the money. women couldn't vote their own profit. they controlled the government. women couldn't vote. they control the universities. they controlled the institutions. they controlled the military. women had almost nothing to all the had was the truth, and people say there's no such thing as truth but it is true that women are intellectually equal to men. because the myth back then was women, if you let them vote they will screw everything up. they are not intellectually equal to men and it'll have the mental capacity to vote. our african-americans are subhuman. they will screw everything up. they are like farm animals to do when you undo that myth, everything unravels. the whole system unraveled a look at slavery. the myth back then was these

people are born being slaves and they're happy being born. you had the enlightenment, and you have this new idea that every human being, your freedom. thing of the american revolution, french revolution, declaration of independence, with the idea is embodied in a document. and slavery began to become controversial. and now if you tell people well, some people are born to be slaves, people look at you like you're insane. if any american politician today were to go up and say we should bring back slavery, bring back segregation, women shouldn't give the go, people would look at him like he is in thing. the 200 years ago that some most people thought. that's virtual every politicians but the attitudes have changed. if we can change attitudes so dramatically, like it would dramatically change attitude about war, nuclear weapon, the amount of an obstruction to we are in the same situation today.

the people who perpetuate war, they control the money, they control the government and military, they control most of the universities. but we have the truth. human beings are naturally by the war is not inevitable and once went to talk more about is more doesn't protect us. it makes us less safe. so there are two differences between, start to get off on attaching, but does a good point i wanted to address. it was a really good point. so what are the two differences between waging war and waging peace? i know one of them. what's different about the method of waging war against waging peace? [inaudible] >> yeah, the method, the actions are peaceful. when waging war you're trying to transform the human being into a corpse and when waging peace come you're trying to transform a human into a friend. big difference. but there's another crucial difference.

another crucial difference. probably more fundamental than the issue of violence. i think, all war is based on deception. when you are far you want to enemy to think you are near. when you're near you want to indicate that you're far. when you're about to attack you want to indicate think you're unable to attend. when you're unable to attack you want your image think your able to attack. so it's based on deception entirely. waging peace on the other hand is based on truth. it involves exposing the truth about racial equality, saying for example, african's are not born to be slaves and they are human beings. or at the americans are not born to live in segregation to their equal to white people. or women are not intellectually injury to name. is promoting truth. truth. if you look at religion or

mythology, if you look at satan, if you look at -- the one thing they have in common is their all great to see the. the fundamental nature is deception. that's the difference between waging war and waging peace is you can't use deception. gandhi new energy get to go head to win hearts and minds, and you can't win hearts and minds bikes deceiving people. you have to build that trust that allows community and cooperation and peace. so, i consider myself pro-military and antiwar. people of something that doesn't make any sense. it's like being pro-farming and anti-four-star. for example, martin luther king, jr. was very antiwar. martin luther king, jr. was anti-vietnam war and anti-all war. but did you know one of his favorite television shows, one

of the few television shows he would let his children watch was a show that glorified the melted. issue he himself like. a show that portrays people in the military with exceptional noble qualities but if you're be said is the work, please don't give it away. a television show that glorifies the?i military, let his children watch and like, himself. in any of you guess what that show was? mash is a good guess. matched by the way is the dalai lama's favorite television shows. [laughter] official i'm talking about is 100 times more famous than the official i'm talking about is the most famous television show ever made to in terms of global recognition, more famous than seinfeld, more famous than the simpsons. the most high name recognition of any show ever made. all the characters and military. i'll give you a hint. there's a story about one of the actors in the show. she was at a party, and so it

came up to her and said jeffrey fan who wants to talk to you. she turned round and the fan is martin luther king, jr. he goes i got to tell you i just love your show. my kids love your show. keep up the great work. she said i'm going to lee fisher out this is but i'm going to quit issue. he said you, you can't leave that show. it's too important. she was a black female actress. star trek. star trek is a show about the military. ever wonder why it's captain, captain kirk, they all had military ranks to ago by military protocol. starfleet academy is based on west point even having the same as west point. there is no war, poverty or hungry on earth so it was change the more to humanitarian aid, peace, exploration. that's our having to some extent in the world today. for example, the new zealand army is no focus on waging war. the new zealand army is focus on disaster relief, committing

eight, and think about the u.s. army can do if its mission changed from work to disaster relief. wouldn't that be a good way to win hearts and minds around the world? it was a pew research study done recently that found that of the veterans of the postwar september 11 period, 51% of the people think that using too much violence makes terrorism worse. that's why the army now is transition. the army is half killing machine, half a score. they are bombing people but building hospitals and schools. they know that winning hearts and minds, you have to do good things to imagine if the u.s. had its reputation around the world, imagine if around the world the u.s. have this reputation to a natural disaster happen, the americans, they help, they leave. have 800 military bases around the world. [inaudible] >> you would have to leave, right. [inaudible] >> we don't leave. that creates a problem because

if you don't leave, then people don't like that. as we can see now in some countries. that would be a great way to win hearts and minds around the world, right? but you have to first change american foreign policy. you have to first change american foreign policy. any of you know who the first american president was to identify middle eastern hatred for the u.s.? the first american president to identify the fact that people in the middle east hate us? it was eisenhower. eisenhower called it a campaign of hatred. he said, he got his security council together, and said let's figure out why people in the middle east don't like us. can you guess what the conclusion was he came to? what was the conclusion he came to the people in the middle east don't like us? [inaudible] >> is it because we are free? according to eisenhower it's not because we are free. it's because we block freedom in the middle east. it's not because we're democratic it's because we block democracy in the middle east to

the opposite of what politicians say the reason is is the reason. it's kind of ironic that he overthrew the democratic government in iran, realizing that, but if you look at the evidence for that, think of every government we support in the middle east, we supported saddam hussein in 1980, decade. we support the democratic government in iran in 1950s, supported a dictator in his place, the shah of iran. we support the people he became the taliban. we supported the dictatorship in pakistan. we support dictatorship now in saudi arabia which is as oppressive if not more oppressive to women. we support the dictatorship in egypt and tunisia, and it's the hypocrisy of american politicians but you can't call of the hypocrisy of america because most americans have no clue this is going on the most americans know -- don't know we are going on, that we're

supporting dictatorship to i firmly believe america some of the most amazing ideas in the world. they are astounding to democracy, freedom, justice, liberty. and the world for the most part is an angry our ideals. the world is angled we don't live up to our ideals. we support dictatorships. or we say we're going to help women in afghanistan who are allied with the saudi arabian government a giving them one of the biggest arms deal in american history. and letting them focus their own protests. people can see the hypocrisy behind the people and say well, is your interest or democracy or is it economic in nature? they see the inconsistency. we have to hold our politicians accountable. and we have to ensure that we live up to our ideals, and if we simply practice will preach, the country would be much safer if we practice what we preach. and we can't let politicians promote this hypocritical

foreign policy anymore because it is in danger every american and it is destroying our economy. so, the last thing i learned that changed my life is that war is not inevitable and that world peace is possible. general omar bradley, one of the last five star generals, said it is easy for us to honor the sacrifice of those who are dead. because it helps us to relieve the guilt we should feel in the presence. war can be prevented. and, therefore, we failed to prevent wars share in guilt for the day to the general omar bradley said wars can be prevented just as surely as they are provoked. and, therefore, we who fail to prevent, share in guilt to do so may things we can do to make a difference. how many democracies were in the world 500 years ago? how many? zero. how many democracies were in the world 200 years ago? which one's? somebody put out number two.

which two were democracies 200 years ago. [inaudible] >> france. remember france than they were democracy but napoleon overthrew the democratic government, became emperor. the only democracy back then was america. america was a democracy if you were an american -- african-american to american wasn't a democracy if you are white and less utah olympic look how far we've come. i'm half korean, a quarter why, a court of like a group in alabama an effect on who shows you how far we have come. if you look to what means to love a child, if you have a child can you find your child is beating people up for stealing or being dashing if you let your child you correct your child. if you don't like a child that can do whatever he wants, who cares what he is a tune, you are apathetic. if you look at loving your country, if you let a country and you find your country is doing bad things, you try to make the country better. no one will call martin luther king, jr. unpatriotic.

i can't think of anybody who criticized the u.s. government more than martin luther king, jr. no one will call susan b. anthony or frederick douglass patriotic but they were very critical of things that needs improve, or mark twain. these people are as american as apple pie. so if you love your country, you want to make your country better, you need to alter politicians at temple. that's what democracy is all about the holding politicians accountable. so waging peace is a method that can be used to i gave this talk went on and so he said you're wasting your time, no matter how hard you try you will never convince everybody. i respond by saying but i don't have to convince everybody. what percent of the american population actively participated in the civil rights movement? less than 1% actively participated. what percent of the american population actively protest the anti-women's women's rights movement? less than 1% actively participate. susan b. anthony would give a

talk about women's rights and people would be screaming at her so loud she couldn't hear herself speak. the people, who were screaming at her were women. very controversial issue. so dramatic change. that's why henry david thoreau said there are 990 and patrons of virtue for every virtuous person to in other words, for every 999 people who think it's a good idea, when people -- one person doesn't think anything about. that's why you can't trust the opinion polls because of any with no action has no impact. all this change fundamentally comes from changing how people think and how they see the world. you don't have to convince everybody. don't have to. every single man in america convinced women should have the right to vote? there's still men in america don't take women should have the right to vote. but if a man tries to prevent a woman from voting he will get in trouble with the law. was every single white person in

america convinced segregation should go away? there's some people think you should bring back segregation and slavery. if those people attempt to do that they'll get in trouble with the law. so we have to create this critical mass where it creates a new social norm and it becomes a law. that's what you have to do. so the law is very important, and the social norm is very important. for example, if you were to go back 200 years ago and call someone a racist, that wasn't even a concept 200 ago. if you're to call someone a racist hundred years ago as a you are racist, they would see what does having? u.s.a. you think you're better than black people. they would say of course i'm better, i am white. you go back to just go and call him a sexist he said what does that mean? you think you're better than women. i'm a man, of course i'm different. but if you member what president bush said was the worst day of his presidency? presidency? [inaudible] >> yes. think about september 11, abu

gravy being exposed, katrina, iraq invasion. he said the worst day of his presidency was when kanye west called him a racist. said he didn't like black people. the worst thing you can call cement is a racist. 200 years ago that wasn't even a concept. so you don't have to convince everybody. you convince the critical mass, transforms the idea into a social norm and then transforms the id into a law. so that a few people don't agree can take advantage. that changes all around. it's happened and it is continuing happening today. and today it's even more important that wbecome highly trained in the art of thank you. this report we become a part of that 1% because women and civil rights, abolition of slavery, the world was going to end. but today the problems we're dealing with now, war, environmental destruction, nuclear weapons, these are survival issues. nuclear weapons, environmental

discharge, they threaten it's up to us but i hope you all become a part of the 1%, not the 2%. thank you. [applause] >> and so we'll have questions now. we will have questions. i work for the nuclear age peace foundation. there's going to be a sign up sheet going around. if you want to be on our newsletter, our mission to abolish nuclear weapons and empower peace because. we have a website. my website is peace revolution dot-coms i hope you'll stay in touch. any questions? how much time do we have left?w okay, great. please step up to the micropho microphone. >> and tough questions, please. thank you.

>> first off, thank you very much. i wonder when you mentioned a world that has world peace if you see it as united as one world, or if you still see it broken in different countries? if it is a fragmented in different countries and societies, how could that not focus on itself which could create more? >> excellent question. the question was, if we have a vision of world peace, is the world going to be united our people still be fragmented into countries, societies and communities? great question. here's a way to address that. if you go back 200 years in american history, people, they were -- i'm a virginian first, american second. state loyalty was far superior to national vote. everyone thought themselves as a state citizens about national

system. but now that change. 200 years ago during virginian first, you're an american second. today, you're an american first, a virginian second but if you tell people that you're a virginian first before being an american, people call you unpatriotic. so in the past 200 years we've gone from the idea state identity to national identity. you have 50 diverse states. look at the first the states are. look at alabama compared to california to look at the north compared to the south to look at east and west. after the civil war, especially during the 20 century, you've had this new national identity for me, especially during world war ii. so now we have 50 diverse states, every kind of person in america with the states that going toward each other anymore. if we can go for state loyalty to national loyalty, why can we go from national identity to global identity? so i think if you look at the u.s., 50 states, people aren't going to war with other states, great deal diversity.

local government, local participation but why can't we create a similar system around the world, especially if we can show people it's in everyone's best interest. and you might have terrorism. but the organization best trained to deal with terrorism is the fbi. the military is not trained to go after a transnational criminal network. terrorism is a transnational criminal network. it is more like the mafia than it is like the soviet union. international cooperation, international police work. keep in mind the police have a lot of tools. the police and fbi captured ted bundy, jeffrey dahmer, the unabomber, timothy mcveigh without killing a single person. think about the nazis who fled. captured, put on top, public trial, brought to justice. so i think we can create a new system where, another good example is europe. why would you are able to conquer the entire world? why was europe so easily able to

conquer every other continent? is because for 500 years europe was the place to place on earth. europe had five inches years of almost nonstop military. when you do something for five images come you get really good at it. a lot of that was religious war. a lot of that was religious war. so europe was the bloodiest place on earth for several centuries. and look at europe today. can you imagine france going to war with germany? can you imagine germany going to war with great britain. look at europe now. they still maintain their own local government they still have their own culture, but they are not slaughtering each other like they were in world war i, world war ii, prior to the. so i think what is happening in europe, what is happening in the u.s., that same kind of thinking going from local to national, national to global can definitely happen to that's a we have to do if we're going to survive as a species. we have to make the transition. and last point is that is the

reality of the world today. the world has become so interconnected today. in reality the world has become so interconnected that we are truly global citizens. thank you. great question. >> thank you. in light of your siding the colonel, what would be your assessment of the growing use of drones, both in terms of distancing from killing and in terms of blurring the lines between war and peace? ..

>> we killed at the hundred thousand civilians. that is the way that wars were fought back then. civilian casualties were not as -- they were not as devastating as they are now in terms of public opinion. the whole idea was that government and military realized

that casualties are no longer acceptable from the standpoint of public opinion. if you kill civilians, it will be all over and will create resentment. we can't just annihilate an entire city. they were under the method they had the smart capability to kill combatants without hurting civilians. i think there was a frontline episode where they interviewed some of the drone pilots. and they started to ask did you ever kill civilians, and they said no, we have not. the reality is that they do kill civilians, and there are two reasons. the two things that can cause them to kill civilians are mechanical failure, technological failure, the weapon goes off course come and the other is human failure. bad intelligence. your intelligence tells you that this has association to al qaeda

or the taliban, or innocent women and children, and you kill a bunch of innocent people. if you look at the evidence, if you look at the drone attack, they do kill many civilians. under the guise of not killing. i think that the intention behind the drone is actually from the objective point of view. the idea that civilian casualties are so acceptable that we have to put all this research into developing more precise weapons, it is actually a positive sign. we have to show the reality that these drones actually kill innocent people. the american president has a right to kill american civilians in a foreign country without putting them on public trial. if you have that right as a president. come according to the constitution, no, so the two big issues are civilian casualties, which are raising up resentment against the united states, and does the president have the right to kill them civilians on

foreign soil without putting them on public trial? i was watching -- i was reading an article that said we have gone primarily from detaining people on foreign soil to not killing them with jones. that is a problem that we havek? to think about. >> thank you. >> i don't know when the iraq war well, 250,000 people showed up in new york and washington command that did not stop the war. i got disheartened with the notion of this. i was wondering if you had an idea if it is still effective or you have some alternative approaches we can use. >> great questions. so it did not affect the war. a little bit back about information. no chomsky spoke at this point

in 2006. the lecture is available on c-span's website if you go to see c-span's website. the question-and-answer session section is the best part. i saw an interview with him where much of the problem with america is we have to go back to the 60s. everything was so much better than the 60s. we would have to go back to the 60s. he said, that is not true. that is one reason people are so pessimistic. he said that he would talk about vietnam in 1955. in boston from a very liberal town, 1955 -- 1965. he said four people listened to his talk or the person who organized the talks come at a creature of the where he was speaking, a gentleman off the street, and someone who wanted to kill them. [laughter] they were organized peace processors protesters.

in boston. he said prior to the iraq war, tens of millions of people all over the world protest the war before it ever begins. it never happened before in history. what changed in vietnam was significant for the reason that approach did did not work, prior to the iraq war, is that the government was fully prepared. the government had everything in place to prevent them from working. everything in place. so i often hear people say that the u.s. government is so stupid. the american government is so stupid for the american government didn't learn anything from vietnam. if the american government would have run from vietnam, it he would've never gone into afghanistan and iraq. he needs to learn from history so we cannot repeat the mistakes that happen. the government has a lot more sophisticated than we realize. they are are a lot more severe sophisticated than we realize. that is precisely why we went into afghan and iraq. is because we learned so much from the real content vietnam

war. when we learn from vietnam war? we learned four things. the first thing they learned was get ready for the threat. they will love -- if you look in the 1980s, the government went underground in south america. if you look at the caa in south america, they went underground. they had a -- they could not engage in this long-term. they had a giraffe. the government wanted to go invade iraq. it would be a much different national conversation. what else the government learned >> censor the media. >> censor the media. you cannot overtly censor the media. right? because we live in a democracy. we cannot overtly censor that. but we can restrict the access

and that is what they did. they didn't want people running around reporting, and there is also mythology that the vietnam era. the vast majority of media coverage was in favor of the war. very little, especially in the beginning was very antiwar. we had this misconstrue effect going on. how many contractors by? we don't know exactly how many concert contractors are not country. private armies are also very probable. extremely profitable for corporations. the fourth thing the government learned was to tell people if you don't support the war come you don't support the jury.

if you don't support the war, you don't support the truth. journalists in military units, the military is privatized, more contractors in afghanistan and iraq than actual soldiers, and you support the troops come all of that was put into place to prevent the antiwar defense. the government is very adapted, and i think that we have to be as adaptive as we can be in order to overcome those changes. if you look at the military, they have all -- the military thought completely differently than it did in world war i. much differently in vietnam than in world war ii. we have to evolve and we can't keep doing things -- we have to keep evolving so we can meet these things head-on.

>> if we pay taxes for drafting, we already participate conscientiously and pay our taxes. and we are participating. i think it is a really hard one, it is an effort to try to set aside the funds, so that when they come after you for not paying up your taxes, they take it up and make a point. they make it difficult. i would contend what you like to know about that, the conscientious objection to that statement. and pursuing the gulf war. there are a lot of good points. i'm going to try to cover as many as i can.

in terms of conscience of objection, there are people who want the peace movement that focuses entirely on counter recruiting and getting people not to join the military. and they are primarily corporate armies. blackwater, they can privatize the military. there is a big push to privatize schools, privatize the military. there is a big privatization push in the u.s., and it greatly helps those in war. it is no longer true that if you get the military -- it is no longer true that war is going to end. that was true when you have a draft going on or you had a volunteer army. in this era of corporate armies, and soldiers come you have to meet the issues head on. you have to address the underlying causes of war. and you have to meet the issue relevant people.

people who perpetuate war have tried to distance the issue were some people try to do so by promoting the draft. the way to bring back the issue of war so that it does well relevant to the american people are through two primary ways. first, we have to show the american people that war, it actually makes us less safe. it actually makes us less safe. the evidence for that is overwhelming. especially when you have civilian casualties and you have issues going on. if you look at why we were attacked on september 11, we had military bases in saudi arabia. right? the other way you can make it relevant to the american people is you have to tie it to the economy. general macarthur says that preparation for war is as destructive as war itself. preparation for war destroys the economy. have any of you heard eisenhower's cross alliance speech? raise your hand if you didn't?

rate content i have it in one of my books. it is one of the first. i can recite as much as i can from memory. he says, -- i am reciting from memory, so i might be off by a event. everything is assessed from the final sense. those who are cold and not cold. this world alone is not spending money, it is -- let me just read it. he meant it is a very important quote. i am stumbling. thank you for your patience. it is a very important quotation, because keep in mind that eisenhower, he was a republican president, general, west point graduate, and no one will call him unpatriotic or un-american. no one is going to call him a

hippie. he said every warship launched, every rocket, every down, take from those who are hungry enough that cold and not clothed. the genius of the sciences and the hopes of the children from the cost of one modern heavy bomber is this. a modern school in more than 30 cities. it is fully equipped hospitals and 50 miles of concrete highway. we pay for a single destroyer with homes that could have housed more than 800,000 people. this is the not a way of life and the true sense. under the cloud of threatening war, it is hanging from a cross of iron. he compares military spending to crucifixion. our country is basically on a cross of iron, being crucified by war spending. if you look at the budget now,

about 64 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to war. look at the american people. look at how our economy, our infrastructure come all of these things are hurting now. look at our national debt. war is never discussed is even being on the table when people talk about national debt. if we can show people that war destroys the economy, and if you can show that war makes us less safe, somebody who talks about that is an army vietnam veteran, he talks about how the war in the middle east are endangering america in making us less safe. i think that those two things reconnect people to the issue of war. if we can reconnect people to the issue of war, we can do what will greatly help the american people and the future of the whole world.

>> yes? >> going back to the previous question, if the old methods aren't working for protesting itself, what other ways to think we can adapt in our daily life to progress to peace? >> that is a good question. if the old ways are working, how can we adapt? i think a lot of it has to do with the old way not working, and has a lot more to do with the fact that we have lost our way. i think we have just lost our way and lost the path, the path that leads to part of the change. you have to change how people think. and you have to be able to converse with the people who don't agree with you. you have to be able to transform people's attitudes towards a very controversial issue. you see this dehumanization, not just by people in the government, but by people in the peace movement.

i had an interview with chomsky who said that the existence of the tea party is a real failure of the peace movement and liberals. if you look at the issues that the tea party are concerned with, the economy, national debt, they are really upset at the bank bailout, they are upset at corporate corruption and the peace movement and liberals are calling people stupid to try to reach out to that. i grew up in alabama. i lived there since i was two years old. i went to west point when i was 18 years old. my mother still lives there. i was talking to a real prominent, famous tea party are. a really great guy, i won't mention his name. we are talking, me and a couple of other people and he said, you know what? i wish they would have let the

south succeeded to the unit. i wish we could get rid of that south. i am from alabama. not everyone from alabama is in that stereotype. attitudes have changed, and if we have this demonizing divisive attitude, we are not going to be able to progress. if you look at gandhi or cane, and you never for -- if you look at gandhi or martin luther king, -- he was eventually killed, living under segregation. gandhi spent multiple years in prison. beaten multiple times, eventually killed. mandela was in jail for 27 years. i would be pretty upset after a couple of those years. you don't show them demonized after they had their spiritual transformation. and they have much more reason to be in range in their circumstance. if we are going to change how people think, the first thing we have to do is we have to have an

approach that identifies the economy. the opponent is not this person or that person. the opponent is hatred, misunderstanding -- how do you attack someone's hatred and ignorance? how do you see them as a potential ally to hold people hostage. if king and gandhi can do that, i think we can do that in our situation. if we don't do this, we are not going to be able to transform how people think. we are just going to be preaching to the choir, and we will not deal with changing attitudes that need to be changed. and i think that ultimately, it has more to do with the fact that we have lost our way. we have strayed from the past. we have done exactly what the opponent wants us to do. the government -- they want these people to be the military and see them as the enemy.

they want them to see republicans to demonize liberals and liberals to demonize republicrepublic ans. they want that divisiveness. that way they can better control. i gave a talk on time to a class in kentucky. a lot of liberals, and a a lot of conservatives, people in the audience. and i said, okay, we all have different political viewpoints. raise your hand reach her hand if you like unnecessarily high-tech system if you want innocent people to be killed, all come all of these issues, we agree with -- we agree with each other on, but there are divisive propaganda. and i think that we, as a movement, have to take the first step. on facebook, you don't get what i'm talking about. if you look at how they talk about liberals and conservatives. a bunch of idiots and cavemen, right? and you don't see martin luther

king jr. doing that to the people trying to kill him, and that it is a very important example, because that's what were. we have to get back on the path, and really live up to our own idea. if anyone cares anymore about akamai would be glad to. >> i'm curious about nonviolent passion in what looks like. i think for myself that maybe it is art, people are being brought up to not know that they can make art. maybe they know how to, but they have never been able to. with this kind of thing coming up in the future, and even what we have now. how do you see the inability to approach these passionate feelings that can put demonizing

into something positive? louisiana that is a great question about how can we do that. when reason we see demonization is you can really isolate yourself from society. if you live around people who didn't like you would agree with you, now you can go move up and not even leave your apartment if you want to. it's easier to be in a circle where you don't know anyone conservative or if you are conservative, you don't know anyone who is a liberal. and you have a family member who has a different political viewpoint. so i think that in order to overcome that, there are many different ways. a form of art his films. films are one of the great ways to unite people or a good book. if someone reads a book like "the kite runner", or they watch a good film, that can really

humanize people. between war and apathy, there are 1000 possibilities. we can explore many different ways. behind every tactic that we use, our focus has to be defeating ignorance and hatred. if you fuel hatred, it will just increase it. that is why it is important that people like gandhi, king, susan d'antoni, and to also continue to work. >> this question gets away from the strategy. it is rather personal, so you don't have to answer if you don't want to. you were captain in the army. what is the point where you are transformed into what you're doing today? >> a great question.

what in the army may be transformed. i guess it was a lot of experiences that built up. i am very conservative, i used to listen to rush limbaugh every day in high school. i used to listen to rush limbaugh and sean hannity on radio before became famous. my parents, they were not that politically involved, but i was my own person, it was my own personal desires. that was the environment i grew up in. i grew up in an environment where people are greatly influenced by their environment. if you think that people are so stupid that attitudes can change, just keep in mind how people that have changed, look at ellsberg. he was a war hawk. he was in favor of the vietnam war, had a change of heart and mind. so i think for me, it was some of the things that i learned out west. i think one of the pivotal moments was is a national security class participant. i had a professor who was a rhodes scholar, a west point

graduate, a major in the army. and he came into the class one day and he wrote the name of 18 countries on the chalkboard and he said, we spend more on the military in the world combined and than these 18 countries. isn't that ridiculous? look at those countries. nato countries are not china and north korea. why do we need that much military spending? none of us knew what to say. he said i am surprised you are not more outraged by this. why do we need that much military spending. now we spend more on the military in every country in the world combined because of september 11. one thing you learn in the army is that your loyalty is to the constitution, to the american people, to the health and preservation of our country and the world. and you have to do what is best for all of those different things. i think of as my attitude changed, i saw how in the 21st

century, war is different now. because of mass media and the rise of the different media outlets. warfare has changed so much. and you kill civilians, and makes her country less safe. it is counter productive. i look at it as how humans are naturally nonviolent. hearing general macarthur, general omar bradley, reading samantha butler, i think all of these things added up. i reached a point where i didn't like more, i realized there is no other way. it is a very gradual transition. i will give you a great example. who is the most famous military recruiter in history. i can't think of anyone who is more ms than a military recruiter. it was gandhi. gandhi was a military recruiter five times. he was in 1899 for it the war of

1906. in world war i in 1914. and also world war i in 1919 up to four times. in 1914, he was retreating people for being medics. in 1918, he was putting people in the infantry for world war i. it is a transition. in the movie, it is usually one epiphany, but in real life, it is several epiphanies that add up. gandhi participated and won the war medal. well, i thought, war is bad, but wells can you? that i learned about nonviolence, gandhi and king and there is a more effective message. think of it like an imputation. rather than educating them, use options. there is actually a better way to resolve conflict in the 21st

century than war. i think all of those things added up, and i think i am still evolving. i think all those things added up and let me here today. >> thank you for being here, mr. paul chappell. my question refers to the concept you spoke about earlier that soldiers exposed for longtime periods become psychologically affected. my life has been spent on the war on terror and in a constant war environment. do you think that american civilians and perhaps the american people conscious of a whole, have in some way been damaged or become psychological counter casualties due to this? >> oh, great question. has the american public been damaged by the war on terrorism? that is a great question.

so, here's a way to address that. there is something that the lieutenant talks about. he calls it a human phobia. an example is irrational, uncontrollable fear. about 50% of people are afraid of snakes, and people have phobias of heights and close bases, there are all kinds of phobias. there is a phobia that 98% of people will have a reaction to. because of the universal human phobia. 98% will have a phobic level reaction to war. all right? yes, great answer. they are more frightened than that. good answer. this ties into the answer. it is fear of human aggression. that is why one reason public speaking is hard. what if people become angry with me or is it something wrong. your worst fear is aggression or

humiliation. on behalf of the audience. it is actually more frightened to death. every in america, every year in america -- tens of thousands of people are killed in car wrecks. every day, millions of people drive casually to work. every year in america, hundreds of thousands of people die from cigarette smoke, people casually smoke. but if there is one terrorist attack in america, the whole country goes upside down. one serial killer in account, the whole town goes upside down. one serial killer can completely change and modify your way of life. that is why terrorism is so dangerous. ..

second scenario, you're writing your bike. group of the packers grab you, hold you down and break your white with a baseball bat. which is more dramatic? the result is the same. similarly, your leg is broken in both situations. the earlier situation, property. when a human does it to you, it is so much more terrifying. our greatest fear is

human-on-human aggression. most people are afraid of fighting. is to try to get past and overcome that fear. nothing i do right, especially revolution, rage. i'm not saying people cannot become violent. people can certainly become violent. i grew up in a very violent household. i was bullied a lot in school because i look asian. i grew up with a terrible, violent temper which is one reason i got into this piece thing. if you look at the violent criminal population, the vast majority of people were police throwing up. and the last point i make about that, i just read an article, how has terrorism affected our civilization. the first is ideals, which i just mentioned. the next, i read an article

about how popular hundred games is, about torture and this very controlling government and lots of resources and the economic collapse. i read the article saying that it appeals to young people because they have grown underneath the reality of the world -- the war on terror. they have seen the american economy decline. they have been aware of the issues, and it has affected their mentality, making them very fearful of the future. this movie captures that year and is a way of expressing this concern and fear for the future economy, violence, torture. >> this movement, to be successful, how the movement is

based in truth. >> right. >> mainly, the fundamental idea is correct. one of the concerns that i -- i sense is that when we think about war, even war and peace, we are fighting because we are so basic to nature. we have an army in our body that is biting or else we die. there seems to be, in every aspect of nature, this very subtle word that is going on. even when we have a conversation about how to fight this war becomes a war. how did not -- it uses the same terminology. i am wondering how the truth of fighting evil, destructive

forces within us and destructive forces whatever, this idea has to be accommodating with this concept of peace. >> how much time do we have left? this will be the last question. thank you. so that is a really good question, and something happened thinking about a lot. i reached the point in my life where i was very bitter and rejected all military metaphors and that kind of language. then ghandi said i am a soldier, but a soldier of peace. non-violence as a powerful and just weapon. i saw that that language is actually not only effective, it is also accurate. if you think about waging peace really is, your trying to defeat ignorance. you're trying to defeat it. you're trying to use troops to deceive ignorance that -- defeat ignorance. you try to overcome it with

evidence or information, defeat hatred. and the only way to defeat hatred is with love or compassion or understanding. if you try to defeat hatred with hatred it magnifies and amplifies. if you think about what we are doing, when a doctor finds illness, he is trying to kill and destroy a virus. we are trying to destroy ignorance. you realize your opponent is not that person in particular. every person is a potential ally every person is a potential friend. in their mind has been held by these things, and you also have this understanding that you don't grow your name. if you look at ghandi and king, there were willing to teach, but also to learn. that really signifies overdoing in many ways because the metaphor is very precise in that way in terms of, we are trying to move forward and overcome and justice by defeating ignorance, and it keeps it on track.

if you have that language and realize you're a soldier of peace you say, i am a soldier of peace. i need discipline, selflessness, strategy, all these things that soldiers have, but not being willing to kill people or try to overcome ignorance to with love, understanding. how can i best protected that without actually hurting people. so i think that in my case but i did not use that kind of metaphor i had a hard time communicating these concepts. it is hard to communicate these concepts because people think peace as being on a beach singing kuhn buyout. people have that misconception. laying around wearing a t-shirt doing nothing. you did people prepared, and it is a struggle. if you aren't doing it as a start -- viewing it as a struggle we're going to have a

hard time getting people engaged in the kind of action that they need to be involved in. thank you. thanks for being here. [applause] >> book tv has over 150,000 twitter followers. follow book tv on twitter to the publishing is, scheduling updates, author information, and talk directly with authors during our live programming. twitter.com/booktv. >> and now joining us on book tv is scott moyers, the publisher of penguin press. we want to find out some of the new titles coming out in the fall of 2012. i want to start with the patriarch. what is this? >> a sort of extraordinary story, ted kennedy before his death reached out to david nassau and gave him an

extraordinary offer witnesses said he gave him an exclusive access to the kennedy family papers, the papers of his father, joseph kennedy, which had never been shared with any bad for. there were no strings attached. no family review. and david who spent years on this book digging through archives, digging pass to the mess, and really starting from scratch. and one of the things papers allowed him to do is to get a closer image of the emotional core of kennedy. but crucially for the first time able to follow the money. the kennedy family fortune has always kind of been a black box, and he was able to put together exactly how joseph kennedy did it. hollywood is a big part of this story in a way that has not been understood before. we all know about wall street,

some of the mess, even some more true than we might have thought and others less so. and i think in the end why ted kennedy -- we can't ask him to now, but why he picked david nasaw is because he saw a model for the arc of his father's life he made a great fortune relatively early and spent the rest of his life figuring out ways to do good things with it. end of course we mistake the things, help make his son president. that piece of the story, al joseph kennedy was involved and ultimately the election is fascinating the name has been dead this long. there are some real newsbreaks. >> and other book coming out as well. >> yes. an autobiography. how firm and has such a reputation as a diplomat, it is delightfully unvarnished.

there is no secret that he had some issues with the bush administration in iraq and other matters. no secret he had a role in the lebanon invasion and the state of israel. in a sense, their is a lot in it about what he tried and failed to do and the limitations. but is quite moving and not really acted is that this is also a reminder of how much the u.n. actually does do to improve the lives of billions of people around the world in a way is really off of the radar screen. his account of what this organization does and its role in the world today, it is an argument for it in a sense and also a lament for what it cannot do. at the end of the day it is a great statesman with great power of the world stage, also dramatic issues, telling stories

about people, events, telling you is true, unvarnished bounce about some of the great characters that he has had to work with. >> so both books are coming out in the fall? >> that's right. this book, after the election and the one from kofi annan right after. >> the book prizewinner. >> long-awaited mimbar -- memoir of the civil war which tore his country, nigeria, asunder in the late 60's was the scar that runs through his life. he is never talked about it and never written about it. this book is in part a coming-of-age and the comings -- coming of age but for himself and his country. and it's very moving because she shares the hopes, promises for this young country and how tragically hope turns into

hatred. but the civil war tore his country apart and set it on a maligned course. it is a beautiful book that is, in part, about the role of a writer in being a voice of conscience. the artist's role, what is it to be committed, to stand up and sort of, you know, speak to those who won't speak for those who cannot speak. chinua achebe has done that since his first novel which still sells 350,000 copies per year -- per year. 80 million copies since publication in 1959. this memoir is a magnificent capstone to is great career. >> how was his health? >> he is somewhat weakened in his mid 80's, and, as you know, he is in a wheelchair. his brain is still a strong as ever. we are going to be careful with

his time. many people would like to do things with them. we are going to have to be pretty careful and limited, but i think what we will do, i hope, bring down a founder and create a great sense of occasion. >> and finally a former "washington post" writer is familiar to a lot of viewers on c-span as another military book. >> it is in no way a culmination of 25 years of covering the military. it is a book called the generals and it is a study of military command from world war two spending to the present looking at the heart of what is to be a general and what differentiates great generals from not so great generals. what of the things that promote -- provoked this book is a staff riot between officers from leavenworth and the general staff college. there were telling from the story of the battle, the