call him to offer condolences. so she says why don't we call him, and then she said after i say hello, shout some slogans, and then she decides to emerge. there we have a version that we could have perfectly have taken if we hadn't consulted a lot of other people that could not confirm that version. but as you well know and a lot of people know, pakistan's a place of conspiracy theories, of tales, of incredulity about what goes on. and i remember having read a very fine essay by a pakistani writer immediately after the bombing attack against, the terrorist attack against the sri

lanka national cricket team in lahore. .. >> looked at the united

states 60 years of john kennedy and dallas the american people don't believe if there was the single shooter. >> host: we now know he was shot but there was an investigation. we don't even know to what that's true. but thousands of regulation and one of the most amazing coincidences in pakistan a man who was at the exact same place of a speech was

actually shot and killed by supposedly a lone gunman. the individual was shot several times it even though he was subdued by the crowd and take it away they shot him six times. see you would never know who was behind it to. so today there is speculation of the 56 years before because of id honor of that private mr.. because i found it

interesting and they are assassinated to take to the military hospital if they try to receive him and revive him successfully but 20 years later the doctor there receives benazir bow -- benazir bhutto. lot of coincidences'. >> host: with that we will wrap up. thank you very much for joy to be here tonight.

>> can you hear me? the key for being here taking for the introduction and in salem state for having me and i really appreciate it. little background my father is half white and half black

fly in the vietnam war and retired it had a lot of war trauma. i grew up alabama and my mother is korean. my mother lived did japan i graduated from west point then went to baghdad now i work full-time for the peace institute. did all of you follow the 2012 election pretty closely? was it close? yes. a cave down period either candidate could have won. so imagine in 2016 presidential election in to imagine it is a very tight race this microphone is not working?

so the 2016 presidential election and it is a very tight tea and close race. and it is so close either candidate can win so imagine the first presidential debate on national television when of the candidates suddenly says i feel we should bring back slavery and segregation in women should not vote or go to college out with the american public react? what do you think? >> which date? >> it would not be such a close election how would the tea party react? who are the tea parties to favored candidates?

michelle bachmann herman cain is the black man. you were the two biggest tea party rock stars? era palin and alan west. that does not mean there is no more racism but that would not have been possible 30 years ago or 100 years ago or 200 years ago for a black person to be in that position so things have changed. if anybody in 2013 or 2016 said we should bring back slavery with mitch did not vote that person is now completely insane. the american public would call them that the 200 years ago when they could not go or own property a go to college most black people were slaves sorbate completely insane? i'm going to grab my water.

what was going on to a hundred years ago all over the world? was everybody crazy? if you go back to hundred years ago to the 19th century, white people british people said the irish are subhuman in some british called them white chimpanzees and felt they were a separate one dash separate sub human race people used to believe that french and german and irish were separate and irish word the inferior race. how would people react if we said that today? i don't think people back then were crazy or stupid maybe they didn't have all the right information but now it is trendy to trash talk humanities so i want to give you ideas or examples

that are common sense if you go back a few hundred years they make no sense. here is an idea but if you go back 500 years this idea makes no sense if you go back five of hundred years would that be easy for hard to convince people that the earth goes around the sun? they would save the earth is moving why don't you feel motion? and if you look up everything looks like it is moving around you even today we say there sunrises or sets the we still say that today. if he were on the end merry-go-round what happens if he let go? you fly off. the earth rotates

1,000 miles per hour. why don't be fly off? gravity. that is a very good point by the way try to explain gravity to people 500 years ago so galileo tried and he thought he figured out because it seems the earth is moving so the water sloshes around. if you move the cup around you have the high tide and the low tide it actually the moon must be exerting a force to pull upon the earth and that causes the tides to rise and received a galileo said that was the stupidest thing he ever heard it sounded like sorcery it was gravity that the mood sounds

like magic so it may be hard to explain that to galileo or the average person. here is another idea common sense but 2000 years ago that the earth is round if you go back to a thousand years convincing people the earth was round would that be easy or hard? nearly impossible because of the world is round why don't the people on the bottom fall off why don't they feel like they are upside-down? they are counter intuitive give people look back on the world 500 years ago and think everybody was stupid but galileo recognized it was counter intuitive all sensory experience tells us the world does not move it makes us think "the world is flat" if we lived back then we would have thought the same thing the other one --

you were some who could come within a pretty close margin but that was a minority. what was the other ideas? the use to believe african-americans are subhuman and then human genome was scientifically incorrect others would say irish were subhuman or women are more vague and physically inferior to men. what are some other ideas? what you think? >> [inaudible] >> that could be controversial but that is a good point.

war is unavoidable. that is a great point we still debate that we still talk about the evidence that war can be avoided but here is the idea of human sacrifice every major civilization ever cultural society practiced human sacrifice people believe you would please the gods you have to sacrifice the human being to please them if you try to do that today? you would be arrested but people today have bow feared viewpoint to sacrifice to a god of the altar. here is another viewpoint. people used to believe if you were sick or got the play gore of leprosy or birth defect you were evil people didn't know by resorb bacteria they did not have microscopes some people had an idea but the majority

believed you had the plague of mentally ill there was not much empathy for those even epilepsy. lookit democracy with the idea was growing people believed god chooses and god is the king and to preach a doctor sees to go against god he had to make an articulate argument to explain why god does not choose said he had to'' biblical passages to show that god does not choose the team but to choose the dictator is to go against god but today we do have dictatorships many of those create the illusion of their democratic even when they're not. they try to create that illusion it is a radical viewpoint.

that changed our way of thinking. so there's only two possibilities to consider the first is we are right about every single issue that has never happened before the second is there are some issues where 200 years from now people look back the way we look back upon people so what seems like the more likely scenario? we are right about everything or there are issues we are wrong about? what are the issues we could be really wrong about? keep in mind the issues we are really wrong about are not issues yet. look at women's right to vote that is not an issue in 1600's in the late 1800's

but not even debated that munch was century before that it is not a global issue in the 16th century. typically the issues is what people don't even think of yet. i will keep you one example. imagine the year 2113, 100 years from now that there is a history class at this university maybe your great grandkids take this class it was the year 2113 and a class of the 21st century and the professor said in the 21st century people believed some weird things and they're not stupid or crazy people.

they did not know any better. they were smart. but probably the weirdest thing that people believe that human beings are naturally violent. that is a weird idea because if you go back to the year 2013 when people got a j.p. or bulgaria nobody would say that is human nature. people would recognize something had gone wrong that is not unnatural state but a departure something has malfunctioned. when people become violent they see that is human nature and 2013 there is the obesity epidemic people are running around frantically how do we fix this problem? but when people are violent they say it is human nature we have to bomb people. it is very important to understand this because if

you believe that then war is inevitable the best way to deal with it i am not saying that people cannot become violent they can become extremely violent so violent that when you read what they do you cannot comprehend. you would say how could a human being to that but those behavior's have causes. we can talk about that. but if you understand that we can work to prevent violence anwr so the first question and what is the greatest problem of every army in world history the matter what time period or culture? can you guess? >> if you are a general living in fifth this century you have to worry about food

and water and feeding your soldiers and supplies defeating the other army but this is bigger than all of those. desertion. yes. >> using soldiers to fight. so the greatest problem with every army in world history is when the battle begins had to stop soldiers from running away? if you look at combat an hour flight response is far more powerful than our fight response their natural reaction most people's natural reaction is to run away as fast or as far as they can put general patton said anyone who says they are not of trading, that is a liar. so what happens with a mass

shooting? people panic and they run. they've run out the door some people may try to jump out the window and people are traumatized. if people start shooting at a group of people they panic and run away but forget everything you have seen in the hollywood movie or in the television show and think about your own common sense if a grown man brandon you screaming with a machete that would free queue out. now imagine 40,000 grown men running at you trying to kill you you may have an army underside but what if there is 10,000 and they have 50,000 or one in 2000? so i first thought about the idea of a freshman year at west point at west point every male cadet has to take

a mandatory boxing class. there are two reasons first, you have to learn how to defend yourself the second reason is because cuban beings are naturally afraid of fighting you have to learn how to overcome that fear. mike tyson said anyone who says they're not afraid women into the boxing ring is lying or totally insane. which is scarier? boxing or tennis or basketball? that scares most people. you have to overcome that fear. but here is the interesting thing if you think about it rationally and break it down it should not be that terrifying think about what it really is your hit in the face with the glove and if you do amateur boxing you probably have headgear. you have very strict rules

you cannot kick in the groin or head but you have a referee to protect you. should not be that scary but people are naturally afraid and they have to overcome. so think how frightening it is for most people now think about the roman army 2,000 years ago. in boxing you cannot puncher kick in the groin the roman army would train people to staff soldiers and the growing. said think of the well-trained armored soldiers doing everything in their power to stab you in the groin and kill you. when people compare football to war, you cannot throw a punch or a kick you cannot grasp someone's home it. with warfare there is no rules or referee you kill any way that you can. if you read the iliad, if

the powerful anti-war epic written by homer one of the striking pictures are gruesome death there is one scene where there agree carry -- hero status the soldier in his groin and custom to his belly button that soft part of the belly is a worse place to stab somebody. if you look at hollywood hollywood, there accurately depict. hat you seen gladiator or brave part? -- great part? if you look at a brave heart here is how the battle or gladiator, the two armies collide on the battlefield and it turns into a big mosh pit bull there intermingled and fighting then they keep

fighting until everybody on one side is dead fed is not how ancient battles were really fought to armies would fight in tightly compact formations and fight for hours and hours in very few soldiers would die those with coverage i was at the front -- the front of the affirmation maybe each army would only lose five for 10% because for the most part or the people in the front but at some point they panic and retreats and as they do that they get massacred that is why with ancient battles very often you may see lopsided casualty numbers one side loses 10 percent the other is 90% because when you run away as you ride you are massacred.

soap if you are in the ancient battle the and you run the way you want to run fast to what to do? you throw down your armor to run faster. throw down your shields maybe even your weapons. if you throw down all of your equipment and you are running very fast how will the other army catch you? they use their calvary. this is why they can fight the battle after battle as long as they don't lose if you do lose a battle the army can be decimated. as long as it doesn't panic you will not lose too many soldiers.

a friend of mine ask me one time hell are the ancient armies able to make soldiers retreat? by trying to kill them. if you stab people in the groin and makes them tend to panic. think about getting a cavity in 500 b.c.. think about getting stabbed today or in 500 b.c. to the spartans panic or retreat? you have all seen 300. they fought in three battles they had between 1,000 id

1800's soldiers did but they panicked and ran away and hidden in the one battle they surrendered to the athenian one reason the battle is so famous it is very unusual and inspiring very unusual fighting to the last man but they did retreat with multiple battles. here is the interesting thing. there were a lot of battles and increase ancient china the persians were conquering all sorts of people. hell are the ancient armies able to fight? if you are a greek general you know, it is about human

behavior how to make your army fight to the death of they do not want to die? training. good point. army uses many techniques and training is a technique some are more effective than others. but the single most effective technique? here is a way to make this clear. what would all love you die for? would you risk your life to protect her family? to cover one dash ever wonder why they did the band of brothers? out of necessity. look at the art of war written 2,000 years ago sun tzu said treat soldiers as your children they will fall the into the deepest valleys treat them like your son tableful you to death.

and shakespeare said we are a band of brothers and he shall be my brother. and a chinese philosopher said by being loving we are capable to be brave. if your loved ones are threatened it is a whole different dynamic now. . .

>> and the 73-year-old woman bent down and bit the pit bull on the neck until the pit bull let go. she actually bit this pit bull on the neck to make it let go. and they asked her afterward in an interview, they said are you afraid? she said the only thing i was afraid of was my dog getting hurt. if it's you and a wild animal, you're afraid. you want to flee. but imagine a wild animal or a human attacker assaulting your child or grandchild or best friend or pet or sibling. now you have the surge of adrenaline to go help your loved one. any of you seen the movie forest gump? why does forest gump in the vietnam scene, right? bullets flying, explosions, why does he keep running toward the explosions and the gunfire looking for bubba? why does he keep doing that? exactly. they're brothers.

they're best friends. the you look at the medal of honor recipients, most of the time that's what it's about, saving your comrades. it's incredible courage and heroism in combat. even after forest gump is shot, he keeps running into the gunfire, into the danger looking for his friend. so love of comrades is one psychological technique that the greeks used to make soldiers fight and not retreat. another psychological technique that the greeks used was love of country, love of country. so if you look at the bottle of marathon, that's what the race was named after in 490 b.c., the greek army, the athenian army was greatly outnumbered by the invading persian army. very small greek army, very large persian army. by some estimates, the persian army outnumbered the attenyang army five to one or ten to one. if you look ten years later, a naval battle, a very large persian navy, a very small greek navy. so that's pretty terrifying when

you're outnumbered three to one, four to one, five to one. so this was the battle cry the greeks used at the battle, it went advance you sons of greece from oppression save your wives, save your children, save your country. this day the common cause of all demands fur valor. most people will die to protect their loved ones. so when the athenians heard that, save your children, save your country, this day the common cause of all demands europe valor, they were ready to fight to the death. and i think that battle cry has been used by every government since then. not word for word, but the essence of that battle cry. so how many wars have there been in human history? thousands maybe? thousands perhaps? but do you know this all of world history, all the military history there's never been a single war, there's never been one war where a national leader told his people they're fighting for money or gold or oil. never before happens where a

national leader told his population that. so what do national leaders tell their people? what did the roman emperor or gwen division khan or alexander the great or hitler tell their people they're fighting for? typically, self-defense is a common one, right? fighting for peace, fighting for democracy, freedom if you look a the -- at the greek and roman countries. fighting for ideals, liberating people is a common one. if you look at the european 'em ires, we have to liberate these africans living in darkness. we have to give them christianity, european civilization. romans felt the same way towards the, quote, barbarians, right? the people living in darkness without roman culture, roman civilization or law and order. hitler, right? nazi germany published a book of all of hitler's speeches from 1933, very interesting book. the title of the book is the new

germany desires work and peace, and they're all peace speeches. if you look at hitler's speeches from 1939 about why he invaded poeland -- and some of his speeches hitler talks about the reason he has to attack poland is poland attacked germany first, and germany has to respond out of self-deespecially. and the polish government is killing innocent german people on german territory, and the germans don't believe in killing innocent women and children. now, if you read "mein kampf" or if you read much about hitler, you know what much of what he was saying isn't what he really believed. he had destructive, devious intentions. but if you want to get the majority of the german population on your side, what's a better argument, fighting for peace and freedom and self-defense, or what he really thought? he could have gotten a percentage of the german population to his side with what he really thought, but it would not have been as big a group. if you look at the nazis who

turned on him and tried to assassinate him when they found out about the holocaust, he was able to get the largest group of people by having a more peaceful self-defense-oriented message which was not in line with what he really thought. he had very destructive motivations. but he knew how to manipulate people, right? so think about that. if human beings are naturally violent, why would the greatest problem of every army in world history be with when a battle begins, how do you stop soldiers from running away? he's at question, what's a phobia? what's a phobia? irrational fear, exactly. what are examples of phobias? arachnophobia, fear of spiders. what are other examples? fear of heights, fear of snakes, right? fears of closed spaces. about 15% of people are afraid of snakes. but there is somethinged the universal human phobia, 98 % of people will be a phobic-level

reaction to. there is something that 98% of people have a phobia of. can you guess what it is? >> dying. >> dying's a good answer. dying's close, but it's a good answer. it might be in the top two or three. of yes. >> [inaudible] >> oh, disappointment, very close, very good answer. the unknown? depends -- losing a loved one very close. dying -- when i, all of these answers are very close, but when i explain the answer, it might make more sense. about 98% of people have a phobia of human aggression directed at them. interpersonal human aggression directed at you. lieutenant colonel dave grossman calls in the universal human phobia, and i'm going to explain why this is a bigger fear than death. every year in america hundreds of thousands of people die from the effects of smoking.

every day millions of people smoke without a warrior care in the world. tens of thousands of people die in car wrecks, but if there is one serial killer in a town and that serial killer kills five people, the whole town goes upside down, right? one terrorist attack in america kills around 3,000 people, very tragic, the country goes upside down. the country still hasn't recovered from that. around 3,000 people die every couple months from car wrecks, but why does that that not direy affect our lives? until today after september 11th until today, you are as likely to be killed by your furniture as terrorists. you're as hike hi to die because your furniture falls on top of you. if you are an american citizen, if you are an american citizen. so in 2010, according to the article, globally in 2010 15 american citizens were killed by

terrorism. in 2011 globally, 17 american citizens were killed by terrorism. so think about that. if you were to multiply that number by a thousand, let's say we have 15 american citizens killed a year in 2010 by terrorism. if you were to multiply that number by a thousand that'd be 15,000 americans killed. that's still less than half the number of people killed in car wrecks. car wrecks, between 30 and 40,000, usually around 32, 33, 34,000 people killed a year. so if you look at these statistics, our reaction to terrorism is irrational. it's not a rational reaction. because statistically speaking, so many other things are more likely to kill us. and you might say, well, it's because terrorism causes economic damage. look at school shootings, right? look at how we react to that kind of thing. a mass shooting if it kills 5, 10, 15 people, that many people die in a short time from car wrecks or other cause, but we

react in a disproportionate way. why? two reasons. first of all, the universal human phobia, the other is that governments know how to manipulate that phobia. so this is why terrorism so dangerous. if you look at why terrorism so dangerous, it's so dangerous because of the way we react to it. if osama bin laden had said i want you to spy on your own people, torture, betray your own ideals, i want you to bankrupt your economy partly through war spending, we would have never done that. but by attacking us, we willingly do that in the name of safety, right? so here's another way to make this clear. here's another example. i'm going to give you two scenarios, and tell me which scenario is more traumatic. first scenario, you're riding your bike with, you tall off your bike, you break your leg. second scenario, you're riding your bike, a group of people grab you, hold you down and break your leg with a baseball bat with. which is more traumatizing? second one way more

traumatizing. but why? finish in both scenarios the physical outcome is the same. in both scenarios you have a broken leg. why does it matter how you broke your leg? why is it so much worse if somebody holds you down and breaks your leg with a bat? why is it worse? it's intentional, right. and you'll probably never get over that. if you fall off your bike, break your leg, you'll probably be okay psychologically after your leg heals or in a short time. someone holds you down and breaks your leg with a bat, especially a group of people, that'll perhaps haunt you for the rest of your life. or be the you do overcome it, it'll take a lot of work. so if you look at the causes of physical injury, right? physical injury can be caused by accident, disease, natural disaster, animal attack, human attack. whenever a human being attacks you, it's always far more traumatizing. any physical injury caused by a malicious human attack is always far more traumatizing. this is why things like rape and

torture are almost universeally traumatizing. they cause so much psychological damage. and this is one reason why public speaking is so terrifying, is because of the universal human phobia. people often say public speaking is the worst, most common phobia. and they're close. when you're doing public speaking, the worst case scenario is what if i say the wrong thing, and the audience becomes aggressive towards me. what if i say the wrong thing and the audience verbally or physically attacks me or humiliates me? be it's an i have rational fear. of there's nothing to be afraid of. that's one reason why you're typically afraid talking in if public to stranger, but if you're talking to your friends and family, you don't have the same kinds of fear because you're not as worried about your family becoming aggressive towards you or laughing at you. and if you look at gun control,

this is why both sides are are emotional. people on both sides are very emotional because of this phobia. if you were to ask a anti-gun control person why they should be allowed to have a gun, i know many anti-gun control people. i know many of them. many of them say i don't want -- will say i don't want a crazy person to shoot me and my family. the you were to ask a pro-gun control person why we should restrict guns, many will say i don't want a crazy person to shoot me and my family. some maniac shooting up their family or innocent people, but they respond to the problem differently. the anti-gun control person says we have to have guns, the pro-gun control person says we have of to restrict guns. there are other factors at play, but that's a very common factor. and there is, in question and answer we can talk more about that, if you like. so we have this phobia of human aggression, right? trauma. when i asked what universal human phobia is, you said death of a loved one.

it depends. let's say that your loved one is very ill and they're 95 years old and they've been in a lot of pain for five years, and they die, they've had a very full life. they're very ill for a few years, they die. it's much different than if somebody rapes and murders an 8-year-old child. it's completely different. the way you react to someone dying of old age in their sleep versus the way you react to someone raping and murdering a child is completely different. if you are that person's family member or even if you're a part of the public. you react to it differently because how people die, if you look at people who die of old age and if you look at people who are tasting lethal violence, very different reactions. very often. and we can talk more about that in the question and answer session. so here's another question. what does war do to the human mind? what does prolonged exposure to war do to the human brain?

hmm? >> this. [inaudible] >> changes your values. great. changes your views, changes your brain in what way? great answer. >> [inaudible] >> desensitizes the brain, right? more broadly seeking, war causes trauma. war traumatizes the brain. this is completely noncontroversial today. if all of you heard the saying war is hell, right? the idea that war is hell, this is so noncontroversial that today even pro-war people say war is hell, right? even people who support wars will say that war is hell. john mccain will say that war is hell, and he's right. so war traumatizes the brain. this is understood today that war causes trauma. but if human beings were naturally violet, why would war traumatize the human brain? if we were naturally violet, why would war cause trauma to the human mind if we were naturally violent? wouldn't people go to war and become more mentally healthy and

the longer they're in war, the more mentally healthy they are? but the opposite is true, right? so if you raise a child in a loving, peaceful environment, that is good for the child's brain. if you raise a child in an abusive, violent environment, that is not good for the child's brain. it's not good for the human brain. but if we were naturally violent, why wouldn't the opposite be true? so if you look at world war i, world war ii and the korean war, there were more american soldiers pulled off the front lines from having nervous breakdowns, psychological breakdowns than were killed in the wars. during world war ii, a little over 400,000 american soldiers were killed. around 504,000 american soldiers were pulled off the front lines from having nervous breakdowns, psychological breakdowns. keep in mind a primary -- one of the primary purposes of basic training is to weed out those people who are most likely to have a nervous breakdown in war. of that's one reason you're

getting screamed ott, to weed out those people. but after that weeding-out process, you still have more people in world war i, world war ii, the korean war, more american soldiers pulled off the front lines from having nervous breakdowns than were killed in the wars. two army medical doctors, one was at d day, and they did a study in world war ii that found that after 60 days of sustained day and night combat, 98% of soldiers suffer psychiatric trauma. these two army medical doctors found that after 60 days of sustained day and night combat, 98% of soldiers suffer psychiatric trauma. keep in mind, there had never been 60 days prior to the 20th century. because prior to the 20th century, soldiers typically would not fight day and night. so before the 20th century, a battle might last only one or two days. and they typically usually don't fight at night. but in the 20th century if you

look at world war i, world war ii, you had situations where soldiers were trapped in combat, and they couldn't get out, and it'd be day and night. they were able to study what happens to the human brain. so they found that after 60 days of sustained day and night combat -- 2% of the soldiers can kill and kill ask kill and never go insane. why is that 2% different? why can 2% of soldiers be exposed to war for long periods of time and why can the other 98% not do that? according to the study, the reason is because they were already insane before they went to war. [laughter] that 2% is composed of aggressive psychopaths. and this is why -- and they're apparently having a good time. but this is why if you look at, if you look at modern militaries, right? if you look at the modern american army, this is why they have combat rotations. this is why you get days off. this is why you get leave time

perhaps in the middle of deployment. the army learned from this, and this is why the army does combat rotations. they rotate soldiers in and off the front line. the army learned from this, right? in world war ii they would just leave people over there until the war was over. the vietnam war they would have people come back to the rear occasionally, and they would give people a set deployment time. come back to the u.s. and then redeploy. which is still very hard on people's minds, but before that they would just say go over there and come back when the war's finished. so the army did learn from that and has adapted to reduce the amount of trauma. but people still have a very hard time, and there still is a lot of trauma if you talk with many veterans that i've spoken with, known. so here's the thing about violence and trauma, the you look at the human condition -- if you look at the human condition in violence, right? in all of human history, there has never been a single recorded instance, not one recorded instance of a human being

becoming traumatized from receiving a genuine act of kindness. never before happened in recorded history where a human being became traumatized from receiving a genuine act of kindness. but if you receive an act of violence against your will, it will traumatize you. it might traumatize you to the point where you never get over it. and you might say, well, that's because violence causes physical damage. but in in all of human history, there's never been a single recorded instance of a huey p. long becoming -- human being becoming traumatized from inflicting a genuine act of kindness. many people become traumatized when inflicting violence even if they receive no physical wounds as a result. so i'm going to exlap to you how people -- explain to you how people can become traumatized from inflicting violence. manage if i had you spend -- imagine if i had you spend an entire day with a 5-year-old girl, and your mission is to get to know her as well as possible. find out what's her favorite game, what are her hobbies, what

is she interested in, what does she want to be when she grows up? does she have a pet? what's her pet's name? name of her family. and and go have a picnic, go play hide and seek, eat ice cream, get to know this 5-year-old girl as well as possible. now, at the end of this day i want you to look that 5-year-old girl in the eyes and without blinking or turning your held, i want you to take a hammer and bash her skull in. around 98% of the human population will become traumatized from committing that act. but what if you don't know anything about the girl? what if you don't know anything about the 5-year-old girl? the percentage of people traumatized will decrease slightly. what if you don't see her face? what if you hit her in the back of the head with a hammer? the percentage of people traumatized will decrease slightly. what if you don't use a hammer? what if you shoot her with a rifle from far away? the percentage of people traumatized will decrease. what if if you believe she's

evil or her family's evil or subhuman? the percentage will decrease. what if you drop bombs at 10,000 feet? the percentage of people traumatized will decrease. so the war system is able to create these forms of distance so that rather than having 98% of people traumatized, you might only have 5-20% of people traumatized. maybe more, maybe less, but it will decrease because of these forms of distance. another turning point in my life was i read a book at west point called "on killing," anyone here read that by lieutenant colonel dave grossman? he was a west point psychology professor, army ranger and "on killing" is required reading at the fbi academy, also the marine corps. and the premise of his book, he says it is unnatural for human beings to kill other human beings, and we have this innate resistance to killing our own species. and that countered everything i had been taught growing up

because when i would watch action movies, killing seemed very easy. but he's saying that killing we have this innate resistance to killing our own species. and he says the evidence for this is all the military history, all the military history supports this. so in order to wage war, how must a country portray an opposing group of people? as a threat, more specifically as nonhuman, right? as subhuman. and this is mainly done by the political leaders. mainly done by the political leaders. george orwell said one of the most horrible features of war, one of the most horrible features of war is all the hatred, all the lies, all the propaganda always comes from people who aren't fighting. so this is done through what lieutenant colonel drive grossman calls distance. the first form is psychological distance. psychological distance means to

train people to be subhuman, and this is often done through derogatory name calling. and he talks about how our own country has used that in war to portray people as subhuman. so what did we call the germans when we fought them? if caughts, huns. what do we call the japanese when we fought them? japs, right? and it wasn't just name calling. if the you look at world war i, there was an official world war i plop began da -- prop began da poster depicting a german soldier as a gorilla. in world war ii there was an official american propaganda poster depicting a japanese soldier as a rat. in world war ii there was an official japanese government leaflet depicting the british soldier as a wolf. so the americans depicting the japanese as rats, japanese depicting the british as wolves. and in vietnam we called the

vietnamese gooks, right? and what do we call the people that we're fighting now in the media? terrorists. terrorists, right? and it has a racial connotation. the word terrorist has a racial connotation. when americans hear the word "terrorist," do they immediately think of a blond-haired, blue-eyed christian? when that guy in norway killed all those people, the american media called him a gunman. when that guy killed -- shot the congresswoman, he was a gunman. and if you look at the frequency of terrorism in the united states, you had the unibomber, you had timothy mcveigh who was white who blew up the oklahoma city federal building. i'm just trying to show all races are capable of terrorism that's all. did all of you no in birmingham,

alabama, that one city between 1957 and 1963, 18 black churches and homes were bombed? in mississippi during a two-year time period in the 1960s in mississippi, 50 black churches were bombed or burned. so if you lack at terrorism against african-americans, against native americans, millions of native americans killed, you see that any race is capable of committing terrorism. and there's a big art of american history that -- part of american history that we're not often taught, especially if you look at the campaigns against the meative americans -- native americans, the genocidal campaign against native americans. this goes way back in history. what did the ancient greeks call all non-greeks? barbarians, exactly. any of you know where the word barbarian came from? it was a way of making fun of how people talked. the greeks believed that if you weren't speaking greek, then when you talked, it sounded like you were saying bar, bar, bar, bar, bar, so they called them

barbarians. so it's a subtle, kind of how people today might make fun of how foreign people talk. very subtle. here's a more overt example of dehumanization, in of you seen the movie hotel rwanda? what did they call the people being massacred in rwanda? they called them cockroaches, right? i talked to a gentleman who lived in rwanda during that time, he said they also called them snakes. so you see how it's easier to kill people if you see them as cockroaches or snakes than if you see them as people. here's another very subtle example of dehumanization, another very subtle example, collateral damage. what does collateral damage mean? dead civilians, right? dead civilians. i gave this talk to a high school class, and a student said it means you've damaged buildings. that's what it sounds like, but it means you've killed women, children, innocent men. when american civilians are

killed in a tragedy, do you ever hear an american politician call that collateral damage? do you realize how offensive that would be to call dead americans collateral damage if there's a school shooting, an american politician were to say we had a school shooting, there was some collateral damage, a couple dozen kids were shot to death, that'd be extremely offensive. but if the person is a foreigner, that's a very common term used by political system. here's another very subtle example of dehumanization. illegal alien or illegal, right? very subtle. kind of blocks your empathy for that a person. the second form of distance is moral distance. moral distance means i'm good, you're evil, and god is on my side. that's why civil wars are so bloody, because during a civil war you have the same language, customs and traditions. so civil wars are typically good versus evil, and god is on my side. what did you see prior to the iraq war in 2003?

did you see more psychological distance or fighting subhumans, or did you see more moral distance, we're fighting evil? yeah, you saw more moral distance, we're fighting evil. it's harder dehumanize people than it used to be. you can't have a poster depicting a german soldier as a gorilla anymore. you can't have a poster of a japanese soldier as a rat. people aren't going to fall for that today for many reasons. but it is harder to dehumanize people today than it was 100, 200 years ago. you can't call irish people today white chimpanzees, right? which is what some british people used to call irish people. that wouldn't go across well today because various things have changed. but if you look prior to the iraq war and you look at how some of the american politicians would talk, they would basically say the iraqi people are just like us. they are just like us. and they want freedom. and they want democracy. and they want opportunity, and

they want a brighter future. and these poor, suffering people are living under this evil dictator, and don't we have a moral obligation to liberate these poor, suffering people from this evil dictator? look at afghanistan, look at the women of afghanistan. these women are like our women, tear like our sisters, our mothers, our daughters, our wives, and these women want education and democracy and freedom and a better world and a better future. but these women are living under the evil taliban. and don't we have a moral obligation to liberate these poor, suffering people from the evil taliban? and look at syria, look at these pictures of these dead children. we have to do something, we have to sewer screen. now, don't get me wrong. people suffered terribly under saddam hussein. people sufferer the -- sufferedder the write under saddam, under the taliban, people are suffering terribly today many syria. that's fact, right? saddam hussein was a brutal

dictator. but we supported saddam hussein through all his worst atrocities, the u.s. government, american politicians, right? we gave him the means to develop and deploy chemical weapons. what he was put on trial for, we supported him through. we talk about liberating the women of afghanistan, and we are currently allied with one of the most oppressive goths in the world -- governments in the world, the saudi arabian government. so there's some contradictions that make us wonder or, okay, what are some of these politicians really doing? i'm talking both democrat and republican. the question and answer session we can talk more about those contradictions and how the war system can use a lot of those, a lot of that goodbe -- goodwill for its own purposes. third form of distance is mechanical distance. mechanical distance means the farther away you are, the easier it is to kill people. the farther away you are, the easier it is to kill. so it's easier to kill people at 10,000 feet with a bomb than with a rifle at 300 yards, it's

easier to kill people with a rifle at 300 yards than to stab them with a knife at close range. the parter away you are, the easier it is to kill people. why do you think the nazis used the gas chamber? >> [inaudible] >> efficiency. there is a very common myth that the nazis used the gas chamber because it was efficient. but there's really nothing more efficient than a firing squad. think about a firing squad. you line people up, you make them dig a ditch which will become their grave, you make them stand in their grave, you shoot them. bullets aren't very expensive. relatively speaking. throw dirt on top of them, right? the nazis killed nearly a million people with firing squads before they switched to the gas chamber as their primary method of execution. and if you look at the commandant of auschwitz, if you look at heinrich himmler who was in charge of the ss, adolf eichmann who did a lot of the logistics, the rationale is we

have to protect the executioner. of you have that 2% who might even enjoy killing women and children, but many of the nazi soldiers were having a hard time. many of them tried to assassinate hitler when they found out about it. so it was about protecting the executioner. gas chamber is easier on most brains. you don't have to see it as close, and few people can do a lot of killing. so when people are being executed whether it's happening, firing squad or electric chair, why are their faces almost always covered? is it for their benefit? it's so the people watching the execution don't become traumatized. when gangsters execute people, where do they almost always shoot them? back of the head. gangsters, hardened criminals usually shoot this the back of the head. so mechanical distance. mechanical distance. this is the reason why you so often see incidents of road rage and very rarely see incidents of someone rage, right? think about how crowded new york

city is. you're bumping into people, or you're getting onto a subway, but there's a human connection there. you can see the person's face, you can have an apologetic look if you didn't mean to bump into the person. but if you look at road rage, people can get angry on a sidewalk, but it's not nearly as common as road rage. road rage is way more frequent, because when you're driving, you see in this big machine cut you off, and and all you see is the back of someone's head and the middle finger pop up. it makes you very angry, right? and so mechanical distance is one factor that makes road rage more likely than sidewalk rage. but think about that. if human beings are naturally violent, why would every country in history without a single exception have to create distance, and why would every country in history without a single exception have to use dehumanization to make warfare work? typically to get the public to support the war effort: because soldiers in combat could just be

worried about protecting their comrades. typically, to get the population behind it, though, you have to have that. so here's another question. let's say you have a pack of wolves and a businessly bear, and there's a dead deer carcass. and the pack of wolves are hungry, the grizzly bear's hungry. they both want to eat the dead deer carcass. what almost always happens? they don't fight. they do something other than fighting. intimidate, exactly. intimidate, great answer. they do something called posturing. something called posturing. the bear will roar, the wolves growl, they'll snap at each other, and think that osturing system -- posturing system one animal will typically leave. so almost every animal postures as their first method of self-defense. what do cats do? they hiss at you, right? dogs will growl. a gorilla will beat its chest. a cobra will lift up its body, spread its hood, show its fangs.

why do animals do that? it's a nonviolent form of aggression trying to deter violence, trying to prevent violence. so why do animals do that? when a rattlesnake is shaking its tail at you, what is it saying? is it saying come over here and pet you? it's saying i don't want to have to bite you, please, leave me alone, i don't want to have to spite you. the predominant form of aggression in nature is posturing, warning aggression designed to deter and prevent violence. that's the most common form of adepression in nature is actually trying to prevent violence. now, why would animals in nature want to prevent violence? why would they want to do that? why does a bear roar? why does a rattlesnake shake its tail? why tonight they go ahead and fight? survival. the reason is because in the wild there are no emergency rooms. in the wild, violence is very dangerous. there are no hospitals, no 911 service, no emergency rooms. now, if animals hunt, they have to hunt. a rattlesnake will hunt, eat to

dents, right? but if a rattlesnake is facing a wolf or a mountain lion or a human or even a fox, that's pretty dangerous. right? do you really want to risk getting eaten? if you get injured and you lose the ability to run, to sneak up on your prey or to run fast, you might starve to death. so so why are you going to fight if you don't have to? so it's all about survival, this method of trying to deter violence if you're not hunting. now, the do human beings posture? what are examples of human beings posturing? do you ever see two men about to get into a fight? what do they instinctually do? the they stand up tall, they put out their chest, and they yell can, right? in nature, you want to be bigger and louder. so two men about to get in a fight stand up tall, they put out their chest, they yell, right? you never see two men about to get into a fight walk up to each

other with their head down like that. not very intimidating. stand up tall, put out your chest, and one man might push the other man to show him how strong he is, show how strong he is. maybe the other guy will back down. if you look at ancient battles, you ever wonder why the romans and greeks had those big helmets with the plume coming out the top or the ridge with horse hair? to look taller, to look bigger. what's the point of having a big helmet weighing you down with unnecessary equipment? on top of your helmet? if you look at why in ancient armies they'd go into battle screaming, iffy of you jog, if you know that if you talk, you get winded. so why are you going to go into a battle screaming at the top of your lungs? the posture. in an ancient battle, the best case scenario is five seconds after the battle starts the other army panics, runs away, and you massacre them as they're running from them. that's the best case scenario. they're so intimidated, they

don't even fight you. they run, you massacre them as they're fleeing. that's the best case scenario. this is why the gun became so popular. if you look at the long bow and the crossbow, the long bow and crossbow have longer range, higher firing rate and better accuracy than the musket. the early musket was very inaccurate, couldn't fire very quickly and didn't fire very far. accurately. but if you look at the long bow and the musket, they could fire farther, quicker and add better accuracy. but if you're a guy with a musket going bang, bang, bang and the guy with the bow and arrow is going plunk, plunk, plunk, the guy with the bow and arrow might run away. lieutenant colonel dave grossman calls it the bigger bang theory. whatever army has a louder noise has a distinct psychological

advantage three to one. the psychological component is very important in warfare. and that's why lieutenant colonel dave grossman calls that the bigger bang theory. so aggression if you look at human aggression, nuclear weapons, look at the arms race. the same mentality. that's the part of the brain, the nuclear arms race taps into. it's posturing. it's like two animals showing their teeth. do not mess with us, we will white you. -- bite you. that's the part of the brain if you look at military posturing, a lot of that is the same part of the brain, the posturing instinct. so you think about human behavior, aggression and what causes aggression. what causes aggression? very common cause of aggression is fear, right? frustration. even loneliness can cause aggression. my father had a lot of war trauma from the korean and vietnam wars, and i grew up in a

very violent household. and i got bullied growing up because i look asian, and i looked more asian when i was younger. and i grew up with an incredibly violent temper. and one reason i got into this whole peace thing was trying to control my own violent urges. my temper was violently explosive. and i got kicked out of elementary school for fighting, almost got kicked out of middle school, got suspended in the high school for fighting, and i just had in this urge to hurt people. and it's a very painful emotion. so a lot of my interest in peace came from this whole urge for inner peace and trying to figure out how to control my own rage. but i wasn't born like that. i got bullied a lot, and it just made me violent. and that was my method of keeping myself safe, and that was my method of communication, how i could communicate how i felt to people was by trying to hurt people. and so i'm not saying people can't become violent. people can become extremely,

extremely violent. look at the violet criminal oplation. the vast majority of people in the violent criminal population have some form of childhood abuse. so we -- this is a very hopeful message because we have a way to cure a lot of these causes of veedges. if we're naturally violent, that's a pretty hopeless situation for the human race. but if people are bred to be violence, if they can be conditioned, if we can prevent those causes, if you raise a child this a loving, peaceful environment, they have a much higher percentage chance of becoming a loving, peaceful adult. if you raise a child in a violence, abusive environment, they have to do a lot of work to go into that other direction. because, naturally, you're going to start acting out on what you've been taught. so i want to give you one more example of what can cause aggression, because i'm talking basically about we're not naturally violent. another thing i really talk about and study and write about are the causes of violence and how we prevent those causes.

it's a big focus what i write about, i write about waging peace and nonviolence as well. and this story will tie a lot of those themes together. so i want to tell you a story. i went to visit a friend from alabama. there's one friend i still talk to from high school, he lives in southern alabama, and i wasn't -- i went to visit him three summers ago. and him and his friends wanted to go out drinking that evening, and i don't drink any alcohol, but i went out with him anyway. and it was around two in the morning, they wanted to go to a waffle house. everybody was hungry. and that's where a lot of drunk people go when they're hungry at two in the morning. so we go to this waffle house at two in the morning. i'm probably the only person in the waffle house who wasn't drunk other than the workers, and i'm looking at my member you, and there's a -- menu, and there's a guy in the corner screaming at this waitress because she's just brought him his food, and he has a dirty fork. and he's screaming my fork's dirty, give me a clean fork, i want a clean fork. she doesn't have a clean fork

for him immediately, so he walks across the waffle house, takes my fork out right in the front of me, goes back, starts eating. so i'm looking at the menu, i haven't ordered my to do yet. the waitress sees what happens, and within 30 seconds she gives me a new fork, so i'm not too worried about it. my friend's friend is sitting next to me, and he gets really, really angry, and he goes that guy just took your fork. and i go, yeah, but now he has a fork, i have a fork, everybody has forks, everything's fine. [laughter] so my friend's friend is getting angrier, angrier, angrier. i said, look, he didn't take my wallet. if he took my wallet, i'd have to go say something to him. and what he did was wrong, but he's really drunk right now. when people are that drunk, they make bad decisions, and you can't reason with them. if he wasn't drunk i might go talk to him and say that was inappropriate what you did, but he's really drunk right now. you can't reason with him, and he's not bothering anybody. he's just eating his food, i

think we should leave him alone. so my friend's friend is getting angrier, angrier, angrier. finally he goes, i'm not going the take this. he goes over and starts screaming in the guy's face. he's a veteran, you can't take his fork. [laughter] so i'm looking at everything rationally, because i haven't consumed any alcohol, and first of all, the guy who took my fork is physically massive. very large, muscular human being. and i have done imaginer arts for -- martial arts for a while, and martial arts teaches you just because people are big, it doesn't mean they can fight, but it is something to think about. [laughter] it's something to keep in mind when people are that physically big, just something to ponder. so i realize there's going to be a fight, right? and i'm looking at everything, and it was a group of four men, so it was even more dangerous because there were three other men with him. the guy sitting next to him had this big chain around his neck. i swear to you, the two other

men, i swear to you, they were about 6-4, tall, muscular, wearing cowboy boots, cutoff short, short jeans, and it was an interesting sign of hope because the guy who took my fork was black, very clean cut, black guy. the guy with the chain was white. we're at a restaurant in alabama, there's two men dressed like women, and you wouldn't have seen that in alabama 50 years ago, so it was a sign of progress. [laughter] i realize there's going to be a fight. i go over, calm everything down. i bring my friend's friend back, and the guy with the chain comes over and acold eyeses. i'm really sorry, my friend doesn't know what he's doing. let me apologize by paying for my mirror. there was almost a mini war started just over people feeling disrespected. that's all that was about, was people feeling disrespected. everybody had food, everybody had forks, nobody's personal property was taken.

that was all about people feeling disrespected. now, a reason why martial arts teaches you to always respect everybody including your opponent. the reason why martial arts teaches you to always respect everybody including your opponent is a vast majority of human conflict comes from people feeling disrespected. if you think about most cases of conflict between humans, usually, disrespect is a major cause. think about the times in your life when you most wanted to punch somebody this the face -- in the face. think about it. think about the times in your life when you wanted to kick somebody in the face or punch somebody this the head. it's probably because you felt disrespected. so martial arts teaches that the best self-defense isn't punching or kicking, the best self-defense is conveying respect. and if you know how to convey respect to people, you dramatically reduce conflict in your life. and when you do have conflict, you improve your ability to resolve that conflict. the army taught the importance of respect, and i learned how respect is almost like a shield ask that if you're a leader in

the army, no matter how disrespectful your subordinate is to you, you always have to be respectful back, because otherwise you lose your moral authority as a leader. i learned this in west point and in martial arts. so you see the merging of martial arts philosophy, military leadership and peace philosophy. and this doesn't mean you let people walk all over you at all. if you look at martin luther king jr. and gandhi, they respected their opponents. even the people trying to kill them, right? they used this technique very effectively to build their appeal to a wider audience. but they were the last people to accept injustice. people would tell martin luther king jr. segregation isn't so bad, let's not bother these people -- white people. so gandhi and king were the last people who would accept injustice. they would speak out against injustice on behalf of other people. but they used this technique to be more effective. and it has a lot of power when

we're using nonviolence if you're a leader in any kind of organization or just going through life. and all of human history, in all of human history i don't think anyone has ever seriously said i hate it when people respect me. i can't stand it when people respect me. it's my biggest pet peeve. my new boss is the worst boss i've ever had, my new boss is always respecting me. i'm trying to show here how waging peace philosophy, nonviolent philosophy is also, are also life skills, life philosophy. and what you learn through martial arts, what you learn through nonviolence you can apply to relationships, to the workplace, to being a manager, to being a leader, to relationships, to friendships, to family members, to go to strangers, right? if you're dealing with a stranger, this can have an impact. now, we've come a long way as a species. we've come a long way. how many democracies were in the world 500 years ago?

democracies with democratic ideals, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, universal right to vote. zero, right? how many democracies were in the world 200 years ago? france was a democracy, but napoleon came along, overthrew the government. so america. but america wasn't a democracy if you were african-american or if you were female or if you were a native american. america wasn't a democracy if you were white unless you owned land. so 200 years ago women couldn't vote, couldn't own property, couldn't go to college. right? we've come a long way. the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, the movement that gave workers' rights. we've come a long way. and what percent of the american population made that change happen? 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 participated in the women's rights movement? press than 1%. that's why henry david thoreau said there are 999 patrons of virtue for every virtuous person. one person might do something about it. he said there are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and do nothing about it. that 1% can make a huge, dramatic difference, but they have to be very well trained. and that's one area where i think the peace movement can learn a lot from the military. the military has such phenomenal training. and if you look at all the various art forms -- sculpting, a martial art, painting, playing a sport, writing, film making -- people realize they have to get training. but nonviolence, waging peace is the only art form where people think they can just show up with no training, write something on a sign and think they're going to be effective. we have to change that paradigm. if you look at the civil rights

movement, they were very well trained, and they were very disciplined, and they were very strategic. and a lot of those military values have to be applied to nonviolence. this is one reason why gandhi called himself a soldier of peace, and martin luther king jr. used so many military metaphors. and gandhi had been in the military as a medic and had received a war medal from the british empire. so we have to move this pa paradigm to be more effective because there's so little we can control. when you oppose injustice, the unjust system has the power, most of the money, more resources. some of the few things you can control are how well trained you are, how strategic you are, how dispalinned you are and how creative you are. if you look at the roman empire, the reason the roman army was so effective was they were the best trained. they had the best training. so we have to, we have to think about training and how we can be more effective and have a more disciplined approach to peacemaking. and a small percentage can make a huge difference as history has shown. so we have a lot of problems today we have to solve, and we

haven't made a lot of progress. we have a long way to go, but maybe it's a marathon. maybe we're halfway there. maybe we're a third of the way there. maybe we're a quarter of the way there, to the finish line. but if we've come this far, why can't we keep going in a positive direction? i'm half korean, a quarter white and a quarter black, and i grew up in alabama, so something must have changed, otherwise i wouldn't be here. so i'm very hopeful that we can affect change the we're trained, if we're strategic. but if we're not trained and strategic, the problem won't solve itself. so we have a lot of problems to solve. thank you for listening, and we can open up to questions now. thank you. [applause] how much time is left? what time is it now? [inaudible conversations] what time is it now? 12:25? okay. so we have time for one question? one or two questions.

we're going to stop before 12:30. any questions? and if you want to talk to me afterward -- >> we have a fair number of veterans who are here today. i was wondering if you could offer or a few thoughts of advice about how to transition to their civilian life. >> oh. so how to transition to civilian life. i hope that what i've talked about shows how -- what i learned in the military i'm allying to peace work. and that shows you how valuable military ideals and military skills are. it shows you can alie those to -- apply those to anything. and the values of the military in the army when you're on a field exercise, the highest ranking soldiers are supposed to eat last, the lowest ranking are supposed to eat first. the whole idea of servant leadership. your commander looks out for you and leads by example. you don't see that in many

places in america, right? that's one reason why a lot of, there's a lot of companies that are interested in military leaders, because these values you learned about dislin and integrity -- discipline and integrity and looking out for people, sacrificing for the people who work for you and doing the right thing. in the army they say we need leadership, not likership. so doing the right thing whether it's popular or unpopular. and doing your best, attention to detail, right? really -- so when you're in the military, i think it's important to understand even public speaking is another example. army really -- i was a terrible public speaker when i entered west point. but the military, they train you well, and they give you a lot of confidence, and they give you a lot of skills. so just think about how everything you learned in the military can just really set you up for life. and if you're interested in activism, a military background gives you a lot of tools you can use and a lot of insight