ranking guy on the other side. it is not new. admiral mullen was not first to try to befriend the head of the pakistani army. the chairman joint chiefs who was duly mentioned in my book and president eisenhower. again, the same phenomenon going repeatedly, meeting with the pakistani leader. admiral mullen in all sincerity worked very hard. 26 meetings with anybody is a lot of meetings. he thought the general prion he, the pakistani army chief was really committed to eliminating terrorism. he just wanted to find that tipping point for there is a desire to eliminate terrorists and his desire to maintain

military balance with indiana. he could find that tipping point where instead of india, pakistan start focusing more and terrorism is the problem. >> can you hear me quiet makes working? thank you for being here. quick background. thank you for the introduction. thank you to salem state for having me and arranging all this. really appreciate it. as you mentioned, my fathers have white, half black. he thought of the korean vietnam wars. he retired as a command sergeant major. he had a lot of work trauma. i grew up in alabama quarter

black, quarter white and half korean. i got was some issues of racism and olene. my mother lived in japan in world war ii and in the korean war. i graduate from west point, was deployed to baghdad and now i work full-time for peace. i want to begin by asking all of your question. develop you follow the 2012 election pretty closely? the 2012 election was a close presidential race, right? they came down to the presidential debate. at that point, neither candidate could have one. i might use to imagine the 2016 presidential election. i want you to imagine a very tight race. it's a very close race. this microphone is not working. i want you to imagine the 2016 presidential election.

i want you to imagine as is the 2016 presidential election and a very tight race, a very close race. the race is so close either candidate can win. i want you to imagine his 2016, the first presidential debate and on national television, one of the candidates suddenly says, you know what, i think we should bring back slavery, bring back segregation and women shouldn't vote on property or go to college. how would the american public react to that? what do you think? pardon? [inaudible] >> good point. well, it wouldn't be such a close election anymore. if you look at the state, how would the tea party react to that? who read the tea party's two favorite candidates in the 2012 republican primary? michele bachmann, female. herman cain, black man. and who were the two biggest tea

party rock stars through 2012? sara pale in, female, alan wiseman, blackmail. that doesn't mean there's no more racism. that wouldn't have been possible 200 years ago or even 30 years ago for a woman or black person to be in that kind of position. things have changed in that way. if anybody in 2013 or 2016 were to say we should bring back slavery, segregation, women shouldn't vote, that person would sound completely insane. the american public would call that person insane. 200 years ago in america, women couldn't vote, own property, go to college. most black people were slaves. is everybody 200 years ago completely insane? what is going on? what is going on 200 years ago

in america? and all over the world? was everybody crazy? if you go back 200 years ago in america, back to the 19th century, white people, british people would say that irish people are subhuman. some british people called irish white chimpanzees. they believe the irish were a separate subhuman race. the whole idea of the white race is mainly a 20th century idea. people used to believe it's french, german, irish were a subhuman inferior race. what if your essay in 2013 that irish people are white chimpanzees? how would you react to that? i don't think people back then were crazy. i don't think they were. and he didn't have the right information. it's very trendy now to trash talk humanity. i want to give you some ideas -- examples of ideas that to us or common sense. if you go back a few hundred

years, these ideas make no sense. here's an idea to assess common sense. if you go back 500 years, it makes no sense. tig is the earth goes around the sun. if you were to go back and convince people the earth goes around the sun, would that be easy or hard to do? nearly impossible. if you go back a hundred years until people feared cousin of the sun, people will save the earth is moving, why don't you feel an emotion? plant buildings falling down? if you look up, looks like everything is moving around you. today we see the sun rises in says. it is an illusion. we then say that today the 21st jury. if you're on a merry-go-round of the merry-go-round is spinning out quickly, what happens if you let go? you go flying off the merry-go-round. the earth is rotating around a thousand miles an hour. why don't people go flying off the face of the earth? gravity, that's interesting.

that's a very good point, by the way. imagine going 500 years in trying to explain gravity to people. galileo provided a lot of evidence the earth goes around the sun. galileo thought he figured out why the tides have turned. it seems like because the earth is moving, maybe the water splashes around. imagine having the copper on the latter, and a high and low tide. actually, the man must be exerting some kind of force around the earth. is causing the tide to rise and received. galileo thought that was one of the stupidest things he's ever heard. tremendous exerting some sort of force upon the earth. its gravity, but the man has an invisible force falling upon the earth that sounds like magic. it might be hard to explain that to galileo that then, let alone the average person.

imagine another idea. this idea makes no sense. if you were to go back to those nearest to convince people the world is round, would that be an easy or hard thing to do? would be nearly impossible. if the world is round, why don't the people in the bottom of the earth olof? why don't the people on the bottom of the earth be like they are upside down? these things are counterintuitive. people look back upon the world 500 years ago in think everybody was but galileo. galileo recognize what he is proposing is counterintuitive because all of her center experience tells us the world doesn't move. our sensory experience makes us think the world is flat. these were people back then. if we lived back then, we would have thought the same thing. there were some people to death in years ago who know the world astronomer able to cackle at the circumference of the earth within a close margin. but they were the minority.

quarter after ideas people used to believe that most people today no longer believe? be pleased to believe african-americans are subhuman and born to be slaves. the human genome has proven that to be scientifically correct. people used to believe women are intellectually and morally inferior to men, which has been this urban scientifically. what are other ideas people used to believe that most people today no longer believe? what do you think? [inaudible] >> regarding the soul, that still debatable. but that's a good point. some ideas that are completely noncontroversial today, that used to be widely binding practice people. war is unavoidable. that's a great point. we are told that they and today

we'll talk about all the evidence that war can be avoided in prevented. here's an idea. human sacrifice. every major civilization, agricultural society practiced human sacrifice. people believe if you sacrifice the human incoming leads to god. you have to sacrifice the human beings to please them. what if you try to do that today? first of allcoming up and arrested. most people think that's a weird viewpoint to sacrifice a human being to the god. it's not a widely accepted viewpoint today. here's another viewpoint today that was very common. people used to believe that you're sick, if you have leprosy or birth defects, you are evil. people didn't know what terms were. people didn't know what viruses, bacteria were. people did not microscopes. some people have an idea what was going on, but the majority backbends bleeped if you can't play, leprosy, if you're mentally ill, there wasn't as much empathy for those people at

today. people didn't understand what was happening. if you look at democracy when democracy the idea is growing in the 18th and 17th century, people believe god chooses the king and to preach democracy is to go against god. if you read thomas paine's common sense, yet to make an articulate comment explaining why god does not choose the king. thomas pain -- thomas paine with the idea of god chooses an answer to catering to go against god. what we do have dictatorships come in many dictatorships try to create the illusion or democratic, even when they're not. it shows you how popular democracy is that dictatorships are democratic. pretty radical viewpoints have changed our way of thinking.

there's two possibilities we can consider. the first is we are right about every single issue, which is never have been. there are some issues that we are really brought about, were 200 years and now people look at a site or pain. 50 years now, people look back upon us like we were insane. so it seems like the more likely scenario? when you write about every or issues we are really wrong about. what seems more likely? the first one, right? what are some of the issues and i'd be really about? what comes to mind? keep in mind the issues we are really wrong about current issues you. if you look at women's right to vote, that is in issue in the 1700s or 1600s. it's not even debated that match if you go back a century prior.

if you look at the abolition of slavery in 18 century, it's not a global issue in the 16th century. so typically, the issues we are off on our people on trade issues put out and out. they're completely off the radar. i give you an example of an issue i think we are really, really wrong about. i want you to imagine not 2016. i want you to imagine their 2113. imagine 100 years from now. i want you to imagine a history class at this university. there's a history class 100 years from now. maybe your great, great grandkids. it's the year 2113. if a history class on the 21st century. a history professor says, you know, in the 21st century, people believed some really, really weird names. these were people. many people didn't know any better.

probably the weirdest thing people believe in the 21st century conceivably human beings and that's a weird idea. when there was hiv or cancer or malaria. when somebody got malaria or hiv or cancer, people recognize something had gone wrong. that is not the person's natural state. something has gone wrong. something has malfunctioned. have you fixed it? people go that's just human nature. in 2013 there is a diabetes epidemic, an obesity epidemic and people running around frantic. had we fixed fix this problem? when people were violent, people say it's human nature. we have to bomb people. if human beings are naturally violent, war is inevitable. the best way to deal with coors

to have the most powerful military in human history, and i'm not saying people can become violent. people can become extremely, extremely violent. they can become so violent that if you see what they do, you can't even comprehend. you'll say how could a human being do that to another human being? we can talk about some of those costs. if we understand the causes, we can work to prevent violence and war and make our country truly safer and more peaceful. the first question i want to ask you is what is the greatest army in world history. the matter what time. our culture has the single greatest problem. can any of you guess what that problem this? think about this. you're a general and you're living in the fifth century eca nation greece. you have a lot of problems. you have to worry about food and water. you have to worry about feeding

soldiers, supplied. you have to worry about the other army. this problem is bigger than all those problems. if you don't solve the problem, the battle will never begin. [inaudible] >> great, great. convincing your soldiers to fight and exertion. the greatest problem of every army in world history is on a battle begins and how do you stop soldiers from running away? if you look at combat, in combat or flight responses. most people's natural reaction when you try to start them or shoot them, most people's natural reaction is to run away as fast as they can, as far as they can. they'll tell you it's terrifying. general patton says anyone who says they're not afraid in combat is a liar. what happens when there's a mass shooting? people panic and they ran.

they panic, run out the door. some people might start to jump out the window. people are traumatized after the fact that when somebody searches in a group of people, people panic and run away. that's the human instinct. forget everything you've seen in the hollywood movie. forget everything you've seen in the television show and think about your own common sense. if a grown man ran is screaming with a machete, though it probably freak you out, right? probably make you want to run. imagine 40,000 grown men running at you trying to kill you. you might have an army on your side did what if it outnumbers you? what if they have 50,000 or 100,000? that's pretty terrifying. i first thought about this idea my freshman year at west point. at west point, every male has to take a mandatory class. the two reasons you have to take toxin as a mandatory class or first of all you have do learn

how to defend yourself. the second reason is human needs are naturally afraid of fighting. you have to learn to overcome that fear. all of you heard of mike tyson. mike tyson said anyone who says they're not afraid is either lying or totally in vain. so what is scarier? boxing or tennis? boxing or basketball? boxing or soccer? boxing scares most people. you have to overcome that fear. here is the interesting thing. if you think about boxing rationally and break it down into its parts, boxing should be that terrifying. it shouldn't be scary. it's about what boxing is. you get hit in the face of the club. if you're giving amateur boxing, you have headgear on. you have very strict rules. you can't punch, kick on me in the groan. can't have that.

you have a referee to protect you. they shouldn't be that scary. people are afraid of boxing. if they feel they have to overcome. think about how frightening boxing as to most people. and about fighting the roman army. 2000 years ago. in boxing, you can't punch, kick army in the. they train their soldiers to stab people in the koran. think about facing 30,000 roman soldiers come up well-trained, armored soldiers. don't do everything in their power to stab you in the and kill you, right? when people compare football to war, you can't carry punch or kick. you can't grab someone, and football. there's no rules, no referees. you kill in any way you can. if any of you have read the iliad, the iliad almost 3000 years ago.

there's one scene where do you see us come in the hero stabs a trojan soldier and the grain and kept him from going to is belly button. the worst place you can stab somebody is between the belly button and the growing. so if you look at hollywood, they don't accurately depicts how ancient battles are fought. any of you seen gladiator or braveheart? those movies don't depict how battles were fought. if you look at a movie like braveheart, here is -- if you look at braveheart or gladiator, the two armies collide on the battlefield. it turns into a big mosh pit. both sides are intermittent wrote, citing that keep fighting until everybody on one side is

that. now gibson looks around. that's not how battles are really five. two armies would fight very tightly compact formation. they would fight for hours and hours and very few soldiers would die because he only soldiers dying were at the front of the formation. the battle could go on for hours and maybe each army might only lose 5% to 10% of their army. the only people dying are the people at the front. at some point in the battle, one of the initial panic and retreat. as the army panics and retreats and runs away, they get massacred. that's why if you look in ancient battles, very often you might see lopsided casualty numbers. when army might lose 10%. the other might use 90%, killed or captured. when you run away, as you're running you get massacred by the victorious army. let's say you are an ancient battle in the panic and run

away. you want to run fast, right? what do you do? throw down your armor. if you want to run faster. third on your shield. so if you throw down all your equipment and you're running very fast, how was the other army going to catch you? they use their cauvery. that's why you have to have cauvery. they come in, mosey down, massacres do. this is like a look at alexander the great or hannibal, they can type at all after battle as long as they don't is a battle, they don't lose many soldiers in combat. when you lose an army, you can become decimated. you can fight battle after battle. you typically won't lose too many soldiers. your army won't be destroyed. so a friend of mine asked me one time, she said have with these

ancient armies able to make soldiers panic and retreat? how did these ancient armies make the other army panics and retreat? i said they made the panic i tried to kill them. when you kill people, it tends to make people panic on the right? when he sat people mcgauran, it makes people panic. common sense, right? thing about the difference in time periods. think about getting a cavity today, 2013. think about getting getting a cavity. think about getting staff today. think about getting stabbed and 500 b.c. the spartans never panic and retreat? all of you have seen 300. the spartans panicked and retreated three battles. one battle, the battle of tech hero between 1000 and 1800

soldiers. that's one reason the battle is so famous. they fight to the last man. most battles are like that. the spartans were human and they did richard and multiple battles. sometimes smaller forces. so here's the interesting thing about all of this. there were a lot of battles that had your ancient greece spot all the time. ancient china. the persians were conquering all sorts of people. so if we had the instinct to run away cannot get stabbed or killed, how are ancient armies able to make soldiers fight and not retreat? imagine you are a general now in the fourth century b.c. and you know that people don't want to die. how do you make your army not run away and fight to the death?

training, great. trading. armies use many techniques. armies typically is a combination of tech names, some of which are more effective than the others. there's the single most effective techniques that are misused to the single most new technique. here is a way to make all this clear. but what all of you die for? raise your hand if you'd risk your life to protect your family. do you wonder why the army does the band of brothers thing? teasing danny sentimental? the army does that of military necessity. if you look at the art of war are over two years ago, sun tzu said streator soldiers is your children and they will follow you into the deepest valleys to treat her soldiers is your beloved son and they will stand by you even unto death. shakespeare's henry the fifth, and a famous passage which read pander brothers for he today

shall be my brother. the chinese philosophers said it best when he said by behemoth and we are capable of you brave. so if your loved ones are threatened, it's a whole different dynamic now. i heard a story in the radio a few years ago. i heard it on the radio in 2002. an interview with a 73-year-old woman. 73 o'gorman is locking down the street and there is a loose pit of running towards her. what would you do if you're walking on the street knows who these people running towards you? what you read towards the pit wall? if you perceive as a threat? a runaway, climb a tree? get on top of a car? getaway, right? your instinct to flee from a pit bull is more powerful than to fight a pit bull. this story was but a 73-year-old woman walking her little dog, a little terrier.

the pit bull ran up and clamped his jaws on her little dog. the 73-year-old woman had down a bit to pick pit bull on the neck until he let go. she bit the pit bull almanacs to make to make it let go. they asked her afterwards in an interview, were you afraid? she said the only thing i was afraid was my dog getting hurt. think about how the dynamic changes. if it is you in a wild animal, you are free. imagine a wild animal or human attacker assaulting your child or grandchild or best friend her. her great parent were packed or sibling. now you have to surge of adrenaline to help your loved one. have you seen the movie forrest gump? whited forrest gump, in the vietnam seemed, explosions, whitest adventurers the explosions and gunfire, looking for bubba? why did they keep doing not?

exactly, they are brothers, they are best friends. if you look at the medal of honor recipients, most of the time that is what it's about, saving your comrades. it creates incredible heroism. even after forrest gump is shot, he keeps running into the gunfire endanger looking for his friend. so love of comrades is an psychological technique the greeks used to fight and not retreat. another psychological technique is love of country. if you look at the battle of marathon, that's what the race is named after. the greek army, the athenian army was greatly outnumbered by the invading persian army. very large persian army. some estimate, the persian army outnumbered five to one for 10 to one. nav battle, a large persian navy, very small brief navy. that's pretty terrifying when

you're outnumbered three to one, florida one, five to one. the greeks used the battle of solomon. it gives a sense of greece from save your wives, children can a city. they say the common cause of all demands his valor. most people die to protect loved ones. when the athenians heard that, save your children, state or country. they were ready to fight to the death. i think that battle cry has been used by every government since then. not word for word, but the essence of the battle cry. so how many wars have there been any human history? thousands maybe? thousands perhaps? do you know when all for rotisserie, there has never been a single war. there's never been a single war or they are fighting for money or gold or oil. never before have been for you

are told the population now. so what do national leaders tell their people? what is the national emperor or genghis khan or alexander the great or hitler tell their people they are 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 the bookynteresng boo the tight of the book is "new germany desires work and peace"

and th and they're -- if you look at hitler's speeches from 1939, why he invaded pollpd land.is and in some of the features he talks about the reason hehe re is poks poll land is because fit, andd attacked germany first. h ane pormany has to respond. and the polish government is killing innocent german people. he talked about how the polish kill innocent women andnd children. now ifno you read much about hitler, you know what he was knh saying isn't what he believed.st he had very instructive devious but if you. but, if you want to get thethe m majority of the german s population on your etter argumenr peace and freedom and selfefense he rlly side d 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 into problems our country's facing. so we need, we need good

military people, good veterans in areas of our country who have that idea of servant leadership and service to others and who care more about doing the right thing than what's popular and who care more about integrity than things that mislead people into dangerous territory. so i just hope that if you want to talk to me afterward, i'm here for a while. so feel free to come talk to me afterward. and it's almost 12:30. the last point i want to make, i have a web site, peacefulrevolution.com. i work in santa barbara, california, our mission is to abolish nuclear weapons, so i teach a 40-hour course in peace leadership and waging peace, waging peace skills are life skills, and in this critical point in human history, we need leaders who have the servant mentality, who are willing to oppose injustice, push our country and planet forward because so much is at stake now. i offer peace training in

different areas. if you're interested, my web site's peacefulrevolution.com, and i'm really grateful to salem state this they have this peace program. another way to get involved is to enter a peace program in your area. the fact that veterans are here, it's just really hopeful, hopeful feeling for me. so i just want to thank everybody for being here and taking the time. feel free to talk to me afterward if you have any questions. thank you. [applause] t booktv is on faceb booktv is on facebook. int like us tero interact withsts a booktv guests and viewers,tch ve watch videos, and get up-to-date information on events. facebook.com/booktv. we're talking with karen at the national press club. tell us about "chasing gideon." i worked on this book for about a year and a half. it's tied to the 50th

anniversary of the supreme court decision. my nicialt idea was to go out and take the temperature across the country to see how this issue of the right to council has played out in the last 50 years since the landmark decision. so i found there a huge crisis in court that public defenders are use. are grossly overworked. some of the public defenders i talked to carrying in as many cases as 700 a time. what i tried to do in the book was to write a book about the crisis in the court. but that was written for general readers, not lawyers, because one of the driving questions in my book was, how can everybody that is involved in the court system, judges, prosecutor, public defenders, cops, all recognize that the system is

broken. there's a huge crisis and not do anything? so inwent in with that question. i think the answer i walked out with is that most people outside of the judicial system don't know about these problems. so i wrote "chasing gideon "for those people who are interested in justice and fairness, but don't know the intry candidate single female. i try to tell the story narratively so it's interesting to people. and so that you see what it's like to go through the courts from a client's perspective. i talk about an 18-year-old who is in a car accident and charged with vehicular manslaughter. i talk about a 12-year-old who is accused of sexual assault because he played with a neighbor boy allegedly.