military-industrial complex

The “Just Enough” Policy: Behavioral Control of Collective Protest through Minimum Reward, Part 3 of a 3-part series

Posted on April 11, 2016April 9, 2016 by kathiemm

The Paradox of Advances and Losses

by Anthony Marsella, PhD

Virtually everyone, except perhaps the very young and uninformed, is in disbelief at our national situation. Most adults never imagined a world filled with so many challenges to security, health, and wellbeing. Old timers (i.e., over 70 years) ask, “How did it all happen? It’s not just the changes, but the speed of things!” They gaze into their memories, and utter those timeless words: “It seems like only yesterday.”

There are, of course, many positive changes occurring, especially in our social fabric and formation. Long denied civil and human rights are increasing across different population sectors. Advances in medical sciences and practices fill us with awe as countless lives are saved, and longevity increased. The list is endless, and should evoke optimism. But amid the advances are losses that bring a sense of insecurity and fear.

That is the paradox! The mix of advances and challenges leave us filled with ambiguity. We become immobilized as we search for answers or yield to complexity. Conscience calls, but trade-offs are calculated. Citizen activism is rising, fueled by access to information and knowledge previously unknown. Whistle blowers risk pain and punishment, as conscience rises in the face of injustice.

Who or what is the foe? We are told that the process and product of globalization has resulted in increases in health, wealth, and happiness. But is globalization really hegemonic, controlled by a few nations, corporate monopolies, and powerful individuals? Who is it benefitting?

The concentration of power, wealth, and position is, in my opinion, our greatest threat. It seeks a homogenization of social orders, cultures, and fundamental values. In the heady post WWII days, a strong sense of national pride and identity was natural. But! We were warned by Eisenhower of the impending dangers of a “Military-Industrial Complex” and the capacity of this Complex to dominate our nation’s future. Eisenhower, unfortunately, did not tell us the Complex would grow, and become a “military-industrial-congressional-educational-moral-technological-cultural-managed complex,” now resistant to change because of complexity, resiliency, and concentration of wealth, power, and position.

There is a calibrated mental calculus now in use by those with wealth, power, and position. They are firmly entrenched in every institution, and their interests are narrow and self-serving. We argue over the benefits of capitalism and other neo-liberal policies even as neo-cons re-assert their interests. And through all of this, the “Just Enough” principle is played out confusing, immobilizing, frightening a public unaccustomed to the unfolding changes. Is this a planned conspiracy? I do not know! I do know the wealthy, powerful, and positioned know each other, gather, and benefit from their relationships. I know they function in secrecy, while our privacy is removed. They set the vision. Their appointed “acolytes” implement the vision. Conspiracy? “A rose by any other name, is still a rose.”

What we have today is not much different from the gilded-age period when monopolies in banking, steel, oil, and transportation brought together “barons” in Jekyll Island, Georgia. Together, they grasped their mutual interests. Today we have a return in the form of “Big” agriculture, banking, education, energy, finance, medicine, military, pharmacology, transportation, and on and on. The times return!

The words of an old Arab saying come to mind: “The times are father to the child.” We are experiencing a time of “Just Enough!” The question remains to be answered whether “Just Enough” will be understood, questioned, and replaced by “Not Enough?” Resentment is “smoldering”! Citizens recognize the tactics being used. That may be the topic of my next commentary: Behavioral control through oppression. Ahhh, the endless historical story!

_____________________________________

Anthony Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 15 edited books, and more than 250 articles, chapters, book reviews, and popular pieces. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

This is the third in a three-part series originally published on https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/06/the-just-enough-policy-behavioral-control-of-collective-protest-through-minimum-reward/

Reflections on Government Change, Reform, Renewal, Suggested Topics for Discussion, Dialog, and Debate, Part 1

Posted on March 18, 2016March 19, 2016 by kathiemm

by Guest Author Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., March 17, 2016

Introduction Several months ago, a friend and colleague familiar with my relentless idealistic aspirations for improving government, said to me: “So what would you change? How would you improve the situation?” How would you make it better for everyone?

A good question and one well warranted! I suspect the request was meant to silence my complaints, even as my friend agreed my complaints and criticisms were justified. The difficulty is, the problems are disproportionate in number and complexity. Reciprocity and interdependency of the problems defy any hope of simple solutions.

Appeals to the branches of federal government (i.e., Executive, Representational, Judicial) are futile, because these branches are the source of many of the problems, and will only serve to promote their special powers and influence. Corruption, cronyism, and competition have infected all branches, and, some claim, limit function and purpose, requiring a nefarious and reprehensible “shadow government” consisting of a “military-industrial complex” favoring special interests.

The problem is the existing “System” of governance! It is politicized, asymmetrical, and unresponsive to needed changes, sustaining abuses and inequities. The “System” is the vehicle for consolidating wealth, power, and position of a few at the cost of the many. Citizen activism seems to have little impact. In a previous publication, titled “The Just Enough Policy,” I argued government keeps citizen protests minimal, by offering “just enough” to maintain citizen comfort (Marsella, A.J. (2014). The just enough policy: Behavior control of collective protest through minimum reward. War, Peace, Justice: An Unfinished Tapestry. Aurelius Press, Alpharetta, Georgia, pp 97-104).

Even with official government claims of deference, respect, and admirations for our iconic founding documents, voiced for election image purposes, the “System” engages in passing thousands of laws, regulations, and privileges whose content and consequences eludes even the most ardent of reformers. The laws, regulations, and privileges morph into scores of new departments, institutions, agencies, organizations, and support services, impossible to eliminate or control, and with little transparency and accountability. Each department, institution, agency, and organization becomes a power unto itself, acting to perpetuate its existence, even as it no longer has a function or cause.

Laws, regulations, and privileges enacted by the “System” become endless responses to urgent crises; power asymmetries; unmet defense, social, and economic requirements; special industrial and corporate interests insuring profits and dominance; and political accommodations to elected and appointed government officials quietly lobbying for favorite projects (e.g., bridge to nowhere). All are the stuff of the megalithic “System” defying change. From this “System,” just and unjust governance is enacted daily. Inconsistencies, conflicts, and abuses in enforcement and applications thrive, subject to the interests of those in power.

Citizens have lost trust in government and institutions. Surveys place public trust in government at less than 10%. Current presidential debates, even amid their differences, reveal the extent to which institutions serve the interests of special interests. Each candidate argues we are in moral, political, and legal collapse. None offer profound recommendations for change, fearing perhaps being termed a radical or worst. Citizens are required to accept myths whose continuation is reinforced by biased media propaganda and “strat com” (i.e., strategic communications – biased lies).

A Sampling of Myths

Myths are important, yet as they fall, we are left with uncertainty and disappointment. Myth are widely held perceptions and expectations accepted as “true.” Myths function to guide our behavior by constructing beliefs we consider as “accurate” assumptions about the world. Some of the most critical myths are now considered untenable and in need of major critique and reform. These include:

Capitalism is the best foundation for a national economy, only moderately subject to corruption and abuse. Clearly, capitalism and its Wall Street castle has demonstrated its inherent tyrannical and exploitive nature.
Democracy is the foundation of our government system. Tragically, it is clear democracy has yielded to oligarchy, cronyism, and nepotism. It is perhaps better termed “demonocracy” and “hypocracy.”
Two-Party Political System, long the foundation of elected government, has proven to be an anachronism, in need of change in response to national diversity in political, ideological, moral, and economic profiles. Political interests claim ownership of the two major parties, placing power in the hands of a few. Cronyism, corruption, nepotism, and oligarchy dominate the structure and process.
Equality before the law is proven daily to be violated in American society. Equality is, in fact, subject to a distorted distribution favoring the privileged. “Black Lives Matter” is a visible response to the inequities.
Freedom, as choice, is not available to all. Rather freedom is subject to status markers (e.g., men have more freedom than women; whites more freedom than people of color; rich more freedom than poor). The “System” is the greatest source limiting freedom; Government and private sources are engaged in mass surveillance, monitoring, and archiving.
Moral Authority of the United States of America is lost. We have no moral compass that has not been erased or destroyed by our political and economic actions. We have, as a nation, pursued scores of reckless regime overthrows, and engaged in invasion, occupation, and exploitation. “The ends justify the means!” is the Government’s motto. Ethics, law, and justice are no longer arbiters of policies and actions.
Peace is not a USA goal! The peace we seek as nation is a peace permitting selfish exploitation of special interests (e.g., commercial, foreign government allies). We are a violent society and nation. We are a culture of war!

What can be done? What changes must be made? See my next post.

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hawaii). He is widely recognized as a pioneer figure in cultural and international psychology and psychopathology. He has published 20 books and more than 300 journal, chapter, and popular articles. He is the recipient of numerous national and international awards.

Who are the real environmental terrorists??? Part 2.

Posted on March 15, 2016 by kathiemm

Identifying the real environmental terrorists, the despoilers of planet earth, the greedy deniers of climate change who toss the future of our world to the smoggy winds, is not such a difficult task. The more critical question right now is who will take them on? Who will work to end the madness?

A recent report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication reveals that there are a lot of Americans who say they will take action. Based on their research, the program reports that nearly 30% of Americans have joined or would join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce global warming.

And, perhaps most important, “One in four Americans would support an organization engaging in non-violent civil disobedience against corporate or government activities that make global warming worse (24%) and one in six (17%) say they would personally engage in such activities.”

Certainly Americans and others around the world are personally engaging in protests against Big Oil, Big Coal, Gigantic Corporate Media and other mega-groups too big for their britches.

In a recent Truthout article, Jeremy Brecher gives us some cause for optimism. From May 4-15, 2016, just a couple of months from now, environmental groups from around the world, including Greenpeace, will hold a global week of action called Break Free From Fossil Fuels.

The profiteers who wreak havoc on our environment will want to call the protestors environmental terrorists if they put a foot over the wrong line, but the environmentalists are not going to let the power brokers define them. As Brecher says, “Break Free From Fossil Fuels participants will define themselves to the movement, the public and the courts not as criminals but as law-enforcers trying to enforce legal rights and halt governments and corporations from committing the greatest crime in human history.”

Those of us who want the earth to survive would do well to support that movement.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Who are the real environmental terrorists??? Part 1.

Posted on March 8, 2016 by kathiemm

Terrorism is bad, right? Anyone labeled a “terrorist” should be avoided at all costs, treated like a pariah, knocked out, locked up for life, right? Well, not necessarily. It depends on who is using the label and why.

People in power, particularly powerfully abusive people, eagerly throw the terrorist designation at anyone who confronts them, however non-violent the confrontation may be.

One blatant misuse of “terrorism” is perpetrated by exploiters, abusers, and destroyers of our environment. This particular group of environmental evil doers revels in its zealous application of the terms “environmental terrorism” and “eco-terrorism” to anyone they don’t like. Do they unleash those epithets to describe:

The freaky frackers that violate health and safety rules and regulations, poison the atmosphere, pollute the soil, endanger drinking water, and dispose of waste products improperly?
The coal companies, financed by big banks, that blow off entire mountaintops, clearcut thousands of acres of forest, and pollute drinking water with their waste?
The industries contributing to the ever-increasing dangers of global warming?

No.

How do members of the military industrial complex and corporate media use the term “environmental terrorism”?

They apply it to groups and individuals such as the following, classified by the FBI as special interest domestic terrorist groups:

the Earth Liberation Front, which set fire to a Colorado ski resort threating the survival of lynx.
a man accused of conspiring to bomb government and commercial facilities believed to be harming the environment.
a Greenpeace member paragliding into and throwing a smoke bomb into a nuclear power plant to demonstrate security risks.
other members of Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)?.

What do you think? Who are the real environmental terrorists? What groups are threatening our survival?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology