Confidential findings from Cold-War's " win-the-people" programs in Italy, Turkey, Greece, Korea, Okinawa, Thailand, Canada, and the U.S., plus three hot-war operations.
This document may be too large for your printer buffer to handle. We suggest downloading this document to a disk if printing difficulties are encountered or e-mailing the author for a hard copy by clicking on his/her name.
Some notable scholars have advised that the world is facing the type social disorientation that comes only once in a thousand years. And it comes with the threat of globally diffuse violence and terrorism that seem already to have begun.
In reference to our domestic social problems including public education, racial segregation, the drug culture, random killing, and family decomposition, a former US budget specialist, Richard Darman, advised that an honest reckoning of the cost to America would be staggering (The New York Times, Feb. 9, 1997)
Hence, the news media and public opinion polls advise, "The people sense a moral bankruptcy in Washington" with a bickering inability in government to face these deeper problems.
Similarly, the Brookings Institute has warned Congress that our current military quadrennial plans have failed to acknowledge the new global reality of diffuse violence that threatens the world, and irresponsibly, is planning a budget-breaking restructuring for a WWII mass-attack war with no such possible enemy in sight.
In summary, top leadership, in both our civilian or military government, is afraid even to discuss this apparent decisive need for new thinking both at home and overseas.
Meanwhile, in many places abroad, America's apparent failures, floundering, and inability to cope, starting in Vietnam, and continuing in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, plus Tailhook and Aberdeen, have started to alarm the world's peoples about our leadership. They were counting on us for help in building a world of peace with justice if, together, we could defeat communism. Now, however, suddenly, they see us as self-acclaimed " mean-dog-masters” interested only in our own wealth and safety even if it means smart-bombing their innocent peasants while excusing their oppressive leaders as in Iraq, Panama and even China.
Since this kind of apparent moral-breakdown marked the decline of all previously leading nation, the University of Tennessee is to be acclaimed for this three-year study of values. Hence, in response to the invitation to participate, I am submitting the first, fully unguarded, previously confidential findings from the Cold War. Those forty years of low-intensity, grassroots issues in the countries surrounding the Communist block and in our little overseas Americas were exactly the same as those that have now broken-out domestically as well as on a world scale. Ten millions dollars worth of successful answers, there, now should be equally effective for this new, almost identical set of challenges.
The only catch is that the method that was needed to succeed was quite new and therefore too controversial for public discussion under the Cold War circumstances. No longer.
Brief Background. As a WWII veteran while teaching Economics and International Relations at MIT, in the mid 1950s, I was invited overseas by the State Department into that Cold-War situation. You may know or remember that well-informed persons such a Henry Kissinger were predicting that the future belonged to communism.
Why so? What was the exact problem then?
In major part, it too was a values-breakdown of the American culture under the dire new Cold- War circumstances: Millions of Americans were being rushed abroad to help hold back aggression into the Third-World countries on the borders of the USSR and China.
The social problems that then developed in and around our "Little Americas," as I mentioned, were almost identical to our domestic problems now. There was cultural-shock, massive vindictive crime against us, rich/poor resentments, family breakdown, and the introduction of drugs. And, as those Americans know who served in Asia, the sexual irresponsibility of our troops in relations with vulnerable women did not start at Tailhook or Aberdeen. Away from home, with money, amid countless young, attractive, foreign, destitute women from large families in terrible want, our men bought literally millions of village girls into prostitution. Understand that this was bigger than the military. It was a cultural thing that shocked even the Asian Communists, yet our corrective efforts were opposed by a few of our own chaplains who said they were Freudians protecting the psychic needs of the troops. Hence, there was much sympathy even with the Communists against our alleged moral devastation.
No Answers. In that semi-lawless, boomtown atmosphere, my multifaceted job was to promote cross-cultural efficiencies in both military and vital civilian organizations, to stop violence, to avoid America's expulsion, and to build grassroots attitudes that would prevent gradual ideological demoralization for easy Communist insurgence.
After a couple of years of hopeless failure, it was clear that nothing known in the social sciences would work. Studies among the local nationals revealed that the human relations efforts by both the State Department and the military were making attitudes worse even when we were generous with material assistance.
Values-Based Success. Here is the key introductory fact for our purposes: When I finally gave up on all official approaches, and moved "onto the economy" and "into the field" with the semi- literate local masses and our own enlisted families, the beginning of the solution was forthcoming. It derived from taking answers from those common folk themselves and then using them with the masses.
Its drastic nature, intellectually, contained two facets: First, its base, the decisive foundation for sudden stunning success, was "a method to activate respect for human equality across the barriers of abject poverty and military rank." Changing the grassroots feelings about status, alone, actually overcame the worst barriers of wealth.
The second factor was the follow-on factual discoveries that allowed our Americans to overcome false negatives about the foreign peoples. This required massive research and but only quick corrective education. Thinking now of Bosnia and the Middle East, that education of "the people" gave us a solid foundation peace that the flimsy words or treaties of leaders could neither duplicate through an honorable effort nor upset for selfish ends.
Holistic Education. However, that moral values-base along with a closely tied holistic -- physical, artistic, and intellectual -- follow-on was so new, different, and democratic that it was not acceptable, officially. Hence, in the seven countries where we worked extensively, U.S. military commanders could not allow the agitation of any public debate, but they soon supported the quiet use of the program for its local Cold-War winning effectiveness. This was true eventually even in Vietnam among the most enlightened leaders (Admiral Zumwalt, General Krulak, General Walt, and General Nickerson) who, too late, allowed me to try to turn that tragic war into an effort to win the people. Three of them, in person, invited this program into their commands on the basis of its successes all across Asia. But we got in too late even to approach the masses of Army troops before the fiasco was called to an end.
So, when years earlier in the Cold War, I had kept the developing theory confidential, it turned out to be a blessing. I was able to use it in Vietnam in the two most enlightened people-to-people programs ever tried in combat. So even though too late to pacify that entire tragedy, it saved many American lives and Vietnamese too.
Nonetheless, that necessary secrecy has left the program with a the credibility problem of being unknown even in the military. I need to take a moment to off-set that fact. But be sure to entertain these two assertions. What it took to win these giant Cold-War struggles with our confused GIs and dropouts is, (1) identical to what will be required now, domestically, to salvage our young generations from this on-rushing new information age of obesity, non-involvement, physical softness, cynicism and the class-divisive hour-glass economy, and (2) what will be required to elevate our military to a new world of mainly moral/physical peacemaking versus, primarily, endless and needless killing.
I'll list here the several millions of dollars worth of programs that were financed by the military, the Chrysler Missile Corporation, and schools. I'll add copies of a few top-level commendations in the Appendix which reveal that this all happened.
As you scan this list, try to think what educational program you would need to solve these problems. I want you to see that without some kind of a new, fast, massive attitude-changing approach, at the grassroots, no program such as this could exist. Moral values-based education contains a magic-like peacemaking power never before suspected according to anything I ever read in twelve years of college and twelve years more of college teaching.
1. in southern Italy,, down in the so-called Communist-infested Heel of the Boot, to install the NATO missiles after that program had failed over bad relations, (The moral-values worked there after the "big money" answer had not only failed, but had also been angrily rejected.)
2. in Turkey, to take the missile-installation "into country" through customs by solving the grassroots- relations difficulties (including " high pride" Turkish pressures for U.S. expulsion). This allowed Chrysler to finish that installation in half the allotted time (one year instead of two). Turkish workers quit other higher paying U.S. contractors to work with our " more attractive Americans."
3. in Korea, to stop massive vindictive theft (so-called "slicky boy" operations) that were destroying the UN's military communication system (copper wire). The morality-based education is so strong that two teachers re-educated 50,000 U.S./UN troops in only six weeks. American attitudes moved up only slightly into statistical significance. Yet the attitudes of their allied foreign troops, who had not been addressed, went off the top of the charts. The vindictive theft-problem then solved itself without the extra police- guards that would have meant some killing.
4. in Okinawa, to stop strikers at the gates over problems similar to recent ones that resulted in our partial expulsion, (The Japanese officials, who observed this problem-solving, offered to buy the program to use in all of Asia. Humphrey declined.)
5. in Thailand, to stop vindictive sabotage around SEATO bases, (The program won top military commendations. (See Appendix #1.)
6. in Vietnam, to stop internal troubles in two of the most daring combat operations in U.S. history: the Marines' Combined Action Platoons (where a few bold Marines stayed nights in the villages) and the Navy's Riverines (who integrated Vietnamese sailors into their river-boat crews), Admiral Zumwalt, later, recommended consideration of the program for worldwide use.
7. in a USMC race-relations program, worldwide, approved by Secretary of Navy Chafee, and later commended by Secretary Warner, to stop racial violence. This worked so well -- with more noticeable cross-racial dating -- that Humphrey was forced to water-down the training. (He was given the reason that Americans would not approve of Marines learning to box, he advises.)
8. to educate so-called "defiant uneducable" dropouts on the southern California/Mexican border and Indian youth in Canada as practice for taking the program into Africa -- the next anticipated major ideological-warfare (win-the-people) arena. Both programs won "the best" awards in both " education" and " corrections" in the huge, multicultural San Diego County.
9. (Late in the Cold War) rushed into Athens, Greece, to change a failing "touch-feel" aspect of the Navy's Home-Port program -- by providing in its place a moral-values-based and research-guided diversity management solution. (The sensitivity trainers, themselves, had succumbed to culture-shock even in Greece which is a relatively easy culture for Americans.)
10. (Also late) rushed into La Maddelena, Sardinia, to stop fighting and expulsion after the stationing of a "special ship" to service other ships, with classified missions, just off-shore.
How could one explain such new ideological warfare successes in general?
In answer, they were made possible, first, through ideological acknowledgment of life's equality feelings, second, through holistic (meaning interrelated mental, physical, moral, and artistic) education that respects each individual's basic developmental needs, and third, through holistic factual education that provides general education in a world of overly specialized ignorance.
Or that is, these accomplishment suggest that, "the basics for adequate overall education are not reading, writing, and arithmetic, but rather, development of the general strong-body, sound-mind, and solid-values education, plus good art and humor appreciation." The so-called 3 Rs are only the basics for intellectual education. And our concentration on intellectual education, has left us with this inadequacy to provide strong moral/physical leadership in a generally admitted dog-eat-dog values-free economy.
Second, for some academic credibility, there is this: We came to the overall solution based on only one practical test; what worked honorably for stopping cross-group hostilities and violence. However, soon we got into the necessary intermediate task of educating the so-called uneducables because they were especially difficult. They were mainly teenage dropouts. Here again, the same approach, with minor variations, was the only thing that worked big time to give those dropouts and "pushouts" some competence, confidence, happiness, and a sense of peaceful belonging.
The Psychology of Self. Now, I have noticed in the 1997 March issue of the Harvard Magazine that a similar holistic idea is being fostered in psychology -- a field that I ascertain has been dedicated mainly to the study of the individual or the so-called "self." But there too, now, as represented by the new Harvard course of Ecopsych 101, by Drs. Sara and Lane Conn, they are teaching that the individual is connected to others and in fact to the entire ecosystem. This new emphasis in psychology will help give at least academic acceptability for further experimentation with what we found in the field. There is a secular spiritual connectedness between all people.
Ideology is Not Enough. Regarding viability of the new approach, after succeeding overseas several times on a scale that could be called national, and then seeing the results wither away within weeks after the crisis was solved and the program stopped, my conviction is this: The world's philosophers must recapture for philosophy its proper place on the throne of all education. I know that this is possible because this program based on only one philosophical value was able to do that, time after time, on a major scale. It reduced threatening international catastrophes down to mere incidents that never even made the papers. The biggest surprise was that economic problems were solved but seldom even mentioned. The basic problem is ideological -- a moral values problem. But then, we were surprised to learn that we needed individual physical-development as confidence-building reinforcement for the spiritual-like motivation. A young philosophy student told me, "Don't be shocked; Socrates was no bookworm; he was a warrior/stud, and Christ, Himself, was no shrinking violet."
I suspect you are with me on this goal for philosophy if we can agree on humankind's basic "good" or on the proper goal of human life -- the most rewarding purpose and direction. So let us go now to that fascinating question. The so-called ten secrets consist of four findings that make up the foundation of humankind's basic problem-solving moral/physical values-package plus six or so vital supporting factors (depending on how you divide them).
Cold-War studies, early-on, among our comparatively wealthy, overseas Americans revealed, mainly, complaints about the sights, sounds, smells, sanitation, and other dangers associated with dire poverty. Those complaints were similar to, but more vocal than, the attitudes of many suburban Americans, currently, toward our ghettos and ghetto residents.
Summarizing thousands of questionnaire-responses from a dozen Third-World countries, our overseas Americans said of the foreign nationals:
"These people are dumb, dirty, dishonest, lazy, unsanitary, immoral, cruel, crazy, irresponsible, and sub-human. All they want from us Americans is to give them more money or else for us to go home."
So, there was an "ugly" problem all right on a international scale. If it could not be stopped, it seemed to assure the loss of the Cold War for both the U.S. and for democracy. A similar " unattractive American" problem is now one of the major complaints in our domestic relations. You can get shot in the streets over a minor traffic incident. Seven bus drivers were stabbed or shot by passengers in New York City last year.
Our values-based educational program solved that massive Cold-War problem; it will now solve this continuation of that moral-values breakdown, domestically and globally.
A Monumental Misunderstanding, and Hope for Reconciliation. I conducted massive studies in those Third-World countries, mentioned earlier, as well as smaller studies in Egypt, Russia, Poland, and down through Mexico, Central America, into Peru, and up into the Bolivian high Andes. I asked mainly only one type question:
"What do you want from us Americans? What should we do or stop doing to promote better relations?"
The overwhelming answer was always the same, even in Vietnam. It was not that we should give them more money or else go home. It was always a whopping eighty percent or so that said the same thing in various ways. Can you guess what it was those people asked from us?
"Respect us as equals."
The "1776 Equality-Value" Officially Rejected. That startling request for "respect," rather than the anticipated " Yankee, go home," obviously offered hope for grassroots reconciliation. But when the studies, showing that surprising request, were revealed to our American officials, overseas, they flat-out denounced the idea of human equality, itself.
My bosses and fellow officers in the State Department and U.S. Information Service lectured me that,
"there is no such thing as human equality; some persons are bigger; some smarter, some taller, and some, just plane better,"
"equality is Communist, and incompatible with our only real American value, freedom,"
and "equality was a concept dreamed up by Jefferson and Washington to raise cannon- fodder armies."
Finally, most persuasive, was this order: If I did not tear up those studies on equality, and never mention them again, I would be sent home.
That Values Breakdown. That rejection of our 1776 founding-value by U.S. officials was laid on me as an infallible pronouncement. And I recognized the embarrassing deportation as inevitably forthcoming if I persisted.
So, I transferred my contracts into the military and proceeded ever so carefully. First, I flew back to Washington, D.C., and with the assistance of a Cabinet Undersecretary, Dr. Robert McNeil, I briefed members of the National Security Council and the Operations Coordination Board on my findings and about my possibly taking-on the newly perceived ideological struggle in the Cold War.
They seemed surprised but open-minded and neutral about my findings and recommended that I brief President Eisenhower. I declined, citing my rushed schedule for return to the problems in the Med. I gambled that their knowledge of the studies and their neutrality was support enough. I also knew that my field-studies occasionally took me accidentally across unmarked borders into Communist countries. I felt it was best that I not attract any unnecessary political attention. And that worked-out well.
The Ideological Warfare Situation. At that point, I knew that if I could teach the equal life- value successfully among the masses of Americans, that is, if I could activate respect among those culture-shocked Americans toward the respect-hungry peasants, we had a chance to win their strong support against the Communists whose dictatorships they already distrusted. The question was, "How does one teach " equal respect for the untouchables" so that it will take hold again as it did in 1776 among those earlier common-folk Americans?" I recognized that whether Jefferson was sincere or not made no difference. I had seen again that the concept strikes a cord down in the guts of the common folk so strongly that they seemed willing to kill and die for its support; that was meaning-enough, I figured.
I did not need to win over the comparatively few military officers or other college educated. What we needed was a turnaround among those hundreds of thousands of hard-talking GIs who really did the mixing with the people. In Washington, I had solved that access problem. I had arranged to get the podium in front of the enlisted personnel with the officers simply present in apparent support. This was made possible by making it a research project.
The State of that Basic Founding-Value -- Equality. "We take these truths to be self-evident; that all people are created equal." What does that mean? Can it be taught to reduce the superiority complexes called elitism, racism, sexism, and ugly Americanism that affect every human relationship on earth every second? I consulted my most brilliant, former associates from the great universities where I had taught or attended, including Harvard Law, MIT, and The Fletcher School of Diplomacy. I asked only one question:
" How does one teach respect for human equality more effectively?
Responses were forthcoming. They included details on how to teach " equality under the law" and " equality of opportunity." Those familiar ideas brought cat-calls as alleged fallacious "cop- outs" from both the GIs and foreign nationals in my large orientation audiences.
Back Again to the Common Folk. In desperation, I started spending much time with enlisted hunt-clubs on long hunting trips into the back country of Asia Minor, actually to conduct more attitude-studies and related culture-studies. It was on one of those trips out into eastern Turkey that I was given the first ideological-breakthrough, or secret, to the new Cold-War victory -- that is, a secret to teaching "other-respecting" morality effectively.
One day on a wild-boar hunting trip, far out on the Anatolian Plateau, a group of U.S. airmen started laughing about a small group of Turkish or Kurdish peasants. The latter had gathered out behind our truck in which a dozen or so of us hunters were seated up in the bed of the truck on the sideboard bench-seats. The peasants were trying to get hired as bush-beaters. They were, indeed, a motley sight in their abject destitution including a child with a huge sore on her face and flies a- pestering.
"Look at them," said one of the young Americans. "They have nothing to live for; they might just as well be dead."
An old tobacco-chewing, Tennessee sergeant, after a huge disgusting, splattering spit, challenged the airman with words that stopped the group's mockery: "If you really think they don't value their lives as much as you do yours, let me see you take your hunting knife & try kill one. Try one of them carrying those corn knives. Or try to kill one of their children."
The embarrassed airman actually choked while trying to take back his words.
The sergeant, satisfied, explained his challenge: "I don't know either what makes 'em value their lives so much. Maybe it's them women or maybe it's them kids. But whatever it is, I seen 'em in combat & I seen 'em in the Korean prison camps. And they hung in there after a lot of Americans was yelling quit. So while we are making fun of them up here in this truck, they are looking back at us & saying, 'Laugh you bastards in your fancy clothes. But we don't care how sweet you smell or where you come from. We still value our lives & the lives of our loved ones just as much as you do yours. And if you don't give us that, you have got to go, or else someday we will put bombs in your messkits.' "
Every previously obvious Ugly American on the truck seemed to chime into agreement with him. That was the fact that shocked me.
I asked the sergeant how we could prove our respect for their equality even if we felt it.
He answered easily: "Well Mister, you have got to be able to jump down there into that sheep manure in them fancy boots, and go over there into that village of mud huts, and walk down them nary streets, and as you walk past the dirtiest, stinkinist peasant, you got to be able to look him in the face and make him know just with your eyes that you know that he is a man who hurts like we do, and hopes like we do, and wants for his kids just like we do. That's how you got to be able to do it. There ain't no other way. If we kaint do that, we lose."
Then Compared to Now. Frankly, I think the guidelines from that old sergeant's wisdom, mainly, won that Cold War for us, or at least avoided the predicted loss. Without him, I think Professor Kissinger probably had it right. We were failing completely in the installation of the preventive "fast-strike" missiles in the Mediterranean. There was serious whispering about kicking us out of several countries (as has now happened in the Philippines, Spain, and to a degree, Okinawa). Without hundreds of thousands of our ugly Americans being turned around, rapidly, to some attractiveness, much more serious sabotage against us, if not Vietnam-type insurgency, was a good bet. The situation was considerably worse than our current domestic fears of racial strife, militia street wars, and terrorism.
Here is the monumental fact about that equality concept and the Turkish Hunting story: From 1955 into the mid 1970s, I told that story to probably a million overseas Americans. My teaching assistants told it to as many more. I heard one of my young GI assistants in Korea say this: "Anytime any one on my team-members does not get a standing ovation from that equality story, he feels like he has failed in his assignment."
Pause for a moment and think about the fifteen-year, geographic pathway of that story's ideological warlike success across Eurasia -- from Sardinia, through southern Italy, into Greece and Turkey, up to Korea, down through Okinawa, in Thailand and finally into life-saving work in Vietnam. The concept may not seem like much to us since we are so familiar with it almost as an old cliché. Nonetheless, when there is a known way to apply its meaning, like medicine, to a deeply felt conflict, it has an attitude-changing power of unrivaled effectiveness. It revealed the same power that it carried to shock the world in 1776. That 1776 performance is why the Declaration of Independence is considered by many to be the greatest secular document ever written in all of world history. According to astonishing effectiveness in the Cold War, the clout that it delivered in 1776 was no passing fad.
By your guess, why does that equality concept when communicated with emotional impact possess that kind of magic-like power?
In answer, we learned through in-depth attitude studies that in the minds of the common folk, the equality-concept represents the life-value, life itself. That is, it represents to them life versus death.
And they are right. That is clear in the dictatorial societies. If you can break peoples feelings of equality, it seems to make them sick and weak -- easier to control, easier to kill without their fighting back.
Backed only by a few (but of decisive importance) corrective cultural facts, reactivating that concept allowed us to salvage the installation of that first NATO missile project in the volatile Mediterranean after it had broken down completely. Most of the 300 highly paid missile-workers had become sputtering mad from culture-shock. Over 90% -- with families -- had submitted their resignations and were going home. And the local Italians were delighted that they were going. This was in southern Italy, as my skimpy office records above reminded me with a shiver -- down in the so-called Communist-infested Heel of the Boot.
The "Magic Factor." Here was the point of decisive importance for both then and now: The corrective turnaround to mutual friendliness took only a few weeks. Soon, many of those Americans, including the wives, were getting further into the Italian culture than I was. Despite the operational evidence, I still could not believe that the equality story was so powerful. I honestly kept my fingers crossed and almost literally kept looking around back over my shoulders trying to see if maybe something else was causing the change. Our lessons were so brief; conducted exclusively orally, mostly through unpaid opinion leaders, and almost informally with only an occasional, special, crisis-oriented presentations from the podium.
But the local Chrysler-Missile directors showed no doubt about the cause and effect. Despite the fact that I was a political scientist, with virtually no math, I was made the temporary director in place of a "chief engineer" for six weeks. The assignment was to lead the introducing of the missile operation into the country of the super-proud Turks, a vital NATO headquarters on the edge of communism.
And true to the previous ideological magic in Italy, we finished that job in half the professionally estimated time -- one year instead of two -- with the savings of more than a million dollars a day, I was told.
What made those brief morality-based lessons so powerful?
Clearly, on that chancy foreign scene, in the place of fear and unhappiness, those materials inspired culture-crossing courage and self-satisfaction. They raised the sense of responsibility and the work ethic through the entire multi-cultural organizations. How different did this make the daily visible, behavior patterns of the Americans and their foreign counterparts?
You had to have a keen eye to pick it up. The main changes were inside the brain, and good or bad, for most, they were concealed by social pretense. However, work efficiencies and other behavioral measures were decisive -- the difference between close-down failure and record-setting successes.
In our first three massive programs, we could find no other value, nor anything else, that was teachable in this way: effective, fast and en masse. Noticeably, however, this equality concept triggered the activation of the other more familiar secular moral values such as kindness, empathy, responsibility, duty, courage, et cetera. Yet, we could not teach those values themselves, standing alone. Why?
"Why?" we kept asking. Why did these angry, ugly Americans change mainly from that brief equality story? And why did the attitudes-changes and behavior-changes -- which were almost imperceptible to my observations -- please the local, host nationals so decisively? This was after everything else, including patriotic appeals and big (huge) money offers had actually made the Americans more angry, why did this human equality message work?
Why did our American common folk, both military and civilian, respond so favorably to an appeal to respect the equality of the lowly, previously denigrated peasants in every country? Shortly before, those same Americans had denounced both the peasants and the equality concept, itself, when taught intellectually?
Meaningful, now, in our search for a new domestic philosophy, are these facts: Eventually, with better research, we found that the " empathy" stimulated toward the peasants by that equal-life- value story was only the second half of the answer why it was so effective toward that end. We found that there was something else working that was an equally strong, or possibly slightly stronger, phenomenon. That moving story told from an official podium, with high-ranking officials right down front listening and approving, also satisfied a deeply frustrated general desire in the laboring men and in the enlisted military personnel that did not involve the foreign peoples at all. Can you guess what that was?
Under the high-pressure Cold-War circumstances, the laborers and enlisted men saw the speech as a serious declaration of respect for their own equality from us higher ranking Americans. One sergeant branded that realization into my brain with this comment: "I would like to go back and blow-up my entire hometown for the way it treated my parents."
Respect for the "equal life-value" can be activated between disrespectful and hostile groups to raise working efficiencies and stop violence,
2. when taught anecdotally (rather than intellectually), but
3. to achieve this success on a mass scale, it is helpful if this respect is activated persuasively down to persons from their social-power superiors. Then, those newly respected persons give it freely to those below them in the social-power hierarchy. So it is a demanding leadership problem as well as an educational one.
Economic Exploitation. With disrespect comes economic exploitation. And in the streets, that economic exploitation was the surface complaint, not the deeper infuriating disrespect that was admitted between clinched teeth in private interviews. Being powerless to change those economic inequities, I did not mention them. Yet, that professed hostility over economics, mainly, took care of itself after the respect issue was solved. Some economic improvements were forthcoming as mere details.
Despite the basic necessity of the moral -- equal life-respect -- value for stopping violence temporarily, other morality-reinforcing (mental, physical, and artistic) factors are indispensable for permanent improvement. However, in our strongly compartmentalized educational orientation, I have found that such holistic education is virtually impossible to introduce. The Cold-War secrecy made it possible in the overseas programs. The best way to overcome, or get by, that same institutional preclusion, now, is through experimental programs. Comparative successes can be measured.
Most controversial previously, though, and the Cold-War feature that demanded the most secrecy, was the process for teaching morality in a way that activates it. I have touched on it above. But it needs to be spelled out.
With the increasingly obvious need to teach morality, the known state of the arts is being reported in many new books, articles and the popular press. Those reports reveal that the historic method is primarily through stories told or morality illustrated constantly in the family and community during children's up-bringing.
Besides the constructive warnings in those reports to re-strengthen the family, there is also a message of near hopelessness. That negative message admits that "the strong family and local community are now probably, for too many children, dead or dying." Too long, we are now realizing, too late, that we placed economics ahead of sociology -- a mistake that our founding fathers, strongly, warned us against.
Hence, finding easier answers during the Cold War to both of those factors, (1) the context -- a morality-teaching substitute for the family, and (2) the process -- a substitute for many years of constant moral stories -- made the long Cold War partly worthwhile. Those two easier or streamlined substitutes that we found are these:
1. The context for teaching morality was not necessarily the family. Some of the old-time Orphans' Homes provided it, too. The actual teaching context is any situation that provides us the deep (emotional) conviction that a "change" to "being good" is better than not changing. It can happen fast.
In the human families, prior to modern wealth (in children's hands giving them independence from listening to their parents), that knowledge among children of the need to "change and be good" came from the negative threats of the hickory-stick up through the positive rewards from the parents. In the Cold War, for our overseas Americans, that willingness to admit the need for change came from the dangers of being killed or of losing the Cold War -- very strong (emotional) persuasion.
2. Given that Cold War's substitute persuasive context of possibly losing to communism and being killed, we stumbled onto the fact that the only process element needed, at least temporarily, was only the one story with strong emotional impact. That, alone, can start the moral redirection of an audience -- similar to a religious "happening." That one hunting story carried the necessary emotional impact -- when told to an audience deeply involved in the conflict over "disrespect."
That one story, alone, was not only enough, more moralizing could start to kill the effect as "preaching." We said nothing more about morality until an event made it seem appropriate to the students. (You do not have to keep dropping atomic bombs to make the point; one will suffice. The respect for human equality, if activated, is like that.)
After using the Turkish Hunting story for more than five years, my eyes were finally opened to that simple "moral-impact" factor -- as the teaching process -- from one casual comment by a friend. He was a naval officer, one Joe Purcel, who was working in the outer office for Admiral Zumwalt in Vietnam. Until that time, we thought we were limited for effectiveness to that one story. Commander Purcel said, simply, "I know of another true story that also teaches that strong, basic respect-for-life and that also carries that same strong "emotional impact" as the Turkish story.
Despite the simplicity of that quick-shot "emotional impact" principle, it was a shocking revelation to me at the time. How important is it?
By giving us the use of another story that teaches respect for life even more strongly -- that is, with even more emotional impact FROM MORE SELF-GIVING -- it saved the program for us in the two people-winning Vietnam programs and possibly also the vital program in Okinawa. Without that second story, our partial expulsion from Okinawa of last year looked like it was coming twenty-five years ago. I was asked to rush a team of trainers in there from Thailand to head off such a threatened expulsion. If it had happened, the ramifications in all of East Asia and southeast Asia would probably have changed modern world history significantly, especially in Korea.
Before the naval officer's comment, I had always sensed, but only vaguely, that the Turkish story worked, in part, because it "teaches to the emotions." But when I once casually mentioned that suspicion in official circles, the threat of my expulsion from the overseas Cold-War scene was even stronger than it had been for alleging that human equality is an objective life-protecting value.
"Because," I was warned that, "teaching to the emotions finally admits that these magic-like results are from some kind of brainwashing."
It was thirty more years before Dr. Daniel Goleman discovered the existence of the Emotional Intelligence. In those post-McCarthy days, a mere allegation of brainwashing, officially filed, would have been devastating. Consequently, I went even more deeply into a mode of confidentially along with what I called a "healthy paranoia" using careful oral presentations only.
The military personnel were never a problem on this score. They had been schooled on the real nature of brainwashing. It is totally different, including physical torture and prohibitions against contradictions.
Nonetheless, that Damocles sword of alleged brainwashing always troubled me for another subtle reason: The strength of our initial successes in a community depended, to a degree, on the size of the audiences addressed. The respect-for-life presentations were unfailing (not one failure in fifteen years) in front of thousand-person audiences. However, we found that they were in danger of being less persuasive with small, 20 person, audiences where the well-educated "hippie" draftee could stop rational discussion by shouting a continuous filibuster for his philosophy of relativism. And even more so, we learned not to gamble with one-man audiences of any kind.
Conversely, for all other mental-like education, we found that the small class with a role-model teacher is of primary, to decisive, importance.
Why the difference for good moral/emotional education?
As Professor Daniel Bell revealed in his "best seller," The Closing of the American Mind, few of us highly educated Americans have the confidence to judge something new -- from an "outsider" -- that contradicts the well-established book-knowledge. So I learned to brief no leader on the new substantive content except as a member of a large audience. On one of my rare trips back to Washington, I got charged with the official necessity to brief a top leader of the U.S. Information Agency. I was advised (possibly falsely) that he was a strong "relativist." I agreed to present the briefing if it could be scheduled for the entire USIA in Washington including all of the lowly staff members rather than the top officers only.
It was arranged and it was "a walk in the park."
How can this "large-audience syndrome" be explained as the best setting for the superior emotional education?
Not being a psychologist, I can't say. But it was always explained to me by those common folk in the audiences, themselves, who always poured down front after the presentations. They always said the same thing, "These are eternal truths that we have always known but had just not put into words."
Hence, I could see that the spiritual-like atmosphere of strongly perceived eternal truths (of life and equality) in a large crowd was always -- and I mean always -- so overwhelming that even many of the previously closed minds were either opened or shaken by that atmosphere. That particular experience "inside the Washington Beltway" without the assistance of the overseas Cold-War fears, solidified my confidence in the new materials. I became positive that we could win the Cold War if only we could continue to work with the troops as ideological grassroots warriors. And we did.
Speaking of those troops, "that secret weapon" that I called on, those troops , as a world- changing moral force is now being totally wasted under their ridiculous designation in Bosnia as "mean dogs." So denigrated and untrained mentally, morally, artistically, and even physically for grassroots relations, small wonder they cannot be trusted even with our own women.
Another fascination question about "the large audience syndrome" that I have never before discussed in print was this: Among the few great natural psychologists in the world whom I have met were mainly the military's relatively uneducated, but top, non-commissioned officers: white, brown, and black. They led well in combat -- moved the young troops and took the land -- but not flamboyantly; usually not even picturesquely. The young college-educated lieutenants, on both Iwo Jima and in Vietnam, led with equal bravery, but much more picturesquely. They died earlier, and usually, it seemed, "in admirable leadership efforts," trying to inspire the younger troops.
Closely related, several general officers who supported these basic-values programs, for their surprising effectiveness, were not especially responsive to the life-values stories when hearing them alone. Among many wealthy, high-ranking Americans in the leading classes, it is still the same, today. Yet, for common-folk Americans, they are "of course-type truth."
Why the different responses based on economic status or social class?
A few of the older, top-ranking non-commissioned officers have given me the same explanation. It goes like this: Upper-class people who have lived their entire lives in security, actually do not understand the basic life-and-death values that control life and the greatest happiness. Until too late, when shot and dying (and one asks you to go back and apologize to someone), they do not realize that their strongest conscious values were a mistake. They tend to place success above time with their families.
That brings us, now, to the most unwanted secret in a softening culture: the relationship between moral strength and physical force.
In one of our early large programs where we began to see Cold-War ideological victory would be ours, we were stunned suddenly with a reversal showing-up in routine attitude sampling. Possibly as high as a third of our program participants, previously re-educated morally, were starting to backslide. The old ugly American comments were creeping back into their observations.
Another extensive round of attitude-studies among the troops high-lighted the chilling problem. A certain small percentage of the troops -- not identified by name -- who had been hard-core bigots -- had come out of their previous, squelched silence and were quote, "fighting back against the new pansy-asses and gook-lovers" -- as they called the newly attractive Americans. Their fighting back included not only strong denunciations in the bars, clubs and barracks, but also an occasional beating of a newly enlightened American who had spoke-up in favor of good relations.
Partly from a small WWII experience with Marines in Hawaii, I decided on a desperate experiment. I rescheduled the orientation classes but in smaller twenty-man groups and taught every man the straight-punch hitting skills of the boxer/puncher. This is a very simplified fighting exercise that I call STRIKE that involves strict rules, and close supervision against "cheep shot” hard punching. Only the relaxed, straight-punching skill was taught. Speed of delivery and recovery is the goal. It is a professional ability because it is so difficult to "muscle-learn" versus the natural pulling back, or tightening up, and swinging method for any kind of hitting while under the traumatic stress of fighting.
In our softening culture, most modern military men are not really taught to fight unarmed -- that is, not while they are under stress if at all. They have no idea about the unarmed fighting fundamentals that were known by almost every man just sixty years ago (and on back to the beginning of time). An angry, unarmed, physical fight will totally exhaust even a good athlete in less than thirty seconds if he is not a practiced fighter. Hence, and here is the point, a considerably weaker person who is well practiced in STRIKE need not be intimidated by anyone who is not a fairly well-trained fighter. And those are rare.
Since everyone should know the most elementary life-defense skill in order to feel the freedom to speak-up against "wrongs," I'll mention the key factors in STRIKE training.
The training. (1) Don't dance around. This is not boxing. (2) learn to hit straight out with automatic return from a "hands-up-and-open" position guarding the neck and chin, (3) use light gloved-hand sparring across a rope (for psychological conditioning to resist the otherwise inevitable panic from being hit in the face or even of possibly being hit and beaten-up), (4) learn to conserve energy by staying relaxed, not trying to win, but just trying to "outlast" your partner while mostly counter-punching occasionally, in the sparring exercises, (Then, for the opposite, in a real defensive fight, you will have the skill and courage to be in close, or move immediately in close, and get in your one big hit. (5) realize that an opponent, in a real fight, who is impressed by your effective punching will tackle you to fight on the ground almost at once. If that happens, understand that your hitting impressed him. So, usually, you can surrender to him, knowing that he will not try to intimidate you again. (6) However, if things go really sour and your opponent gets mean in the ground-fighting (or you are in a horrifying defense against murder or rape) you must have ready the secret fight-stoppers that are so mean and so effective that they are almost unthinkable even among professional fighters. That gives you the advantage of surprise.
The "unarmed fight-stoppers" from the American riverboat days are not allowed even in the so- called no-holds-barred "ultimate fighting." We never write them down and never say them above a whisper even in teaching our loved-ones. One of them explains why you start practicing STRIKE with your hands cupped and open with your fingers-nails unnoticeable ready. A viscous opponent, intent on doing you deadly bodily harm, will not see what you are going to do until too late (and then not see well at all). The other "fight-stopper" has four letters, starting with "b" and appropriately rhymes with fight. It is a "finalizer." In 1937, as an teenage vagabond, I was told by a Missouri river "deep-water" worker that it is far better than a knife because it is so surprising, so sickly painful, so bloody if not deadly on the face or neck, and you never drop your weapon.
Back to that moral/physical STRIKE-training in the Middle East. It salvaged that giant Cold- War program, immediately, and the grassroots friendship of the people in that country. And I never heard about one serious fight. The bullies learned in those practice sessions that they could not whip many of those so-called candy asses once the latter learned the hitting skills. And of course the previous candy assesses learned that lesson even better.
To teach moral behavior, I needed that moral/physical component in four military programs out of seven and in every program with civilian dropouts in the U.S. and Canada. But understand that this was not our physical aspect of a total program. For that, we use heart and lung conditioning and lifting. This is different; it is the moral/physical component. Its only goal, well-taught, is the confidence to speak-up for what is right. Without that physical confidence, most of the speaking- up against wrongs, especially in the young adult world, stops. It is not all that easy, or safe, even just to say no.
Physical Beings First. Unfortunately, we human beings are possibly, first, physical beings. You will recall that even Christ was not above making a vital religious point with a heavy, braided blacksnake whip at least once.
Can this necessary physical/moral support for moral education be taught in our schools -- that is, just the straight, relaxed hitting defense without the fight-stoppers?
The truth is that in my U.S. military programs, after return from overseas, I found that this moral/physical factor frightened even the Marine Corps' top command. And I was not smart enough to cope with that surprising softening of the old hard-Corps that, naively, I had thought would last forever. So as not to mislead them, I resigned from the two million dollar race-relations contract that had been obtained as a follow-on to the unique successes in combat where one problem was inter-racial murder. I resigned as a matter of conscience over my inability to continue that indispensable moral/physical factor. Using the ideological factor, only, in a worldwide tour and address to all Marines, we had substantially stopped the extreme riots. It was clear that if we could set the example in the Corps of a full solution to the deep black/white racial division, we could soon re-strengthen all of America forever. Yet, I knew that if we proceeded with the "half- step" program just for the contract, it would eventually backslide into failure and betray the program and nation forever.
Almost all of the countless enlisted Marines whom I worked with agreed and almost all the enlisted men in the entire Marine Corps soon started calling the watered-down program, without the hitting skills, "a pussy program." Ask them; they are still around -- Marines, now 45 to 65 years old. So, to protect the program's reputation while keeping it alive (knowing that today would come), I finally withdrew from it completely and took a college teaching position where most of the students in my classes were military officers.
After that, I put the program back into the Corps, several times for single-bases, individual units, or school classes. This included one for the current commandant, General C. Krulak (as I did for his father, Victor, in Vietnam). As always, it was so successful that he recommended it, back to headquarters, for wider consideration. In fairness to the Corps, and to the program, so that you do not think either of those let us down, there was a different reason why it did not go into the Corps as young Krulak and I had planned for years. I can tell this fact because the reason is already known inside the Corps, and is probably politically favorable for the Commandant.
Soon after the Commandant's request, on paper, for the values program, a values-factor that I had not researched was added. It was to lead the battle against admitting gays into the military. I had to decline on these probably unusual grounds: Although my family is a Marine family, most of us have gone in mainly for the wars, rather than as careers. So, our casualty rates were high, with one of my brothers killed in Vietnam, and another, a Silver Star winner, "shot up" on Iwo. Hence, here is my hang-up. I do not believe in excusing any competent men from their patriotic duties when it comes time to do the dying.
That is just another way of saying that I was never smart enough to manage the State-side politics for a complete introduction of the Cold-War program in the USMC. I only gave up recently after Dr. Goleman's discoveries let me "tell all" perhaps for use elsewhere by the U.S.
Back to the strictly physical/moral consideration, occasionally, on a couple of Marine bases, and even at Quantico, the new successful "experiment" got into the hands of some "blood-pinning" sadist types (the phony toughs) and was used to hurt people rather than to build their confidence.
Those are your political-problems for putting STRIKE into a school situation. Like practice with any deadly weapon, the STRIKE requires constant, close supervision -- so that it is not too hard and not too soft. There is a vital center ground for such life-protective training. Of course, any physical program is now hard to sell in our physically softening, new wide-bottomed America.
The truth is this: Despite the past inability in the military to cope with this highly responsible moral/physical fight-training, the reason is not that they could not. Once they really take something on, my experience is that they have super-competence because they always test things in practice rather than simply teaching theory.
So here is the problem in the terms of a changing world that has not yet dawned on military leadership. Historically, they have always been in the business of training mere soldier "boys" mainly through methods of intimidation -- boot-camp hazing and fear of orders. Now that the global need is to train each fighting-person as a responsible adult, like a Kansas town marshal, able to stand alone as a peacemaker, it is totally new and frightening. They still cannot accept the fact that to stay in a leadership position, America must have a military force of peacemakers. The military is still afraid of the word. Peacemakers require moral/physical training. They need to be enlightened adults trained to rise above the historic primitive barriers of race, class, and ethnic group. They must be men who can be trusted with vulnerable women. That is new.
Yet, they need to be able to fight up-close, unarmed, or with a side-arm far better than ever before; so well, in fact, that no type of physical confrontation puts one of them into stress. At least ten percent of the Marines that I saw on Iwo Jima were like that and they were not even so trained. So it can be accomplished with high-type recruitment for warrior/knights. Sergeant York and Audie Murphy were like that. Had either one been at Tailhook, it could not have happened; and yet, they were not that big. It is a matter of attitude; not physical invincibility.
Can this need for a new breed soldier-man, or yes, soldier-woman, be faced and filled?
Females and Fighting. In answer, we would not even try to educate young teenage dropouts, morally, without this physical feature. It not only provides the confidence fast that is needed to "be moral," it provides the confidence needed by the teenage boys and girls in the gangs to "turn in" their deadly weapons as they did to us through five years of experimentation. Can this type fighting really be taught to women.
One of the biggest embarrassments I ever had to deal with was the Marine female in a non- commissioned officers' seminar, at San Diego, who could take some of the men with STRIKE. It would not have been so bad had she not been so feminine. One of our beautiful San Diego girls in the class of dropouts quickly fought-off a rapist in a store near our school. Another told me (?) she had stopped the incest (by a step father) at home.
Going Through Fear. Unarmed fighting and close-in fighting confidence as part of the new morality training is the issue. For some reason, of all the fighting techniques, only the fast-hitting skill provides that confidence rapidly to the masses as is needed for meaningful moral training. That is strange. I mentioned the fact once while lecturing at West Point back in the early 1980s. Afterwards, the Academy's Athlete Director, Dr. Anderson, told me that he had conducted a study on the "self-esteem" derived from every sport played at West Point. That is a bundle -- including football and key martial arts. Only boxing raised self-esteem up to a new level of statistical significance in their one-semester programs. Even more amazing, gymnastics was second.
His perceived reason was what we had also found: "Fire in the face," sustained, up close, as only in boxing (or STRIKE) introduces one to terrible fear at first, but then, when carefully coached, takes one "through that fear." Tumbling head over heals in the air above that iron bar or that wooden horse, of course, includes that same element of going through (getting successfully through) fear. The other combat sports don't produce that result quickly because of two factors compared to boxing or STRIKE exercises: the combat distance is slightly different (safer) and not so constant. So the going through fear element is not strong enough. One of the world's leading Ninjutsu/Taijusu masters, the American, Jack Hoban, has added STRIKE, and our "defend others," Dual Life-Value to his great programs. Ninjutsu, being the martial art of previous Japanese revolutionaries, is not fixed in its forms as most martial arts are; so it can make adjustments more easily.
We have tested this entire program once with an evening course here at the University of Tennessee. The students gave it rave notices, especially the female students.
What my corporation is doing now is using the program in a gradual, low-key national/moral rejuvenation effort working with a network of martial-arts groups, negotiating with a nation-wide police-training program, and designing a computerized program for a college of the air. It will soon be on the Web. We find that it is easier to interest the physically oriented students in the moral education than it is to interest academic scholars in the physical/moral training. The reason for the latter is understandable. The alleged misuse of academia for financial-oriented athletics is widely considered to be a major evil of modern education. That fact confuses things.
You may know of the admirable nation-wide effort in moral education called "Character Counts." It is reported to be popular with grammar-school children, nationwide. The news papers report that Jr. high and high school children consider it "wimpy." That tends to happen when one tries to teach the moral values, by name, standing alone as in college ethics courses. In stronger negative terms, I found that it was always the same in the military schools and academies. Here is the reason: The current, obviously failed state of the arts for teaching values, is to select a few of the key values from the historic list of moral values such as honor, courage, self-discipline, etc. as so called "core values." Yet, everyone knows there is honor among thieves, the Nazis had courage and self-discipline. There is only one basic, objective secular -- natural -- value, just as in religion, there is only one -- your deity. Even "love" is only instrumental. In secular values, it is the dual life-value.
To practice STRIKE, even in a college-ethics course, as I have taught it in human relations, all you need to do is this: For a constructive, mid-class stand-up break to give the brain some fresh air, introduce a three-minute exercise of those straight-out hitting skills (with music if you like). The strength and muscle memory will build up gradually. Let your body turn a little (follow-through) with each strike and make the "out-STRIKE and FAST RECOVERY motion almost the same continuous strike (for good continuous face-cover and to avoid having your arm being grabbed). Allow a fraction of an instant for the solid relaxed landing. You will know you have really got the maximum speed of delivery when you can grab a fly on the wing now and then. Tell your students that if they hit a heavy bag for STRIKE-practice, at home, not to try to hit deeply into it. Just explode your fist about a half inch into it. Seek the relaxed, good smacking landing like a baseball in a catchers mitt. Then exercise a smooth, quick but synchronized retraction of your hand and weight, or stay planted as your other hand goes out. AND DON'T EVER BOX FOR FUN IF IT MEANS GETTING HIT HARD OR HITTING SOMEONE ELSE HARD ON THE HEAD (THE BRAIN-HOUSING GROUP) NOT IN THE BODY EITHER. YOU CAN CAUSE AND RECEIVE TERRIBLE PROBLEMS FOR LATER..)
What is the nature of that basic life-value that demands respect for its equality in order to feel healthy and avoid (a) the sickness of inferiority feelings, or (b) the sick-meanness of superiority -- both causes of violence?
During the night-and-day genocidal struggle by the Marines for Iwo Jima, one basic value in human nature was gradually burned into my unbelieving brain to the exclusion of all else. Impending death, up-close, strips away all the other values that are often cited too casually as "more important than life, itself."
However, during that sobering values-clarification when many men began to say, "life is all that counts," one horrible choice was constantly in the face of all who had not "stressed out"; many had. That remaining constant choice was between (1) saving your own life, and (2) probably dying to save another or others. (You should know that Iwo Jima was one of the few up-close, night-&- day month-long, sustained, genocidal battles of modern American history, so it was truly unusual for teaching these most basic, comparative values-lessons.)
Seeing that choice made daily, calmly, almost routinely, to risk and give one's life to save another or the others made it seem surprisingly clear that we humans are not first and foremost self-oriented-creatures. (That actual supreme test of basic values made it seem that we are, in nature, not lower than the strongly species-preserving animals in that regard.) In that life-or-death field-laboratory that strips things bare, the drive appears to be even stronger and more subtle than you can imagine. Young leaders learned that it was risky to learn the names of replacements. If you did, you could not bear the remorse of their soon and certain death (from their obvious incompetence). And you could not trust yourself not to overdo the effort to save their incompetent lives as you would a brother even though they were not contributing to the fight.
Judging from those indelible combat-experiences where the only issue was whose life and whose death, that life-value is apparently a carefully balanced dual, self-and-species, life-value, not one simply of self-preservation. The edge seems somehow to go to species-preserving. When that rare but terrible time came, and it kept coming and coming and coming, that one man in a group could step forward to save another, or the group, it happened. One of the better men almost always stepped forward.
Does this mean that all human beings by nature will do that, or is it just the few heroic or "best men" or "best women" or "best children" who have been specially conditioned, who will rise to such noble action? At first, it seemed like the latter. But that appearance soon got corrected.
The subtle truth is in the details. It became increasingly clear that it means that most of us will tend to do so under the right circumstances: That is,
1. all of the average men would do so when the circumstances were appropriate,
2. if they still had their wits about them (were in mental self-control) and
3. felt they possessed the competence, possibly, to succeed.
Those three conditions all involve subtle factors that have made this species-preserving value almost impossible to read. That is why it has never been clearly understood. There have been very few Iwo Jima's in all of history.
The Appropriate Circumstances. Consider first, the meaning of the term, "the appropriate circumstances." That horrible situation arose when some lives could be saved, but by only one person at a time volunteering to die for them. That is, it allowed for only one person (appropriately) to take the self-sacrificing action -- such as sneaking out to flank a sniper. Consequently, it usually looked, at first, like only one among many was willing.
The Confidence Factor. At that time, if there was hope of success, despite likely death, the most able man -- the one with the most confidence from probable top-competence in the group -- would tend to step forward almost as routinely as if he were simple taking his turn to go get the coffee. That led to that deception that it was no big deal in his mind.
But here is the subtlety in that situation: If that first man failed, then the next best, and right on down through those, if any, who thought they might have the competence. At times, you had to stop that possible suicidal progression more so than persuade it. The competence factor was decisive and hard to understand because so few had it trained into them from the mere long- distance military target-shooting and marching that does not concentrate at all of teaching fighting men to fight on the ground, up close.
Here was, to me, a stunning example: On the second or third day while I was still back on the landing-beach, a hysterical commotion exploded about fifty yards away. Some clean-up Marines had unearthed a Japanese sniper. I started up out of my deep foxhole to go check. Lt. Bill Johnson, a Texan from Wimberly, already out, said, "I'll go" as he walked past me. He quieted it down and soon returned assuring me that it was nothing. However, I learned that it was a near atrocity, some boys started to cut the ears off the helpless prisoner. My own sergeant told me that Lt. Johnson gave the proper orders, and then boldly turned his back on the little group of half- crazed men knowing it would all be corrected according to his orders.
Here is the punch line, illustrating how his high competence interpreted that scene for Johnson. Fifty years later I talked with him. HE DID NOT EVEN REMEMBER THE INCIDENT.
That is what, eventually, I realized that I was seeing. Great heroics out of high competence in the few among very poorly trained men for real gun-fighting. Suddenly, I began to resent all of that time comparatively wasted, marching around.
The Mental Self-Control Factor. The need "to have one's wits about one" in order to act also conceals the fact that we all more or less seem to have the natural species-preserving inclination. The drowning man, if he cannot swim, has no choice. He, usually, will panic. He can save neither himself nor another.
In heavy combat, more men stress-out, partially, than the military documents even hint, thereby becoming unable to protect themselves (as in can't swim). In fact, this includes most of the men to a degree in the hot gun-fights, according to what I saw. When they stress-out, they don't decide to protect themselves first, rather than the others. They just become defenseless for themselves or for anyone. Suddenly they are just there, nothing more, nothing less. It was in this situation that the natural priority of species-preservation over self was taught to me most vividly.
The Overwhelming Strength of the Species-Preservation Drive. Two young "replacement Marines" had started to stress-out and were not watching out-front or shooting. This was at night when infiltraters were occasionally trying to crawl in on us from out of caves and tunnels near by (seeking food and water).
That next morning, I was raging at them, threatening a court-martial, et cetera, if they did not start shooting to at least protect their own lives. They ignored my voice.
Another young Texan, one Clyde Jackson, from near Houston, called softly to me: "You are telling them the wrong thing, Lieutenant. Tell them if they don't start shooting, they will let us others get killed."
It worked. It actually pulled them out of their on-coming stress (shell-shock) where the appeal to save their own lives had not.
After Jackson pointed this out to me, I then started using it successfully in other cases.
When men do possess both their wits and the competency to cope with a death-threatening emergency at hand, then, that so-called "species-preserving tendency" works, apparently, like a NATURAL DUTY. It seemed clearly to be our strongest of all drives (meaning above self- preservation).
Here is the giant point for conflict-resolution in the Cold War and for us now in Los Angeles, East St. Louis, and in the world: It is so strong that it can be expanded not just beyond our loved- ones to other races. To the befuddlement of many, it can be expanded even to the owls and porpoise, no less. It is that strong ONCE WE LEARN HOW TO STIMULATE IT PROPERLY.
Later, in the Cold War, in working with the common folk, the only general criticism that I ever encountered from them regarding this strong species-preserving theory (or truism?) was in Thailand. Some Buddhist youth told me that I was probably interpreting it too narrowly; that it is probably an "all-life" preserving inclination in the first place, not just a natural feeling for the human species. That view troubles me because each species in the food chain seems to live off of another, including us. But I'll listen.
The lesson that I learned on Iwo Jima is that human nature's formula for life in human relations is not the survival of the fittest. It is almost exactly the opposite and is of a highly moral/spiritual nature. It is the sacrifice of the fittest to protect others -- the family and other in-group-members, that is, functionally, the species.
Of equal importance, once this principle is activated, it becomes self-motivating.
Why would that be?
In explanation, remember, even long-distant runners get "hooked" on that self-torturing, but pleasing, physical exercise. Similarly, in healthy human beings, moral development, once felt, is captivating because it is so satisfying. We all know about that joy of giving (at least once a year).
It seems that the greatest joy of all, once discovered, amounting to a spiritual feeling of nobility, comes from risking that greatest gift of all, one's life to save another. That definitely was what I saw happening. I did not just see it once. I kept seeing it, and seeing it , and seeing it. That constancy is what was convincing.
This unusual giving was "all around us." I first saw it illustrated by one Sergeant Taylor, later killed and decorated. One of our tanks (because of a stressed-out driver) was firing into our own Marines over on one flank. Taylor ran out to the tank and tried to yell instructions to the driver through the phone on the back.
This did not work and another hill-shaking cannon-round from the tank tore over into our Marine positions. Taylor slammed the phone down on the back of the tank and, then, slowly, as if on a stroll in the garden, walked out to the tank's front. This was despite the horror of raging combat. Unhurried, he raised his hands and arms up in the air and proceeded to give the tank- driver hand and arm signals to get him straightened out. He was as nonchalant as if the tank were a beer truck back home in some parking lot.
That done, and finding himself still alive, then, he came fire-balling back into the shell-hole beside me.
It was my suspicion that the Japanese riflemen in the caves must have been so amazed at what they were seeing that they decided to let him off rather than kill him. The Japanese appreciated that kind of out-of-this-world fearlessness.
Here is the point of that account. As a new lieutenant at the time on a front-line observation tour of my own, looking for a kid brother reported killed, I identified myself to him. Then I cautioned him, in an official tone, that he could reasonably be a little more protective of his own life. As he rose to leave, he responded respectfully: "No, Lt., that is not the way we keep score out here."
I did not completely understand. I began to see the point later when Jackson taught me his giant "save-us others," lesson, and then again when I saw one young Jack McCorkle smile just after he had saved a pinned down group by taking-out a cave with a bazooka but knowing he would be shot at once by snipers.
It went on like that. But to understand what you were seeing, you did have to see it again and again before finally, you could understand what Taylor had meant. We human beings keep score in life by a formula that puts species-preservation first. But being a game of moral feelings, not intellect, it cannot be understood intellectually without better emotional measuring methods.
Concluding point: That dual life-value is the theoretical foundation beneath this new science of moral education. You can rely on it at least in general, even if not specifically; so it is still a science. It has worked under all sorts of conditions while being implemented in the Cold War, in part, by countless assistants all across the Middle East and Asia. And I am sure we can now make it work in peace-time if the threats of division and national decline are such that we can see and admit they are there.
Does this mean that we have scientific proof of the existence of the species-preserving drive, itself, in us human beings?
Scientific proof needs to be replicated. I do not recommend more Iwo Jima experiments. Best to view it, specifically, as a theory until their are somewhat easier testing situations.
The type scientific proof that we need now, I presume, is from electronic brain research that shows the presence of this self-giving, species-protecting emotion. As the possible primary source of morality, it merits primary attention. The neural scientists must figure out how to probe for it in the brain and exactly where to look. Since the drive apparently exists in most animals including even in the insects and reptiles (protecting eggs), I suppose that suggests that it will be found in the so-called lower parts rather than in any part that is exclusively human or even mammalian as has seen suggested.
My suggestion that this program provides a science of moral education means this: Using the method outlined here, one can predictably change negative attitudes to positive in cross-group relations and thereby stop conflicts such as those in the Middle East and Bosnia as well as in race- relations globally. Such accomplishments, using this method, can be replicated by others. That makes it a science, and probably our most important one.
That brings us to the key matter of how we applied the method in detail. Whether the species- preserving tendency is in the genes or exclusively the result of conditioning, it still works just the same for measurable conflict-resolution. That is good enough science for this moment in history.
The expanded species-preserving value, that we introduced into the Cold War, saved lives. By the "expanded species-preservation value" I mean this:
1. In the Cold-War programs, usually considerably less was on the line than immediate life- giving to save lives. So those less-demanding situations did not automatically trigger our self- giving, other-supporting emotions. The slow, long-range death-threats from poverty and sanitation faced by the foreigners triggered more negative than sympathetic emotions from our Americans, just as the ghetto people seem to now.
2. However, we were still able to stimulate that felt duty on that less demanding scene through stories illustrating nobility in combat as well as through those stories, above, illustrating the closely related respect for the equal life-value.
3. This rekindling of those noble inclinations had to be accomplished in and among our ugly Americans after they had been numbed by the soft, complaining, wealthy, materialistic post-WWII American society. It was similar to people being pulled back from "going to pot" by some experience such as getting into a good exercise program. Moral stimulation works pretty much the same but more so because it works through that stronger emotion -- the species-preservation inclination.
4. The decisive pay-off was that we were able to inspire men to show respect to previously denigrated people. That was the decisive Cold-War accomplishment because that was what all of the people in the Third World wanted most from us according to their own testimony.
And that is the general social atmosphere needed to help stop growing world terrorism. I had to seek out and try to reform a few of the worst individual ugly Americans all through the Cold War.
They are the so-called "crazies." But they also expressed strong, sincere, but mistaken convictions that "everyone" approved of their loud, vocal hatred of the foreign people. Whenever I could convince a group of their friends to admit to them that they were wrong about that, they would tend to cry. The few I saw were quite young and fit a pattern.
The pacifying species-preserving drive, being possibly the strongest tendency in human nature when activated, can more than off-set the modern obsession with SELF. The latter fad was coming into the Cold-War out of the so-called "ethical relativism" from back home. It came shouting and screaming into the Cold War in the persons of recently graduated college-educated draftees. We managed it easily with the power of the group. Two of the sharpest of those brainy young men whom I encountered were strong left-wingers (card-carrying Communists, they said). But we converted them (into human-equality defenders versus the ridiculous advocacy of Communist economic equality).
Species-preservation (especially for loved-ones) is accepted by the masses as the basic role, or natural function, of that self-giving inclination in us individuals. It was the strength of its motivating power that constitutes its life-controlling significance. That is, it seems to be the source of our maximum happiness through moral satisfaction and feelings of nobility if we rise to that lifestyle. The most respected elders in the Bolivian, Mexican, Turkish, Korean, and Thai villages told me that it also provides, besides happiness in life, a deep serenity as death approaches -- that is, a serenity for having served the children.
However, that species-preserving drive, when activated, seems to be so natural, so deep in our human nature, like breathing, that it is obviously hard to understand when less is at stake than the lives of our loved-ones or in-groups.
Remember, learning how to activate it when the mere improvement of cross-group attitudes were at stake is what gave us the first decisive breakthrough in the Cold War (in Turkey). Also, remember, we activated it through the Hunting story that emphasized the peasants' demand for respect for their lives and the lives of their children.
Seeing this species-serving drive in action for these smaller stakes than actual life-saving, clarified for us the nature of the long lost Natural Law that scholars have always sensed exists, but could not see its working details.
What has been obscure in the Natural Law is the penalty for disobedience that seems necessary to justify its identification as a Law. Where is that penalty? Well, first, those men (boys) on Iwo Jima whom we kept from stressing out thanked me for not sending them "back" to the medics. (It made me feel guilty because I would have done so had we had a few more men.) However, one of them told me later that he would rather have been killed than sent back. There is that side, the penalty from human nature's internal natural law for not being able to serve. It also explains the demoralization of the jobless and many welfare recipients.
The Natural Law's Rewards. However, I saw that this natural law works probably more off of a natural reward system than it does off of penalties. The better men: Taylor, McCorkle, Mercer, Jackson, Johnson, and several others whose names I never heard were functioning in an almost work-a-day status of calm, thoughtful, but moral, giant-like serenity. It was as if their own lives were not in jeopardy. They seemed to rise above that fact in their business-like protection of the others. They strongly reminded me of Dad's behavior back home when he was protecting us kids from traffic on a busy street -- in between us and the cars. I, myself, began to sense this feeling of nobility a little after I began to learn that I could actually lead in a way that saved lives. You get so involved in that rewarding achievement, that you actually stop thinking about yourself.
It did not feel like bravery at all. You were just extremely busy doing something of totally spiritual/like importance.
It occurred to me and shocked me that it made the Golden Rule look like a formula for shirkers.
This "other-life" protecting attitude, out beyond the call of duty, was not something that you expected from others in return. It was more like the opposite -- something you did out of the knowledge that you were suddenly granted the satisfying status of that so-called unnoticed moral giant, walking the earth for a moment.
When I shouted at my men not to shoot a prisoner who was trying to surrender, I yelled, "Don't shoot! Who can talk him in?"
It was my best shooter, the Texan, Jackson, who quickly took over. This put him out at the front end of a deadly dangerous area. With such men, it was like they were closely connected to the rest, but as on the high end of a teeter totter. They had to take that exposed position to allow the others better safety down at the low end.
When McCorkle went up over a stone wall with a large, clumsy bazooka and out into full exposure (to his certain death) to get the sniper who was picking us off, he actually motioned with his hand for us to get further down instead of gawking. When Jackson raised himself half way up to "talk-in" that prisoner, he exposed himself to more sniper-fire. Yet, he, too, glanced back with that same protective attitude that said "Get down, you guys." Taylor had done it when he left the shell-hole knowing that his sudden exposure might draw fire on me and another Marine in that cover.
That was the beauty of that experience on Iwo, the Marine's worst-ever battle. The awe- inspiring heroics were so forthcoming from each of the men who were both highly competent shooters and in full command of their mental faculties that I could see these details that are not apparent even in most warfare. I did not see it in Vietnam where death did not hover in both the easy vision of day-light as well as the shadows of darkness.
Those actions of such men in combat have always been recognized, officially, as "above and beyond the call of duty." They are that for certain. But what I saw was clearly something other than that. Something different. They were a part of what looked like an apparently NATURALLY FELT DUTY in those who had the competence (knowledge and ability) to die, personally, with life-saving consequences, for the group.
It was as a result of these experiences that I first saw it was probably possible to train most young military men up to a status of warrior/knights, far above the status of the so-called "grunts," "shit-birds," and other denigrating names often used in reference to our enlisted men. Even after they started going into shell-shock, I could actually "pull them out" by quick re-training right there in combat. I used three things: (1) The species- (other-life-) protecting appeal, (2) slap-fighting with them (gradually letting them win), and (3) having them shoot their weapons into the air or out into the ocean.
Competence and life-protecting morality are the two most decisive factors. Now, you see why I pushed the Marine Corps for the STRIKE (the light boxing sparring) to help accustom young Marines, through much exposure to in-your-face violence. It does not have to be heavy, and it must be safe or it cannot last. But to be effective, it must be in the face, I found, and they must get through it laughing from their success.
Many Marine confidants have asked why I have been so fanatical about this lesson to the point of sacrificing significant contracts with the military. The answer that has been too embarrassing to admit is this. There are few if any general officers alive who lived through the likes of Iwo Jima for long weeks. Of the dozen or so front-line rifle-platoons that I visited on Iwo as early as on the fourth day, all the lieutenants had already been hit. I did not see one left. Even most of the top non-coms were gone in those rifle platoons. So, how could our military-training institutions even know about this? I learned it because I was not a trained officer in traditional military leadership. (I was on the boxing teams while other prospective officers were training.)
So, in combat, once I got there, in the absence of other officers, up front, I watched what the common-folk, natural fighters were doing -- the experienced hunters -- and watched and watched. Their unofficial (Audie Murphy) type leadership was not the same as the little official leadership- training I had had. It was individual leadership without seeming to include signals that men followed. It was more like with a line of wild-bore hunters, where everyone had to be quiet. It, too, took the land, but there was no arm-waving. Casualties were fewer. They had to be on Iwo; we were out of fighters. One day, there was no "jump off" at all; I thought maybe we had lost.
Training for a Higher Plateau of Civilization. Is it clear that I am not talking only about, or even primarily about, military training here? I am talking about our modern need to build, or rebuild, a strong moral nation as grassroots individual leaders by example but en masse for a peaceful world. The quality of our military personnel is just a necessary part of that total picture. We cannot have a tough military without a tough civilian society. There is already talk of mercenaries for our military. In fact, right now, it is mainly poor boys recruited more to get something for themselves materially, than it is to become protector/defenders, or even fighting-men.
My early hot-war lessons led to the realization, later, that our Cold-War "ugly" Americans could be trained out of their culture-shock (not as bad as shell-shock) through activation of the species-preserving Dual Life-Value plus some physical-courage training. With that, I strongly suspected that they would be ready to protect, rather than demean, the helpless overseas peoples and respect their women. And once I was taught how to teach it, it worked.
Something similar will now work on the home-front where the modern chaotic changes are causing dangerous distrust, disrespect or "dissing" all around for each other in the various racial, gender, and economic groups.
Is this a little revolutionary? Of course, but so what? Almost every man and his sister is now saying that the problems, too, are revolutionary. So why not the solutions?
Here is another story, or real-life values-account of the type you must use to activate the secular (earthly) moral-values. Intellectual discussions and explanations will not do it. Alone, they can make things worse by giving con-men and hypocrites their necessary verbal tools for deception.
Robert Heinlein, the great science fiction writer, in a graduation address to a class at his alma mater, the U.S. Naval Academy, told this true story from his childhood: One day while strolling through the great park in Kansas City, he and his mother saw a young woman get her foot caught in the tracks at a railroad crossing. The husband desperately tried to free her as a train came charging down on them from around a curve and far to fast to stop before the crossing.
As Heilein and his mother watched that terrifying tragedy, a hobo suddenly appeared "walking the tracks." He joined the husband's futile effort to pull the woman free. But tug and twist as they did, they could not get her out.
The train killed them all three.
Heinlein observed in his description of the vagabond's effort that he did not so much as look up to consider his own escape. Clearly, it was his intention, either to save the woman or to die trying.
Heinlein concluded his account of the nameless hobo's action with this comment: "This is the way a man dies," but he then added, "and this is the way a man lives."
In our Cold-War programs, both overseas and here in America, we always asked our audiences: What did Heinlein mean, This is the way a man lives? He died!
The audiences could seldom fully explain their acknowledged appreciation of Heinlein's words. But they always knew that it was not a slip of the tongue. They always realized that the idea had a solid meaning for all of our lives. Full discussions usually spelled-out the conclusion that it is probably the happiest formula for our lives if we live a generous, noble life (for benefit of the human species) rather than to lead a selfish one even though, in some cases, possibly a longer one.
Is it in your permanent memory why the stories are needed? Recall that moral/ethical values can be taught (activated) only with emotional impact -- and not through mere intellectual understanding.
For the emotional impact, they must be taught, (1) through all those years of childhood experience in the family, or (2) (our Cold-War finding) from materials that, (a) teach the basic life- value (as the only ROOT-VALUE that really works wonders), and (b) that delivers the emotional impact from that life-or-death choice, vicariously felt.
Not Just Marines. Perhaps you can see why you will need this Heinlein story in addition to the stories from combat. A few persons may suspect that Marines are trained to act heroically thereby explaining the accounts from Iwo Jima. That nameless hobo upsets that fallacy.
For your additional knowledge, you might need this item, too. In all of my combined years in the Marines or in training Marines, I never heard anyone encourage heroics above and beyond the call of duty. But I did hear decorated officers advise against it: (1) against the excited heroics that are likely to get you killed without benefit to the others, and (2) against going over grenades to save others. Why not?
Because of the way grenades explode up and out into a shower. The advice was to set the example of diving flat onto the ground, under the shower, and not over the grenade. I never worked with grenades, so I don't know about this for certain.
The Basic Point of Human Nobility. The species-preserving drive (at least for loved-ones) is, in the first place, probably either "wired-in" or almost automatically "conditioned in" to a degree in us humans. So (1), being that strong, it can be activated further out to all humanity. And (2), this can be done justifiably for people to try experimentally to see if they want to activate it further for their own happier lives that it always seems to provide.
The most angry challenge to this Dual Life-Value that I encountered during the Cold War was from a military officer who said he was also a psychologist and follower of Ayne Rand. He insisted in front of a key audience that all heroics in combat or anywhere are all culturally conditioned behavior with no possible natural roots. He yelled, "Such self-giving actions could not possibly be natural against that well-known first law of nature, self-preservation. They are only culturally conditioned in!"
He made this unusual attack on one of my orientations at a highly sensitive time. I was re- educating some men to improve their behavior toward the Okinawans at a time when threatening violence was at our gates.
Fortunately, I was ready (next entry). You, also, need to be, even though you are not teaching instinctive human nature other than as one possibility.
In his book, African Genesis, Robert Ardrey tells a life-and-death story of some baboons and an old leopard. Baby baboons seem to be the favorite food of the big cats. So, when a troop of baboons is foraging, they stay in a military formation with the biggest males out front where they can quickly gang-up on and try to drive off any hungry leopard that they chance to encounter.
In Ardrey's true account, one of the big cats had surprised a troop of baboons just as it was breaking up its formation to make camp for the night. The huge predator calmly surveyed the terrain, picked his evening meal, probably a baby-baboon, and gathered himself for his explosive attack. He arrogantly ignored two old male baboons cautiously edging along an overhanging cliff just above him. Two baboons are far too few to cope with the powerful slashing fang-and-claws of the big spotted professional baboon-killer.
Nonetheless, that evening, the two males dropped on the leopard in a suicidal attack. One bit at his spine while the other tore at his throat while hanging to his neck from below. He instantly killed them both. He disemboweled, with his hind claws, the one at his throat; while simultaneously turning his head and biting to death the one on his back.
But as Ardrey reported, it was too late. The dying disemboweled baboon on the leopard's neck had hung on just long enough and had bitten through to the juggler vein. And as Ardrey said, somewhat in triumph for all the underdogs of the world, a society of animals settled down safely to sleep that night.
After reading that story to the audience that listened with pin-dropping silence, I looked at the Captain who was standing near the back of the room and asked, Captain, can you explain how those two old male baboons got so well culturally conditioned?
The crowd exploded in laughter. They turned to look at the red-faced captain. Some even stood up to get a good look. He turned around and left.
1. There is only one core value in human nature -- the Dual (self & species) Life-Value. All else is relative to that value; "good" if it supports the human species; bad if it doesn't. Test it in your own daily actions.
2. Nature, or almost automatic-conditioning, (take your choice) seems to give the edge to the species-preservation over self in those individuals who are competent to save other lives by fighting for them or else, for another example, by working themselves into early graves for their children. The latter activity, by parents, was taken for granted during the Great Depression because it was a necessity that was so easily seen -- to save the children. They get hungry fast. It still is taken for granted in the traditional villages of the world (where I have visited).
That is, the species-preserving side of this life-value (however it got there) is so strong that human beings will give their own lives to save others.
3. It is so strong that it can motivate people up to this species-protecting action even after they have denounced all of their cultural values (as Mercer had done just the night before).
4. Similarly, it can motivate individuals into action even after they have started to stress-out to the point of having lost interest in trying to save themselves (as the two young Marines -- and later, others -- had).
5. The stimulation and strong activation of this self-giving, species-protecting value creates feelings of happiness up through nobility. Hence, its "education" and activation is worthwhile and welcomed reliably. (Once activated, it was pleasing to tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of previously Ugly Americans with whom I met in those long years of Cold-War programs.)
In closing this most important section on the activation of humankind's earthly moral/ethical values, I want to make certain I stress adequately the power that activating this Dual Life-Value provides. It seems to constitute the motivational base for a general peace-time education that can promote social problem-solving at any level: local, national, or international.
We found, late in our overseas programs -- after we had substantially perfected the values-based educational supplement -- that we could inspire most of the ugly Americans in a community, military or civilian,, to start living, to varying degrees, by the following mottoes:
Wherever I walk, everyone is safer; (or to at least this:)
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
And hardest, perhaps, this: From today on, every time I walk into my house, I will make it a happier place for every member, no matter what -- and I will do the same at my place of work. (And why not, if it makes one's own life happier as well as improving productivity?)
When I saw the movie, Star Wars,, and first heard the term "the force," it was a finger-snapper.
The poetic author had perceived this "internal life force" that is bigger than self. It also clarified for me the secret of "the great literature," from such men as Hugo, Tolstoi, and the author of The Tale of Two Cities. The poets, those great writers, have enjoyed the feel for life's most basic values. This is probably what humanity has always called wisdom. And that is why the books are recognized as great.
In our classes we often refer to the dual life value or the positive life force also by a third name, the Balanced Life-Value. I am leaving it fluid to see what further experience and research suggest. You know it is not my intuitive theory. It is only my reading of human nature from experience. So it is best left open for additional readings.
Along this line of considering general guidelines and mottoes, here is the most helpful general concept that eventually clarified itself to us. Sometimes with a community, a group, or an individual that was mired down in terrible troubles, other than for stopping outright violence, we just turned completely away from discussing those negatives. The truth is, at first, as amateurs, we recognized those troubles as far too horrendous for us to even try to address. So, in place of trying to attack them, as hopeless, we simply started a positive program. Soon, we found that the demanding positive programs caused the negative problems to simply go away.
That is how we first learned for certain that every child, even those in wheel chairs, need a demanding physical education program. They need to be aware of their own muscle tone and their own possibility of physical improvement no matter how insignificant compared to anyone else. The trend here in America of killing off daily physical-education programs is a very deadly business.
For example, with one group of teenage boys and girls "into drugs," we decided against even a drug-discussion program of any kind. Rather, we started a remedial high school with a very demanding -- all positive -- day-long curriculum: a moral/physical competitive practice that brought butterflies in the stomach, every day, with the light sparring, STRIKE), also exciting, competitive fast- (imagery-) learning, exciting student acting (drama) in every class, student-choice reading in class, and weight-lifting with proud weekly measurement. From TV, our youth are now hooked on excitement (their own adrenaline), it seems. A female psychologist from San Diego State tipped us off to that fact.
That new exciting school stopped the drug use even including the few who were into heroin. (There were not enough of these to prove anything, but we took one of our few off of it for five years. He then reverted over love-troubles. My suspicion is that it takes a religious conversion to really stop that heroin, permanently, in most.) But we put several of the children into college, the military, good jobs, and marriage.
Action Programs. In the Far East, after some open Communist opposition arose, we learned to reinforce the basic morality message with these brief "get involved" action programs. We would ask an audience of 1,000 men to take a 30 minute seminar-break and walk around among the local people while role-playing the action of "running for mayor." Instead of ignoring those humble, earthy folk, we asked the Americans simply, (a) to nod to the local nationals with a quick give-away greeting, (b) maybe add a little "lip-smile," (c) (beyond belief) to salute their officers, and then (d) to come back to our speaker's podium and report their reactions, orally, good or bad.
The reactions from those previously hard-talking, unbelievably vulgar, mostly teenage American boys was nothing short of a quick little social revolution. Some were embarrassed about their strongly favorable reactions. Some just shook their heads in disbelief and wanted to shake my hand. Some spoke of a "new freedom." In the very first of those experiments, a young soldier was almost crying because a foreign officer had wrecked his bike from looking back in surprise while trying to return the salute.
Common-Folk Nobility. Later, on written questionnaire-responses, the men reported that once they built-up their knowledge and courage (with the self-defense skills) to live that way, it not only felt better than being "withdrawn," "ugly," or "not involved," it "did feel downright ennobling."
One, recalling my words from a Vietnam program, said, "It does take you beyond the Golden Rule because you are ready to risk your life protecting people who could not possibly defend you." Others said in various ways, It makes life exciting every day even though you don't usually act any differently. It is just that you are always watching, ready, and willing. That's exciting. It is by far the best life possible. Not uncommon was also this pleasing reaction. "I used to be a little ashamed of being a soldier, especially when I saw people avoiding me. Now I am proud. It gives me an excuse to be nice as you said as the protector/defender."
After forty years, here is my favorite response from a man in an ongoing training-program because it clearly revealed an escape from the rat-race (of insatiable materialism that apparently has helped bring down all the previous, great leading nations). I call this my program response from, THE LITTLE MORAL GIANT:
Hell, Professor, I don't even need to get rich anymore. I am secretly in charge now everywhere I go. I look after people if they want it. I am never out of place anymore even if dressed wrinkled. I am now above that foolishness. I walk quietly, but if something goes wrong, I am the reliable one present. I can't wait to get home and teach my son. You actually do become one of the moral giants walking the earth and it becomes a friendly place. This is no matter that you are not a stud and that you don't earn much.
Here is a biggest thing with me. The presence of a woman in a store, alone, you know, like passing you in the isle or passing me on the street used to be a problem. What to think or where to put my eyes and sexy mind. No longer. I see her and I pop my mind right onto your advice. Without ever looking at her a second time, I say to myself for her. O.K., little sister, you are safe now while I am in here. I also love your guess about the best legacy for the easiest dying. Make certain you leave the world a better place just because you lived. Man! professor, that is something else.
That concludes the first four decisive Cold-War discoveries that gave us the foundation for our conflict-resolving moral/ethical programs. Developed gradually from operational research programs, they seem to be effective with individuals, groups, or institutions.
The other six crucial discoveries, needed either for success, or greater success, in one or more programs, but not all, I'll just summarize. Full presentation will be available soon on the Net in our corporate college program.
Human nature has these three main parts:
1. A mental/emotional control-system, (please find it on the chart)
2. a self-development/self-preserving side that contains our physical, mental, & artistic values, or felt natural-rights for development, (please find it) &
3. the species-preserving side that is made up, mainly, of the "self-giving" moral/ethical values, or felt natural-duties to loved-ones, including all humanity.
|VALUES (FELT rights)||(FELT duties to loved-ones, in-groups, etc.)|
|A. PHYSICAL VALUES||A. MORAL VALUES|
|Life, Defense, etc.||Love: "Greater love hath no man...
that he lay down his life
for a friend."
Charity: I feel I must give; they Equality, Freedom, etc. need it much more than I.
Honor/Loyalty: I gave my word.
Courage: You will hurt them only over my dead body
Work : ( to produce for Fast learning, Humor, the family & humanity.) Art expression, etc. Etc.
|B. MENTAL VALUES|| B. SOCIAL VALUES
|C. ARTISTIC VALUES|| |
The great moral values (love, charity, loyalty, honor, work, courage, etc.) are the various emotions that express, in various detail, the self-giving and self-risking species-preserving drive. This makes them all parts of human nature's scientific moral content as detailed expressions of the species-preserving drive.
That chart shows the developmental needs for the happiest lifestyle. We never explain it else it gets boring as "too school-like." However, even the least scholarly dropouts enjoy discussing it in their own small groups to determine two things: (1) How does each entry on the chart help "the good," meaning human survival. And (2) how can each entry misfire and become bad, meaning life-destructive? We give one big example: The species-preserving drive, itself, has always been used by self-serving leaders to fool their citizens into aggressive, rather than defensive, wars.
Like the species-preserving drive, other strongly life-supporting values (sub-values) have been corrupted by many persons for the exploitation of others. Most troublesome in many countries has been the false interpretations of political freedom and economic freedom. Even though it took, for me, the long comparison with other cultures, they are both terribly misused even in America.
Politically Correct "Freedom" -- Four Serious Fallacies.
1. Because we have always been a new nation with open frontiers and apparently unlimited resources, our people have had neither the time nor the need for much philosophizing, that is, not since the initial 1776 life-and-death struggle. Since then, freedom, almost alone, has been emphasized. And the high-lighting of freedom does not lend itself to talk of freedom's own basic roots, in human equality. If we are not equal in value, as lives, then slavery and exploitation for the less than equal, as with work and food animals, is perhaps justified.
Yet, that more basic "human quality" has always been an unspoken assumption (a strong assumption in our courts of common law).
2. Open frontiers with new distant land to settle also made "rugged individualistic freedom" the most useful philosophy. That, too, made the need for the philosophy of cooperation doubly difficult to emphasize -- even though we always used it almost automatically, locally, during the Great Depression to "pitch in" to help one another.
3. Now, however, the historically sudden closing of frontiers, the depleting of resources, and the multicultural crowding have changed that tolerable values-fuzziness forever. We now need a more natural (species-supporting) guiding philosophy of unity and cooperation. That cooperation and unity is assisted by more emphasis on the felt equal worth of each human life. That equality is above and beyond all measurable qualities such as strength, intelligence, or money. But remember, most of us need to feel its confirmed validity being acknowledged down, socially, to us in order, in turn, to admit its validity down further, socially, to others.
4. Perhaps the following is the most dangerous fallacy regarding the relationship between freedom and equality. It is much used for social exploitation. It is the assertion that freedom, our most vocal value, is downright incompatible with the belief in human equality that fosters respect and cooperation. This fallacy was strengthened by the fear of Communism.
Question: But doesn't the belief in "equality" mean equal sharing no matter who produces the most? No, that widely voiced assertion has come from two sources: One, the fact that a few small religious groups practiced such spiritual unity. But that was out of material indifference; not competitive desires. The second source was mere propaganda. In my walking travels though the world, including many Communist countries and Scandinavia, I never encountered one person who did not believe in extra material rewards for extra production. (I got tried of being laughed at for asking.)
The facts, as I find them, that refute those false negatives are these: (1) Jefferson did not dream up the idea of human equality as many Americans believe. He was a student of the Scottish enlightenment in which Francis Hutcheson established the meaning of equality as the equally felt value in each right to life. (2) Next, the French Revolution saw "liberty" as not only compatible with equality but also with fraternity.
License in Freedom's Name. The reason you need to know these arguments against the idea that freedom is incompatible with, and superior to, human equality, is this: Usually, I did not encounter it as a philosophical argument, but rather as a political one cited loudly to justify not freedom but rather license and exploitation of the weak, especially economically. It was used against the peoples of the Third World quite often, and it enraged them.
There was a second strong ideological fallacy that was a favorite of the overseas ugly Americans and the local "robber barons." They used the fallacy to oppose my training of the common-folk Americans that all governments (ruling classes) should be more considerate of their own hard- working suffering peasants. We needed to foster that American democratic ideal in order to help enlist the peasants' opposition to communism and to encourage their friendship toward us Americans -- maybe even to hide us or protect us, at times, from the bad guys.
The Meaning of a Free Economy. This fallacy says that our non-Communist government is an entirely "free economy." The would-be exploiters would not even admit that corporate welfare, taxes, tariffs, interest-rates, or the creation of money by the government represented human control over the economy and therefore over the way wealth is distributed to a degree..
That idea, still fostered in America, results in placing the upper part of the economic system above the value of human life, itself. How so?
The falsely tagged "free-economy" rests on the proposition that so many unemployed persons are needed at its base. This use of unemployed human beings for an economy's base I surmise violates one of philosophy's most respected principles: Kant's categorical imperative against using people for means toward other ends -- other people's wealth in this case.
Natural Base for Racism. The most constantly troublesome sub-value in human nature is our small-group nature. It constitutes a natural base for racism and all ethnocentrism. This means, unlike we have believed, we do not have to be taught to hate; we are almost there by nature by being, emotionally, small-group beings. It is equally accurate to say that we have to be educated to rise above our small-group nature in order not to become ethnocentric or racist.
In other words, we also have to be taught not to hate. And remember, this requires good emotional development. Be careful there. That does not mean through the heavy-handed touch- feel approach once tried with disastrous results in the military. It means through good stories of courage and enlightenment whose intellectual content carry emotional impact toward the additional happiness of being able to adventure beyond the protective apron-strings of one's own race or class.
The up-side of admitting our small-group nature includes two facts: (1) When you encounter racists, you are dealing not so much with people who have become deeply unchangeably bad. They are persons who are bad (life destructive) more so out of lack of good moral education; our fault, as educators. So, that can be fixed through good moral and factual education. One of the most hard-core racists I ever met (one who invited me outside to fight, in Vietnam) became one of the strongest anti-racists educators in the programs. Why did he change?
I agreed to fight him in front of the class only if he would, first, hear me out through the week of lessons. He was a huge tough C.B. (Navy construction specialist). At the end of the week, he told the class that he could go back to Louisiana and start teaching some "good sense, the dual life- value that includes everybody in." (He was about twice my size, and half my age. So, I did some careful teaching that week.)
Here is that second virtue of admitting our small-group nature: It was, to me, the most startling discovery in this endless Cold-War study of racism/elitism. When you encounter a person who is (a) not one of our few truly dangerous or oppressive racists or elitists (only perhaps a 10% to 15% group), and (b) also not even still one of our average, local culture-bound Americans (the huge, perhaps 75% to 80% of us), in this third unusual high-type person, you have encountered one of the moral giants that the wiser old GIs call "something else." These fully enlightened ones, are truly the moral giants of this still primitive earth. They are people who have somehow, always quietly, started the exploration of the civilized-universe of the future. From the few elders in the coffee houses of France, Greece, Turkey, and Korea who have tried to describe this unusual, humble but strong, personality, it has reminded me of the role played by Tyrone Power in the movie, The Razor's Edge. I keep meaning to read the book.
Academic Grade-Improvement and Confidence. The "mother lode" for confidence-raising in academics comes from a still little-known magic-like ability in the so-called artistic brain. That ability is to improve thinking and memory skills through imagery.
We taught this skill to our "hopeless dropouts" as apart of the daily curriculum. After a few months, we invited some college professors to our store-front school for demonstration of our holistic approach to education. We played party-games between the visiting professors and the dropouts. The professors chose the academic topics for some academic learning-speed contests: the periodic tables of chemistry, events with dates for a world-history framework, vocabulary words, et cetera.
After every "poor dumb dropout" in the school clobbered every visiting teacher, no one ever again persuaded those children that they were not smart.
Following is a news item on that school from one of the highly respected news reporters on the San Diego Union staff, March 2, 1964.
Martha Many Grey Horses' eyes sparkled yesterday as she watched a group of former...school dropouts perform educational tasks that would have made any teacher proud.
"This is what we need," she said.
They believe they have their answer at the National University's (the Humphrey's) school for dropouts.... "We have searched through many populations from India to Africa to find ways of addressing the problems...but found none until we came here...."
Students stepped forward to memorize a list of 21 disassociated objects called out by the audience and they repeated them without error.... (Try it.)
"This program teaches respect, it teaches confidence, gentility, enhancing life, and prosperity. It teaches how to live the good life with personal values. It is very good," she said.
(The Humphreys won the San Diego County's outstanding awards in both education and corrections for their schools. They then accepted the challenge to teach the system in Canada, for the Indian children. Despite the crushing opposition encountered there to school reform and to American school reformers in Canada, that program was evaluated, officially, as "the educational breakthrough of the decade...in Canada.")
After you have a handle on holistic education, in general, you must turn your attention back to the human inclination toward the small-group. Our ears, eyes, and voice boxes are most suitable for the small group. We are not herd animals. In large groups, we still tend to bunch-off into small groups of seven or fewer persons. (Check it out in any large standing crowd where there is not a front-stage attraction.)
Also for a million years of rural tribal existence, survival probably depended or strong allegiance to the local in-group and to strict obedience to the family and clan leaders.
Here, recall, is the downside of that. "Small groupism" converts too easily into narrow-minded racism and elitism. Hence, the ancient small-group characteristic that was probably helpful for all the isolated human groups (and thereby, the species) has long outlived its primitive usefulness. It has become a life-destructive, rather than a life-sustaining, forces. So, how do we now manage its hurtful expressions in racism and ethnocentrism?
That is, how do we solve that historic brain scourge?
As a teenager in the Great Depression, I joined the foreign merchant marines before we went into WWII; then, the Marines for the war; then, the forty years of Cold-War struggles. I have been around the world slowly six time and lived for over a year in nine countries plus several months in as many more. This included time in some real jungles inhabited by natives with whispers about head-hunting in their past. No one could tell me how recently.
I did none of that travel for any respectable reason other than as a somewhat irresponsible wanderlust seeking answers to the human devastation of the Great Depression. It started with the excitement of hooking a few freight trains as an adolescent and became an obsession. A real handle on the glimmer of an answer was not forthcoming until Iwo Jima. But the constant travel among friends in low places had to made it clear that the answer to peace was not yet in.
One of the most troublesome lessons from those experiences is this: Except for a very small, maybe 1% who are attracted to opposites, we humans, all over this globe, prefer things that are "the same as back home, the same as us." We prefer people who look like us, talk like us, walk like us, and are like us.
Consequently, after fifty years of experimentation with diversity management, we have found that nothing short of this values-based, holistic education can overcome the brain-scourge of racism, elitism, and ethnocentrism. Accomplishing that goal, is the Big Leagues of Leadership for a satisfactory civilization.
That social sickness from the streets of Bombay to Knob Hill in America is similar to the common cold. Its germs are present in all of us from our normal small-groupism. What makes it worse than the common cold, though, are these three features: (1) it is a killer, (2) it is most easily stimulated to violence in many of the (insecure) poorest among us, but (3) its worst carriers are in our leadership circles who denounce it publicly, but exemplify its worst, elitist example. It is truly the killer-scourge of the earth as well as of history. Speaking from the experience of seeing its constant resulting threat of violence and suffering, globally, it is the syphilis of the mind -- the seedbed of most violence.
If we Americans are going to solve our growing divisions and avoid possible national decline, and then, properly fill the leadership role for spreading real democracy -- that respects human equality -- it is best we start with the admission that we are small group beings. Then we can stop saying that we have to stop the racists, bigots, greed mongers, et cetera in order to build a peaceful future for our children.
Those obvious bad guys are not the basic problem. We good guys (with our deep, probably genetic small-group inclinations) are the problem. We are the failing leaders.
How can I say that?
Because when we managed to help those overwhelming masses of culture-shocked, troublesome, small-groupish good guys get themselves turned around to moral respect, physical competence, and artistic good humor, the bad guys shut up and we won the Cold War. It was a test on a global scale.
We now have to turn to ourselves, all of us good guys, again, and commit ourselves to rising to the role of the warrior/knights or humble moral giants and then lead America and the world accordingly. We cannot eliminate our small-groupism which looks terribly like racism and elitism.
As individuals, we have to rise above it IN A POSITIVE PERSONAL PROGRAM and show our fellow citizens and the world how to do that in action and few if any words. Each of us has to educate ourselves up to a point of at least a modicum of our genetic species-preserving nobility. This is safe. If the genetic-like tendency is not there, it will not activate. But if it is there, and does activate, we will feel better for it. So one cannot lose.
As we feel we are ready to help lead, each of us most daring whites (the only race I can speak for) we must start arranging individual visits to, or friendship in, the black, brown, and Oriental- tan families, functions, and churches, if and when we find we are welcome. This, of course, is not as outside gawkers, but as inside guests with up-front admissions that we are trying to rise above the historic brain-scourge and its roots in small-groupism. It is similar to going abroad as our best representatives for overseas scholarships, the Peace Corps, and Marine embassy assignments. The only way is through us individuals at the grassroots. It takes courage even to think about it; doesn't it?
With the best (morally strongest) people -- rich or poor -- from our domestic racial groups, we can start regaining our unity, integration, and national strength in the way, and to the degree, that it works best.
No one, as yet, knows all the details to that answer. We have never before faced the depth of our small-groupism and its easy corruption into racism. I would suggest some primary guidelines:
1. One thing we know now is this: We will not solve it by dumping it on the backs of children. It is a grown-up problem.
2. It will not be served by pretending that there is not a huge cross-race sexual jealousy to contend with. That, too, must be dealt with carefully. I learned that the hard way by losing that huge (two-million-dollar) contract, mentioned above.
3. Second only to the hatred of our Ugly American name-calling in the Cold War, the strongest hatred toward us (voiced from southern Italy to Vietnam) was in our disrespect for "their women." So, as I mentioned, it was not new at Tailhook (which not personally, but culturally, probably showed a greater cultural weakness than Aberdeen. My foreign friends from the stronger cultures understand Aberdeen, but not Tailhook. One from a still tough culture, who loves America, and our Navy, told me that when he first read about it, he lost his breakfast).
4. We cannot guess, or reason, our way through these Big Leagues of Leadership: Race Relations. The Cold-War's proven approach gives us a chance.
Attitude studies for constant experimentation, we found, offers the only possible hope for success as the "end-game" in this Big Leagues of Leadership.
The plan below presents the mental reinforcement needed for a moral attack on the Brain Scourge. (Get professional help with the attitude studies if you can afford it, and be deeply concerned about "tact" else you cause problems rather than solve them with the responses to these studies. Research -- sometimes including thousands of pages of reading and hundreds of miles of walking in the different cultures, seeking an answer, sometimes to one troublesome cultural fact, took most of my time.)
I. Collect a list of prioritized reasons for dislikes from every group toward every other group in a targeted situation or area. Have enlightened representatives of each group conduct the studies with their own people. (Trying to get peace in the Middle East, Bosnia, or Los Angeles without this type grassroots, professional approach among the masses -- rather than still depending on flimsy agreements between leaders -- is like still relying on trial by drowning in legal cases.)
Get answers to these questions.
A. List the main things by order of importance that you dislike about the (blacks, whites, Mexicans, men, women, management, labor, etc.)?
B. List the things you like or admire most.
C. In order to promote better relations with you, personally, what can (they) do or stop doing, if anything?
D. In general do you like or dislike __them____?
E. In general do your friends like or dislike ___ them ___?
II. Through massive research of every kind: in the books, in the streets, from the elders, from every field such as history, literature, and especially geography, get two sets of answers:
A. Those answers that will provide understanding, explain away, or soften the historic lies about, and dislikes toward, those things mentioned above. (Explanatory stories should carry emotional impact.)
The memory device that I used for this exercise was the word RECTIFY. R stands for Find the Reason for the difference; E, for Stop the Exaggerations; C, for Compare it to your own culture to see if there are forgotten similarities; T, for Toughen up, don't let this make you into an ugly hater; I, for get Into their culture if it can be done honorably and see if you can learn to understand the difference, and Y, for You may be the problem if others can understand the difference and you cannot.
B. And collect those answers that might persuade the victims of the disliked things to change those things if possible, if honorable, and especially if those things perpetuate violence (such as questionable stories about who shot first a hundred years ago in Greece, Tennessee, Kansas, or Bosnia).
Overseas, while we have the world's leadership role, leading humanity toward world peace, I ascertain, is easier, there, than here at home. Here, the deepening racial divide and the new "hour- glass" economic-exploitation, together, will likely devolve also into an hour-glass democracy (meaning a dictatorship of the voting upper classes as is found in semi-democracies abroad, and that seems to be building here). Then, the increasingly disgruntled lower-class terrorism is almost inevitable. The new, giant historic factor, there, is that the lower classes now have access to the terroristic weapons. On the street corners, in the bars, and in some militia groups they are already listening attentively to strong political agitation including good words about the unibomber's thinking.
However, overseas, I found that our young military personnel are willing, able, and eager to serve the cause of peace with justice. And that produced exponential results even against the thousand-year-old ethnic hatreds (and lies).
Despite the braggadocio "killer-commando" self-image of a few, vocal, sadistic military personnel, the overwhelming numbers, according to my studies and testing from the podium, want to be warrior/knights. We educators have failed those still solid young Americans; not deliberately, of course, but because of our ignorance of the universal values. Neglected, they cause violence; well taught, they bring peace.
Even with the reduced number of soldiers stationed abroad, but well diffused around the globe, with proper moral/physical education, they can win-over, and help, the world's people who are hungry for, but cynical about, peace with justice. They can (1) assist the people (in locally desired ways as our Marine CAPs often did in Vietnam with medicine), (2) win over the children (which calls for the arts-for-fun involvement), and (3) with any high-type leadership, they can exercise the self-control against sexual misuse of poor women (as our CAP Marines did). If that, alone, happens, the combined tragedies of the Navy's Tailhook, the Army's Aberdeen, and the Marines' Okinawa will have their partially redeeming aftermath.
There would be these two additional global constructive results, among other lesser ones:
First, no dictator could ever get the people there to fight against us, again, and second, no war- crimes leader could ever hide from us again without their people, our friends, telling us where that rascal is hiding.
Our minority neighborhoods and schools provide excellent opportunities for practice by our GIs for this winning, pacifying worldwide military strategy. Those men and women who cannot rise to the warrior/knight role cannot be allowed to stay in our new modern military. Each human life is too valuable to tolerate the arming of persons who are not, in their guts, the protector/defenders of life. Females, being the better-half, morally (according to my global observations), of this young human species can help us mightily in this role. (The best-kept secret of our Vietnam fiasco was this: The second strongest force that defeated us in Vietnam, second only to our general Ugly Americanism, was the Vietcong women. They did so through their intelligence system that exploited our lack of sexual discipline. Putting it nicely, they loved us into that defeat as a trade- off for spying and military intelligence. Our weakness morally, not militarily, is what allowed the insurgency from the North. The Vietcong knew every coming American military action, every vulnerable ammo-dump, and many of our individual family problems back home.)
We should put some money -- a lot of money -- into extra pay for those superior human resources -- our new warrior/knight soldiers -- for democratic peace. If these Cold-War findings are sound, then life is humankind's only basic, objective value. Hence, those men and women who agree to risk, and if necessary, give, their lives so others and democracy can live, are in life's highest calling.
Consequently, when any one of them is killed or maimed, his family or hers must be recognized, with more than lip-service, for the heroic role it represents on this new stage of human history. The robber-barons have had their century at the top of our social status. And look where it has taken us regarding the opening pages of this report. Now, it is time to place the real heroes and heroines up there at the top.
These Cold-War findings suggest America's possible pathway to eternal greatness through the first real leaders of peace with justice. As Kilroy might have said, There is a tide in the affairs of leading nations, and ours is now.
This, obviously, is not a religious document. But teaching secular (non-religious) morality is highly spiritual. Consequently, religious questions are inevitable. And for me, as a once a year, Easter, Christian, I encountered some mind-boggling facts related to the stunning scientific vision of our formally uneducated ancient religious men. You may need them for discussions. I do on occasions.
How about the argument between different religions over whether human nature isbasically bad or good in a religious sense?
The scientific findings seem to be fairly clear. A human child similar to some animals, if fed, but left untouched and not educated by others, will become a bad (abnormal) actor indeed, and sick. To become a normal human being by any clinical definition, we humans need nurturing including even physical touching.
So, that particular issue of whether we humans are basically good or bad depends on where you start with the measurement of the human being's basic nature, before or after minimally necessary nurturing. With none, the "bads" seem to have it.
Now, second, according to my considerable personal religious conditioning as a child, this scientific species-sustaining values-activation is far short of the type faith ones needs to get to heaven. This earthy ethical morality involves only our horizontal spiritual relationships between one another. Religions are more concerned with our vertical spiritual relationships according to my early, religious experiences in the Bible belt.
Some of Christ's commands for our earthly relationships, you know, have sounded a bit "far out" even to most Christians: "Turn the other cheek," and "Love your enemy," for examples. Surprising to many, agreement with those "far out" religious dictates are also unavoidably derived from the Dual Life-Value species-preserving value as I observed it in action. (During a discussion of this comparison in Korea, a wide-eyed young GI assistant commented, to the special amusement of the local chaplains, It is as if Christ had divine insights.)
How about the Old Testament, with its "eye for an eye," and other statements of less than Christ-like generosity?
The crucial material in the Old Testament for comparison with the Dual Life-Value is right in the beginning in Genesis, with Cain and Able. Cain eventually answers his own key question, Am I my brother's keeper?
In some Greek and English translations, that answer from Cain, himself, is misleading or uncertain. He says he has found that he could not bear his punishment (from outside) which was social ostracism. However, now we have learned from Bill Moyer's discussion of Genesis, that Cain actually said, according to the original Hebrew, that I cannot bear my sin, my iniquity. That is an internal natural law penalty consistent with what I saw in the operation of human nature in combat. (Genesis 4:13)
Jeremiah 31:33 says this: "saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it...." That means to me that the Bible says that the moral laws written in the Old Testament are also registered in human nature.
Referred to above, I ordered my few teenage enlisted Marines, at a deadly risk to us all, to accept the surrender of the Japanese prisoner rather than shoot him as he came out of a cave. (The risk was worth it for possible information that I did get about the caves out front.) After the men's initial anger, they began to view themselves as "better men" for having saved the man. One of them observed in a discussion with me that "I am amazed to know that Christ was right about loving your enemy. It had been bothering me thinking that He was stupid."
On another occasion, I encountered one four-man team of teenage Marines holding a high point. They proudly showed me the four stockings full of gold teeth that they had tromped from the mouths of dead Japanese. I confiscated the loots, told the men it was an atrocity, but that I would not have time to deal with it if they could throw the booties all he way over into the ocean and promise to do it no more.
They became sullen, but crawled out far enough on a chancy crawl to make sure they could made the throw. They did. They whispered a moment, on their stomachs, heads together there in the sand, and then came crawling back. I unsnapped my 45 holster-cover and waited to see if there was to be a confrontation with me as a "gook lover." I thought I heard the grumbled term as they had crawled away. And there had been a lot of gold in those stockings.
When they got back, one was crying. One thanked me on behalf of the others saying that they were all "pleased" that I had stopped them. They asked me why two previous lieutenants had not said anything.
Some "mean dogs," these American boys of ours. That term is an insult and exactly the wrong path for our nation. It can only lead to a faster Roman-type decadence. Besides, there is a better, safer way for the modern necessary peacemaking that is now baffling our military.
The military chaplains always helped me with these military secular programs. They ran the two outstanding efforts for me, late, in Vietnam. A chaplain, however, destroyed that message from Admiral Zumwalt that recommended this program for worldwide use all those years ago. He purloined it from the Naval Annex mail so the Chief of Naval Operations never received it. I traced the man down (too many) months later after we had lost the war. I promised to let him off if he would tell me his motive for his dangerous interference with the mails. He said simply that the Christian ideological approach had not worked, so none would. I didn't fully understand, but I left it there. I don't think he understood either. (He had left the pulpit.)
WE HAVE DUTIES TO OTHERS
AND DUTIES TO OURSELVES;
AND WE CAN SHIRK NEITHER.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 1905
|Talk to the Conference Participants|
Questions and comments may be directed to the Conference Convenor, Alvin G. Burstein or individual authors by clicking on his/her name.
This page has been accessed times.
Last updated: July 22, 1997